The Government's Climate change plan

Wasn't a plan, or really have all that much to do with Climate Change.

The only person who has likely put any thought at all into this issue is Lex Luthor. Trust that guy to know exactly where the ocean's will rise and fall, and buy all the land that will soon become beachfront property. Land, as he loves to say, is the only thing they aren't making any more of.

The Good - there is the potential for recognition for early action, but no indication of how meaningful this will be. There is a clear desire to work with the provinces, but no indication of how this will occur without Clean Air Act (Bill C-30) amendments to improve the CEPA equivalency provisions and ensure an appropriate legal foundation for it to occur. It is the first time anyone even close to the government has been honest about the economic impacts of hurriedly meeting the Kyoto requirements.

The Bad - The Technology Fund disappears in 2018 - if it is working, why would they make it go away? Apparently this is because if it didn’t have a concluding time, it would legally be seen as a tax given some complicated legal arguments around the foundation of the regulations being on criminal law. Poppycock.

The air pollutant approach is based on the Federal Government developing its regulations and only “standing down” if the province signs an equivalency agreement. The process continues to deliver the “stand down” approach instead of the “back stop” approach which multiple Ministers have agreed to in public.

The Ugly - The Federal Government has clearly not developed this plan in consultation with the provinces. Despite the fact that the Federal Government declares it wants to work with the provinces, they don’t seem to be acting in a way that would make that happen. 18% intensity improvement requirement for existing facilities between 2006 and 2010 is simply not feasible- this is code for a random carbon tax on all energy users but not the producers who can expand their facilities without recourse.

The Ironic - The government has said it can't meet Kyoto, but if the Senate passes Bill c-288 - it would be required by law to meet Kyoto by law. The irony is that the Liberal Senate holds everything up...right?

That having been said- compared to every other plan that I have seen it is a step in the right direction. The cut-off year was picked for one very simple reason - politics. It is easy to explain in a donut shop on a campaign trip (we are starting right now!) and it let's Baird do what Baird does best - complain about 13 (or ten) years of inaction.

The answer may surprise you - What a bright idea!

How many Tory Cabinet Ministers does it take to change a light bulb?

1) One- but it can't be NRCan Minister Gary Lunn because he is barely three apples high.

2) None- it can only be done from the PMO.

3) Two - Baird to complain that it took thirteen years to do something about it, and Fortier to hire a Montreal consulting firm to do the work.

I will not be the person to criticize the government's latest foray into the slow abatement of anthropogenic gases - there are enough of those already, and I am saving myself for today's idiocy when it is announced at 4 PM. I love the fact that the Environment Minister has to fly to TO to announce Tory climate change plan 2.0. Yes, 2.0. This is the second time they are making this announcement and all they are doing is proving that the Liberals were right - they don't need to change the Act to regulate LFEs. Didn't they get the memo?

I will say, however, that of all the policies they have introduced thus far, this is one that CAN have the largest impact. The billions of bulbs that already exist, if changed, will assuredly reduce the amount of electricity that Canadians use - with a bottom line impact as well. Cash savings for a limited investment will recover the value of the extra expenditure fifteen times (or greater) over the lifetime of the bulb. And that is not including the GHG implications of manufacturing less bulbs or the overall energy savings.

And, in keeping with a theme, the Government ripped the idea off from the Liberals in Ontario. Bravo.

The problem with this policy isn't what it accomplishes - rather, it is what it does by accident. It will ostensibly provide a bazillion dollar subsidy to one single company - Phillips. This is not the first time in as many months that a half-baked government idea was rolled out without an understanding of the economic implications. Last night as I drove by a Toyota dealership, they were unloading Yaris after Yaris. The 90 million dollar subsidy to Toyota is nothing compared to what Phillips is going to rake in.

I am not comfortable with the idea of a company receiving a windfall as a result of government policy. Sure, they should be rewarded for corporate social responsibility - but ultimately, the government shouldn't pick "winners and losers" in the corporate world by rewarding corporate investiture with an additional forced market benefit. By way of example, the entire sub-contact market in Canada has changed in less than three weeks as a result of the budget. Domestic manufacturers who didn't receive a windfall in the fee-bate are already shifting production mandates because they can't compete with an even more affordable Yaris. That will have a downstream affect on jobs in Canada. Oh, what a feeling!

It isn't only government policy though. Do we really need to give Tim Horton's a monopoly on the distribution of fancy collector quarters? Or Shoppers' Drug Mart? Or the Royal Bank? Puh-lease- it is CURRENCY for Christ's sake. Providing a corporate advantage for the change that companies provide in exchange for advertising is offensive to a lot of my sensibilities. Yes, that is a pet peeve more than anything else. Seriously, the main issue is that governments are massive consumers and their purchasing decisions will also have a disruptive affect on the open market. We get that. But it should lead by example and ensure that their decisions are not too beneficial to one company over another.

Rather than having a technical specification for purchasing, the policy should be results based - so that any different form of technology that achieves the suitable range of policy outcomes can be considered. As the purchasing requirements become more technical in nature, they start to mimic patents.

Of course, that may also be the solution - in the case of the light bulb policy, ensure that Phillips gets paid for its R&D, and then suspend their patent so that other manufacturers can reap the rewards of the policy, and aren't forced out of the market by monopolistic dominance. For obvious reasons, this is less attractive option, but as a voluntary program, it may help achieve the most important aspect of the goal - widely available and affordable environmental technology.

In the status quo, Phillips is going to have to increase its domestic production markedly in the next five years to fill the need: and they might not be able to do it.

So Happy

It is amazing how much one activity can change my outlook.

In the past few weeks, months even, I have been very depressed. Despite Hockey and Curling, there is nothing that makes me less happy than not being able to walk outside without freezing to death.

Luckily, it is officially golfing time. Last night I played 15 holes, (made two birdies - which I will track on my blog for the year), and it is incalculable how much better I feel - like I have been given a shot of adrenaline.

The irony, of course, is that the thing which has been dragging me down for six months, if not seven years, is climate change policy. I can't remember the last time I played a round of golf this early in the season on my home course - it was probably 1992 - the year Fred Couples won the Masters. The only reason I can remember it is because my course was open during the tournament and it was a very difficult decision whether to play or watch. Of course, we played and watched the end.

So, three cheers for climate change? It both pays for and allows me to golf in April?

The cost of this unholy Union

So, I haven't heard anyone else complain about this yet, so I am going to.

Stephan Dion is throwing away $18,110.75? $1.75 a vote times 10,000 plus votes.

By comparison, the Green Party only gave up $3,167.50 for the votes they "lost" in St. Laurent Cartierville.

If, every liberal votes for May (won't happen) she will ostensibly get an additional $15,000 that she has discretion over as the leader of the greens. Sounds like a frickin' bribe to me.

Seriously, the party is in financial straights, do we really want to be throwing away more money? Not to mention give it away to somebody else...

Red and Green?

According to Bourque.com (a sketchy source, but what do I know) there is talks about a merger between the Liberals and the Greens that is flowing out of the announcement that May would run unopposed in Nova Scotia. The deal would have May serve as the deputy leader of the merged.

In Grade Five I learned about colours. Green is a combination of Blue and Yellow. The final primary colour is Red. If you combine the three primary colours you will get BLACK.

The Black party of Canada - led by the whitest person I have ever seen.

Far be it from me to beat up on a straw man, so I will only say "I will not vote for that." The NDP is the only party that talks about MY issues anyway.

Elections, Senators and Effective Representation

The Prime Minister has appointed Bert Brown to the Senate who was 'elected' in a free and fair election. This is, apparently, in keeping with his promise to reform the Senate.

Poppycock.

Bert Brown didn't even finish first in his last election. He finished second to Betty Unger. So much for a free election, it is really more proof the Prime Minister hates women. It is convenient that the current constitutional rules will require Mr. Brown to retire in 6 years at age 75, but I digress.

Mr. Brown is in favour of a Triple-E Senate: possibly the most asinine idea in the world if you are interested in being a true democrat. Giving PEI the same voice as Ontario would pretty much force every person in PEI to be a Senator. Regional critics lament their lack of representation in Ottawa. More Poppycock.

Canadians are, sadly, already over-represented in Elected offices. The tri-partite measures of representation that currently exists creates more confusion and red-tape then it does ensure that any one's concerns are adequately addressed. Adding a level of representation which will likely assume vast constitutional authority under the rubric of effective representation will not make people better represented.

Ontario, however, doesn't have the same stones as the PM. They had a citizen's commission to study 'effectively translating popular support' to what the electoral system gives us. Rather than blindly following the report, the government is having a referendum. I hope everyone votes against it.

All electoral systems are flawed in some way - forgive me if I am in no hurry to change a system that hasn't produced any egregious results. So what if an electoral system provides government to a party that hasn't gotten 50% of the vote. The American system doesn't provide government to a man who got more votes than his opponent.

Maybe that was a bad example...

What Happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas

And that, apparently, means all my money.

In the past, I have complained about mindless opulence - well, I have never seen anything like the bright lights and big city in the middle of the desert.

I learned a lot of life lessons last week- for starters, looking at card games from the perspective of winning is stupid because, to be blunt, there is a reason they are out there in the middle of the desert.

I also learned a lot about climate change. What? Yes, climate change. I now know more than ever that most individuals don't give a shit about the environment - because if they did, they would avoid Vegas like the plague. I have never been in an environment that cared less about the environment- notwithstanding the 40 nuclear reactors it must take to power the strip, the water use policy contradicts everything we have learned about diverting water resources. In other words, if the USA wanted to meet its Kyoto obligations, I have a solution that would take three seconds and no actual impact on the USA economy. In fact, shutting down Vegas might actually improve the US economy given how many people from the US lose money there every day.

The most important thing I learned in Vegas is about providing people with what they want- a totally fabricated economy predicated on the notion that people can try and buy dreams for cash- it could be sexual, financial security, fame, glory- all of it is on sale in Vegas. And all of it comes at a price above and beyond the liquid capital.

Zach's Johnson

There were lots of losers at a Augusta this weekend, and the fans were among them.

As a sports fan, this was a schitzophrenic weekend for me: The habs lost (sigh), the Islanders won (go ghost of bossy), the Leafs lost (jerks), the Canadians won the world curling championship, the Yankees lost while Arod Homered three times and Tiger woods didn't win the Masters (Jack is king.)

Of all of these events, few matter in the long run because the Sabres will kill whomever they face - buds, habs or iles. The Yankees will come back in the middle of June like they always do and Woods will win six or more before he is done.

As I predicted last week the course at the Masters was WAY to hard. On the final day, in fairly easy conditions (by comparison to the massacre at the Masters on Saturday) few players broke through to really take advantage. On the back nine, the pins were as soft as I can ever remember seeing them. Nada.

One man, a total nobody, parred his way into the history books. He stumbled slightly at the end, but on a day where seven different people held the lead at some point, he stayed the course and won over monumental odds. The guy who tied for fifth (four strokes back) had THREE doubles on the final day.

The course was too hard.

Tiger Proofing

I have read much about the "Tiger proofed" Augusta National this week. They do realize that he plays the same course as everyone else, right?

By Tiger proofing, they mean "lengthening." Augusta National isn't like other courses where they can narrow fairways - it is wide open, and they don't believe in rough. Until three years ago, and their version of rough is what I can "three days of beard growth." It isn't what they call rough in Scotland, what they call rough at Augusta is what they call "greens" in Scotland.

Morons. All they are doing is making it so that Tiger doesn't hit driver and a wedge on most holes - which isn't exactly an advantage for him, incidentally. When everyone else is hitting long irons into the hardest (density) and fastest (speed) greens in the world, he is going to eat them alive all day long. Augusta National knows this, but they would rather see someone win by six at -4 than have eight tied at -16. The course, you know, has its pride.

The way to even up the course is to do two things - Shorten the course and "bring back the ball." The ball is an old Augusta rule that says that all players in the field have to play with the same type of golf ball. But now, that ball wouldn't necessarily have to have the same specs as those approved by rigorous USGA specifications - it would be like the old balls - it wouldn't travel as far or spin as much.

At first blush, there are two things to consider 1) The players will hate this and 2) The USGA/PGA Tour will hate this. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you just about every OTHER rule that Augusta has as precedent for why both of these considerations should be ignored. The players wine when they change the course to make it harder, the USGA/PGA Tour whines when they don't want to allow their officials be involved at the tournament. Wah. Cry me a river. As far as I am concerned, the USGA/PGA Tour is the problem for letting the pros use rocket launchers of the tee. Unlike the USGA/PGA Tour, Augusta is not beholden to the significant cash that equipment manufacturers pour into the sport.

There is one REAL consideration to consider. First, will this affect play to the point that the course is unfair (a ball with less spin will make hitting approach shots very difficult). Well, it wasn't a problem for Jack Nicklaus or Bobby Jones or Tom Watson or Arnold Palmer or every other player who won the title before the Pittsburgh persimmon revolution?

As a fairly long hitter, I have been upset with the advents in technology for some time. It removes natural advantages that truly long players have in compressing the ball. When my 55 year old playing partner hits it as far as I do, there is something wrong. Put another way, you know there is a problem when a 61 year old Jack Nicklaus hits it farther than the Golden Bear did 40 years ago. In case you didn't know, they are the same person. That is when you know that today's stars aren't as good as he was. He was hitting it 300 yards with a wooden club. As a senior citizen, he hits it 325.

The Masters gives the world the only real opportunity to see how today's greats would have really fared against yesterday's heroes. Augusta National has the chutzpah to change normal rules to level the playing field, and they have the only course in the world which could remain unchanged for 90 years. Yes, the greens are running faster and truer (that is a golfing expression for "without imperfections") then they were a decade or two ago, but the course remains the same - as indicated by the fairly stable scoring level with modest improvements over time. Despite advents of technology, technology in growing methods and mower technology evens the score in other ways.

Ultimately, every year the first and last thing everyone talks about is the course. While Augusta National isn't the nicest course in the world, it is pretty close - and it is certainly the most mysterious and every time they fuck with it, it loses some of that allure. Until 1995, it was the same course on Masters Sunday as it was when it opened in the 1930s - save for some minor cosmetic repairs. It was a course where anyone could hit the same shots as the pros because the driver wasn't important- the putter was. In this situation, however, the course isn't the problem - the tiger is. To tame the tiger, muzzle him, not the cage in which he roams.

All is right in the world, or is it?

When the pablum of politics gets me down, I usually go and hit golf balls or watch the Yankees play. This always makes me fell better.

Except, neither are something that I can easily do in the winter. I need a winter vice.

That said, after exactly one day of the new MLB season, the Yankees are undefeated, Alex Rodriguez made a ridiculous error, I have hit golf balls at the range and Alex Rodriguez hit a home run to win the game.

The machine that is the New York Yankees is not perfect. A team with as much storied history is very quick to forget it, and to that end, they opted not to guarantee Bernie Williams a spot on the NYY roster this spring. There were some less than kind words exchanged in the media, but yesterday, Bernie rose above it all and called his teammates to wish them well on their fist game in 16 years without him. Even when he wasn't on the team, he is inspiring them with his heart.

I am not going to defend either the decision to effectively cut him, nor will I defend Bernie's decision not to go to camp to earn a spot on the roster. Both decisions have been made. There is no reason why the Yanks couldn't offer him a league minimum contract for him to play the fifth man spot in the field or pinch hit. In this exact role last year he won a dozen games for the Yanks. You can't teach heart.

As a result, unceremoniously, Bernie is forced into retirement - without the fanfare of Paul O'neil - or the chance to tip his hat one last time. Its a shame really. I hope they change their minds.

That said, what future does Bernie have? He currently holds every single post-season hitting record in baseball. If that doesn't guarantee you a spot in Cooperstown, I don't know what does. Unfortunately, the baseball writers of America don't look at the postseason the same way they look at the very important life-time regular season stats. The rationale for this is to ensure that in order to be Hall worthy, you have to be comparable to everyone else in the Hall.

That is retarded. Kirk Gibson did NOTHING in the regular season and yet he hit the most inspirational home run of all time in the World Series. Ricky Henderson stole a bazillion bases in games that didn't matter. You can't put a stat on heart.

See Thirty? The Clean Air Act Two, Scene One.

I apologize for my inactivity, I have been busy trying to save our economy. It would seem that I have failed.

I am trying to figure out what makes a successful environmental lobbyist. I know what makes a successful lobbyist - and it is to have the ideas and policies that you care about enshrined into legislation and passed into the laws of Canada. It would seem that they have a different standard for success than most professionals in the game. It would appear to me that most environmentalists are only interested in having their issues talked about, not actually achieved.

It was a pitiful display to watch the three opposition parties gut the government's Clean Air Act. I am not going to pretend for a second that the bill as introduced was perfect - far from it. I can say without any hesitation at all, that the bill which emerged from committee is monumentally worse.

I have analyzed every clause of the new bill and other than ensure that industry has less capital to invest into our economy, it all but assures that every chattel that you and I want to use in the future will be more expensive, with no appreciable environmental impact or implementation plan. Bravo. I would rave on madly about each individual defect, but I have spent 99% of my time doing so in my professional life - and frankly, I am bored of it.

More to the point, is that this procedure proved that the three opposition parties have no interest whatsoever in making good policy. C-30 was an exercise devoted entirely to making the government bill unworkable - and taking pot-shots at each industrial sector along the way. All the more embarrassing for the three opposition parties was that each time they tried to propose an amendment they would all look to the ENGOs sitting in the corner for approval.

Yes, you heard me - Approval. As if Daddy would be happier with them for doing what he wanted. It was grotesque. The irony is that when opposition members turned to me for guidance or other facets of the bill, the environmentalists had the stones to complain that industry was shaping the bill.

But this exercise in environmental masturbation is all moot, and all of the language that the environmentalists lobbied hard to get into the bill is doomed to failure. They could have worked with the government to improve the existing legislation - but NOOOOO, that would make too much sense. There is no universe where the government will allow this bill to go forward in its current form and the ENGOs will complain that the only appropriate action was that which was proposed by the three opposition parties. I am going to have to give the ENGOs a seminar on a) understanding polls and b) understanding ministerial responsibility. It seems they are far more interested in yelling at the wind.

That said, there are four likely options for this bill. I have laid them out in order of likelihood:

1) The Government sits on its thumbs and never calls the question again. Unlike private members' legislation, the opposition can't use House procedure to call a Government bill. The Government plans on releasing its own climate change plan (take three) in the coming two weeks, and that will trump all the crap in the act. The Government can blame the opposition for not allowing it the regulatory authority it needs to do the job, and then use existing regulatory authority to make it much worse.

2) As Prime Minister Chretien did in 1999, when the bill is reintroduced to the house from report stage, the government will reverse every single change made by the committee and invite the opposition parties to vote against the Act - The bloq might actually support the act as originally written because of the very strong "equivalency" provisions for provincial regulatory authority - combined with the fact that they already got their Kyoto legislation in Rodriguez (below).

3) The Government will simply vote against its own bill. While there is no such thing as a reverse onus on confidence, the PM will then trot across the street and tell the Governor General that he is incapable of working with the opposition parties.

4) The Government will pass the bill, and let the Senate deal with it. Oh, the irony. The previous piece of Kyoto verbiage to emanate from the House is currently being dealt with by the Senate- it was referred to TWO committees of the Liberal dominated Senate: the Banking committee and the Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development Committee. They are due to report back by December 31st. Not the sexiest way to dispose of legislation, but it does an excellent job of proving TWO points simultaneously: That the opposition parties refuse to work with the Government and that the Senate perverts the will of the masses - for better or for worse.