Follow the money…
By: James Burge
June 11th, 2010
So new facts have come to light that both BP CEO and Goldma Sachs dumped BP stock in the days leading up to the ‘disaster.’ If that isn’t enough, the Cairman of Goldman Sachs was, until recently, also chairman of BP.
According to his September 2009 bio:
Peter Sutherland is chairman of BP plc (1997 – current). He is also chairman of Goldman Sachs International (1995 – current). He was appointed chairman of the London School of Economics in 2008…. Before these appointments, he was the founding director-general of the World Trade Organisation. He had previously served as director general of GATT since July 1993 [and was] chairman of the Board of Governors of the European Institute of Public Administration (Maastricht) 1991-1996.
Sounds like quite the globalist. It now seems that BP let the people at GS know about the ‘disaster’ with enough time to sell almost half of their holdings. So either this event happened DAYs before it was reported in the media, which is possible, or the decision was made to blow up the rig. This is likely because the data supporting the man-made global warming hypothesis, which is being used to impose carbon taxes everywhere, something the elite bankers have their heart set on, looks to have been falsified so as to exaggerate the predicted effects. Another clue to premeditation is the length of time this has remained the big news item, mainstream media will always find sexy stories to distract from things that aren’t profitable to big business. They want the world to both know what is going on and to be enraged by it, so enraged they are willing to pay governments to protect our environment, which is what I thought they were supposed to be doing anyway. I mean how was big oil given permission to build a rig such as this with no contingency plan to stop a leak if one occurred? It’s because they had more than enough money to pay lobbyists and to contribute handsomely to politicians re-election funds, which is not considered a bribe in the US because if it was, no one would be making any extra cash in addition to the salary paid for by the American taxpayers.
I have also come across an interesting article that does a good job of showing that its possible that CO2 levels have increased as a result of the warming, not the other way around. Looks to me like BP took one for the globalists, although in the end it will be you and me that truly pay for this disaster, some with our livelihoods, others through the soon to be created carbon tax.
Halliburton in hot water yet again.. Bring on the hot Oil.
By: James Burge
May 28th, 2010
This seems pretty fishy (pun completely unintentional). So apparently, on Friday April 9th Halliburton announced that it will purchase emergency response oil control company Boots & Coots for around $232 million. According to Wiki “Boots & Coots/IWC is one of the world’s premier well control companies.” Meaning it is their job to clean up after a well rupture and were apparently involved with putting out the Kuwait oil rig fires. Then on April 20th, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill ‘occurred,’ looks like a good return on investment virtually overnight. Of course the interesting thing is that Halliburton was working on the Deepwater Horizon rig 20 hours BEFORE the explosion.
Approximately 20 hours prior to the catastrophic loss of well control, Halliburton had completed the cementing of the ninth and final production casing string in accordance with the well program.
- http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Politics/20100510/10873842/Halliburton-Deepwater-Horizon-Oil-Rig-Explosion-Testimony-At.htm
Considering all the dirty dealings we’ve seen from Halliburton, it would not surprise me if they planted an explosive, bought a company to clean up oil, and watched as the region is decimated by the seepage of heaving crude into the gulf of Mexico.
The question that remains is why? Was it for the money they could make cleaning up the spill? Was it a distraction? (I doubt it’s a distraction considering how little the mainstream media is discussing it) Could it be, that as the man-made global warming myth begins to unravel, they purposely blew up the rig so as to create a new Environmental disaster to further boost the pressure for a carbon tax, or some new tax that will be introduced to ‘pay for cleanup’.
Can there be good Government?
By: James Burge
May 6th, 2010
The following rant is in response to an article, entitled “Can there be good Government?” (I was gonna post it in the comments but decided it was a bit of an off topic rant better suited for my blog)
So can there be good Government?
I get the sense that local governments, on the order of state or even municipal governments can be good, as long as they stick to issues they have the ability to actually control and not try to throw their weight around. It has only been in the last few decades that governments have tried to take on other issues that it need not be involved. If it doesn’t involve crossing the federal border (ie. Immigration, trade, etc.) it should be of little business to a federal government. Most issues that affect us, like healthcare, education, local infrastructure, etc, are in essence state/provincial, even municipal issues and should be regulated as such. Even the legal system itself is built around this idea, in that the federal government makes the laws, and local law enforcement chooses how best to enforce those laws, and in some cases, as we see with drug laws in some areas, choose not to enforce certain laws, usually due to the cost of enforcement. The idea that a federal government has a say in who you are allowed to marry, what medical procedures (ie. abortion) should be available to citizens, or how we choose to pay for medical care (ie Obamacare), is laughable and oppressive. They are forcing the entire country to follow laws and regulations that likely do nothing to protect the citizen/consumer, and do everything for the big businesses that can afford to lobby for/against these laws. And if there is one thing government regulatory bodies such as the CDC, FDA, WHO, WTO, and CPS to name a few, have done well is to destroy any confidence citizens may have in these bodies. I mean just because there isn’t an FDA recall on that meat you are eating does not mean that it is safe, just that it hasn’t been found to cause a problem yet, or that the manufacturer sees punitive damages from a lawsuit as cheaper than the cost of a recall, not the fact their product can harm the people who buy it. And then you have something like the WHO changing its definition of a pandemic, not based on any science, but seemingly for the sole purpose of causing panic, so governments buy millions of (virtually untested) vaccines that most of its citizens wont risk getting. And, how does it look when Child protective services gives it’s employees bonuses for children it forces out of their rightful home into that of a foster family. (On an aside the woman speaking in the afore-lined video, Senator Nancy Schaefer, was ‘suicided’, with her husband likely for bringing these issues to light). I have also always found it strange the level of federal government involvement in dictating school curriculum. It is always scary when you realize how much brainwashing and indoctrination occurs with most government controlled education. The idea that government bodies are in place to protect use is a view that we are given during public-education/indoctrination. The idea that our government is ‘for the people’ and that foreign governments are dangerous are unproven and likely untrue. It seems that most Americans are at greater risk of being tortured, imprisoned or murdered by their own government than the government of a foreign country. This is best outlined by the current tea-party movement, in a time when support for the tea-parties and the libertarian ideals the movement is based, are growing, a campaign to paint tea-partiers at best as racist, and at worst as terrorists (whatever that word even means anymore), is in full force in the mainstream media. Luckily, most people have given up listening to the drivel served up by these private companies each with their own agenda that is woven into every story they produce. Most people are aware that the US government, and more specifically it’s foreign policy, which allows for the killing and imprisonment of innocent civilians worldwide, are the real terrorists. But only time will tell how history treats this dark moment for the ‘land of the free,’ and weather or not societies continue to allow their ever growing governments to engage in behaviour befitting a fascist, tyrannical regime. It may already be too late.
Deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole…
By: James Burge
April 21st, 2010
Since writing the last post on the OK City bombing, I have been perusing various articles on the internet and came across a few things I wanted to share. I encourage you to read the other post before continueing with this one.
In my last post I mentioned another individual, wanted for questioning that became referred to as John Doe No. 3, well it seems that although a multi million dollar investigation couldn’t find him but it seems the internets have. A really good article I came across, containing information on an Andreas Carl Strassmeir, who not only moved to Oklahoma from Germany in the years prior to the bombing he looks a hell of a lot like the composite sketch of John Doe No. 3. The article reveals that an ATF informant Carol Howe was infiltrating a white supremacist group ran by Tom Metzger called White Aryan Resistance. In a report she filed in 1994 she said that “she overheard Andreas Strassmeir and Dennis Mahon discussing a plan to blow up Federal buildings including the Tulsa IRS Office, the Tulsa Federal Building and the Oklahoma Federal Building.” It seems to me this provided the evidence needed by the FBI to ‘hijack’ the plot, further radicalize those involved, provide whatever material support needed, (training, explosives) so that they had a patsy all lined up. As for why he wasn’t pursued in the OK city bombing, it seems that Andy the German (as he was known by some) may have been a CIA asset. Apparently one evening, after some of the people Andreas had been associating with suspected something was up, and decided to follow him. They allegedly followed him to a Federal Building, entered the correct code for the locked door. Apparently, in addition to this an individual who worked at an impound lot, got a lot of pressure from lawyers and the state department to release Andreas’ car, and fast, because he had diplomatic immunity, which spells CIA asset to me. When he came to pick up his car, he was more worried about a briefcase which had been searched and was said to have remarked, “’Well, no one will be able to understand what these are anyway.” After leaving the country Strassmeir was said to have remarked:
“It’s obvious that it was a government ‘op’ that went wrong, isn’t it? The ATF had something going with McVeigh. They were watching him, of course they were. What they should have done is make an arrest while the bomb was still being made instead of waiting till the last moment for a publicity stunt. They had everything they needed to make the bust, and they screwed it up.”
For more on this click here.
One of the biggest things going for them is that the general public doesn’t even have a clue about explosions. A large, visibly impressive explosion is rarely that destructive. The pressure waves put of by high explosives don’t give the large cloud of fire and smoke that smaller explosions (usually used in Hollywood for obvious reasons). But it is this pressure wave that causes the damage. However, most explosives experts agree, “[..] [M]y belief is that 4800 lbs of ANFO wouldn’t have scuffed the paint on the building!”
Another thing I came across was a video, of a man, arrested on what he claims are false drug charges used to get him off the street. He was apparently involved in building a bomb that he says fits the devastation seen in the OK city. It also apparently explains the fact that evidence exists that two explosions, 5 seconds apart occurred on the morning of the OK city bombing. This 5 second gap between the first small explosion and the second is to allow a gaseous chemical explosive to fill the air surrounding the structure to be destroyed before that gas is then ignited causing the second explosion. He has no doubt that the OK city bomb was this barometric bomb. The other interesting thing he mentioned at the very end of the film is that the 1983 US Embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon (although he claims in the video it was an apartment complex) was the first time this type of bomb had been used.
Some other useful links:
http://www.constitution.org/ocbpt/ocbpt_01.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mcveigh2.htm
OK City, 1st False Flag on US soil??
By: James Burge
April 20th, 2010
Well, maybe not the first, but one of the most memorable ‘terrorist’ bombing on US soil murdering 168 people, including 19 children, all under 6. It was said to be carried out by a ‘home-grown terrorist” Timothy McVeigh, with help from Terry Nichols. It was more likely carried out by elements within the US Government in order to pass the Anti-Terrorist Act, which was later used to destroy a $100 Million medical plant in Sudan. This Legislation could not have passed if it were not for the 168 killed that day.
I remember coming across an article somewhere (which of course I can’t find) about Timothy McVeigh’s history and that there is a period of about a year that his whereabouts is unknown. Apparently, a video exists showing McVeigh on a US Military base during that time, apparently undergoing training in explosives.
It was said in the days following this bombing that a sophisticated group of individuals had to be behind it, but only McVeigh was prosecuted (and executed post haste). Apparently, but not surprisingly, security tapes exist showing the explosion and the events before and after the explosion but are apparently not important enough to be released (flash forward to the pentagon on 9/11). They apparently show another individual, who came to be known as John Doe No. 2, sitting in the front seat of the Rider van prior to its detonation. Why was this man never pursued by police? What happened to the other two bombs discovered that day? Why did they not provide a window into the perpetrators of this crime? Why did the government not take a stronger stance on this considering it has come to light that they knew about the bombing prior to the event? What was in that building that needed to be disposed of? Why are there pictures showing a Ryder truck in a clandestine base at Camp Gruber-Braggs? Why was McVeigh smart enough to create a bomb of this calibre but not remember to put a licence plate on his car? And speed? And how could a bomb in a truck parked out front of a building pulverize support columns in the center of the building?
Break a few windows, sure, but those support columns can withstand an upwards of 3,000 psi force, the 4,800 pound ammonium nitrate fertilizer, nitromethane, and diesel fuel mixture bomb, they say was similar to 5,000 lbs of TNT, likely only produced a force in the order of 50-100 psi max (although some things I’ve come across say more like 25 psi especially in the vicinity of the pulverized columns). Although the key here is not the size of the bomb, (especially since the Ryder Truck Bomb seems to be more of a distraction, so witnesses see a blast, the shape charges that blew out the columns aren’t nearly as impressive), it is the location of the charges. How many lbs of explosives do you think were used to bring down what was remaining of the Murrah Building? About 150 lbs according to one thing I read, but they would have been placed strategically around on the columns that remained of the structure. A great analysis of the blast by Benton K. Partin, Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.) can be found here.
Early news reports talk of bombs inside the building, including 2 bombs that were disarmed. Where were these bombs located? Early news reports said they were INSIDE the buildings. Witnesses even discussed seeing people, in the days leading to the bombing, examining blueprints in the parking garage located below the building.
There remain, to this day, many unanswered questions, most of which will likely go unanswered indefinitely. Below is a video outlining some of the problems with the ‘lone bomber’ theory pushed by the mainstream news and provides some evidence to support the idea that elements within the US government plotted to blow up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City or at least covered up evidence of others involved in the plot. It looks like OK city may have been a joint Mossad-German intelligence operation, although the reasoning behind it is still just speculation. The big question that remains is weather or not Timothy McVeigh knew of the FBI’s involvement. He likely knew nothing about the charges placed in the building in the days before the blast. It seems another case where the FBI likely encouraged Tim in his plans, providing material support along the way, and ultimately allowing 168 people including children to lose their lives, and for what??
They say, when looking for who was involved, follow the money, well one thing that did come out of this was a $98 Million investigation into the bombing, likely including the costs associated with destroying the evidence before thorough testing could be done which would have easily proven the theories above wrong.
“One day you will find out your government was behind this” – Tim McVeigh
Yet another example of fading Canadian Sovereignty
By: James Burge
March 5th, 2010
An article appeared in the Montreal gazette yesterday mentioning that starting December 2010, passengers on flights from Canada that fly over US airspace, never actually landing on US soil, will only be allowed to fly once US Homeland inSecurity says they aren’t a terrorist.
Canadian airlines already check their flight manifests against the U.S. no-fly list, which is compiled by the FBI and distributed to airlines around the world. It contains the names of about 16,000 people the U.S. government says are suspected of terrorism. The names and why they are on the list are not disclosed for reasons of “national security.”
The claim is made that:
The U.S. Transportation Security Administration says Secure Flight will reduce the number of false positives — people with the same name as someone on the no-fly list — who now are stopped at airports.
Unfortunately this is far from surprising and seems to be business as usual. It is interesting that when we speak of ‘co-operation’ between Canada and the US it seems to be more of the US telling Canada what is and isn’t OK, further destroying Canadian sovereignty and blurring the line between Canada and the US, likely in preparation for the proposed North American Union. It seems it is now unacceptable for Canadian authorities to just check against no-fly lists, likely because of the US obsession with tracking people. It seems they really want to know when and where Canadians are traveling abroad.
This is a great example of guilty until proven innocent, something that is happening with increasing regularity these days (like being asked to ID yourself when you’ve done nothing to require identification). Since there is little transparency in the case of no-fly lists, the US government can put you on a no-fly list claiming that you are a risk to the public for whatever reason it deems necessary without providing evidence and with little or no opportunity for the accused to appeal such decisions. I think this is the beginning of a push by the US to create an international body that could be used to screen passengers with the US deciding who can and cannot travel the globe. {Look for a false flag in the not to distant future where a foreign country is at fault for their screening of ‘terrorists’ starting the call for US Transportation Safety agents be used to oversee screening in other countries. This would sure make it easier not only for the US to punish anti-government dissent but also to make sure the Mossad agents make it through security all in one shot (which would be nice since they keep pissing other governments off by using their fake passports).}
Get used to this people, it is only the beginning. They are starting to talk about naked body scanners at bus stations and in the street. All of this under the guise of increased security at the cost of privacy and, as some people have pointed out, seems to be to further dehumanize populations making them more open to tyranny. I remember hearing a quote once that said something to the effect that Tyranny, when done correctly will be welcomed by the public who will be calling for increased security at all costs (I wish I could find the quote). This almost exactly describes what we are seeing the US as the government continues to scare the public into submission through false flag attacks which are blamed on anti-government groups in order to justify the use of force against dissent under the guise that such people are violent, even though most modern protests are non-violent by design (as they are usually anti-war).
Government Confiscates food!?!
By: James Burge
December 19th, 2008
Anyone doubting that martial law is already in the works south of the border need only read this article.
It talks about John and Jacqueline Stowers who run an organic food cooperative, something that we should all be looking to set up in our neighborhoods. The Ohio Department of Agriculture and the Lorain County Health Department raided their home and confiscated the families food supply, cell phones and computers.
“The use of these police state tactics on a peaceful family is simply unacceptable,” Buckeye Institute President David Hansen said. “Officers rushed into the Stowers’ home with guns drawn and held the family – including ten young children – captive for six hours. This outrageous case of bureaucratic overreach must be addressed.”
Outrageous is right! They confiscated FOOD, can you believe that? The idea of cell phones and computers being confiscated is somewhat routine in cases of fraud or other overt criminal activity, but this family has, as far as anyone can tell, done absolutely nothing wrong. According to the video below they also confiscated about a years worth of their personal meat supply some of which was from animals they raised themselves.
They also confiscated the computer that the family uses to home school their children and that one daughter uses to communicate with her husband who is serving in Iraq. The family was traumatized by the police raid and the fact that they failed to identify themselves as law enforcement officials. What sort of resistance did they expect to receive from a woman and 10 kids.
Update: Just came across this very informative podcast from the Buckeye Institure.org
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Canadian ‘War-on-Health’???
By: James Burge
October 23rd, 2008
So I came across an article today that made me think. It is on a topic that hasn’t been getting much attention, which is good, because if it was getting the attention it deserves most would be outraged and the public outcry would likely put a stop to such things, if only for a short time, because, as we have seen in the case of politics for years, something which isn’t popular now, can be made popular under the right circumstances. (Its worth pointing out that much of what I’m about to talk about is nothing more than speculation)
So the article “FDA Running Extortion Racket: Natural Supplement Companies Threatened with Arrest if They Don’t Pay Up” by: Mike Adams talks about the ways in which the US Food and Drug Administration has been using extortion style techniques to strong arm small Natural Health businesses who can not afford a legal fight and will settle out of court to try and salvage their business. What the FDA is trying to do is to get Natural Health companies to stop linking to scientific articles which explain or backup the benefits of various natural supplements.
Cherry products, for example, cannot link to scientific articles explaining the simple biological fact that cherries ease inflammation in human beings. Such links are considered “drug claims” by the FDA.
Canadians following the development of Bill C-51 will likely notice the parallels between the US FDA’s tactics and some of the things proposed by this bill. I would be willing to bet that this whole Bill C-51 thing is to pave the way for similar tactics or provide a legal framework allowing Health Canada to continue this practice (assuming this has already happened, which I think is likely). The article says that the US FDA is also trying to make Natural Health Websites remove consumer testimonials and are threatening imprisonment if companies don’t comply.
Can you imagine, even saying something like “An Apple a day, keeps the DR away” or even a simple anecdote recommending the use of Garlic as an antibiotic could be considered a “drug claim” by the US FDA even though they make fraudulent “drug claims” constantly!!!
FDA analysts estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks, 30 to 40 percent of which were probably fatal, in the five years the drug was on the market.
So basically, (if my assumptions are correct, I haven’t read the bill, but I’m starting to think I should) it is attempting to criminalize not only the natural health products themselves, but the promotion of natural health supplements as beneficial, in favor of synthetic drugs most of which were deemed ‘safe’ under questionable circumstances, and Health Canada wants the same tools as the Americans in order to silence any source of opposition.
Already, it is against the law for any Natural Health supplement to make a claim on its packaging as to any health effects it has, something that usually has decades or more of real world anecdotal evidence. On the other hand, most prescription drug trials go as follows:
- Group A is given a new experimental drug, and group B is given sugar pills,
- Both groups are tested for any number of physical ailments/benefits like blood pressure, cognitive function, lung capacity, and whatever else they can think of, until it is found that Group A has a statistically significant deviation from group B.
- If, for example, Group A has significantly lower Cholesterol then Group B, regardless of any other outside factors for such a discrepancy, the drug is then marketed with the claim that it lowers Cholesterol which little to no mention of the fact that it could have any number of other effects that weren’t statistically significant (or beneficial) enough to mention.
So then the public goes to their DR with high blood pressure and are given a drug that could have any number of long term side effects, yet to recommend Coenzyme Q10, Garlic, Hawthorn (herb), Fish Oil, Folic acid, Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium, and, of course, Exercise; all of which have been shown to reduce blood pressure, and have no known toxic effects (unlike newly synthesized chemicals), would be illegal.
Its amazing to think that this bill could be used to criminalize vitamins and minerals in the form of daily health supplements and to “penalizing parents who give herbs or supplements to their children.” As well, if the government requires a prescription for a drug, any naturally occurring source would also require a prescription. What if they decided that potassium has health benefits that should be monitored by a physician and require a prescription to obtain potassium supplements, they would be criminalizing people from buying, owning, and eating Banana’s without a proper prescription. The only question left is if such prosecutions would be made under the controlled drugs and substances act. It really takes the ‘war-on-drugs’ to a whole new level.
Update: Only because I think this is an important issue, I thought I’d include a link on how to find your Member of Parliament here.
Update 2.0: Just came across this article about Vioxx, I havn’t finished reading it so take a look for yourself.
I write this as a warning to the world
By: James Burge
September 22nd, 2008
Just came across an article linked on whatreallyhappened.com regarding the Hiroshima attack which is really worth a read.
I especially like the part where one of the first reporters to arrive in Hiroshima, Wilfred Burchett, described the radiation poisoning.
“In the immediate aftermath of the bomb, the allied occupation authorities banned all mention of radiation poisoning […] For telling [the] truth, his press accreditation was withdrawn; he was pilloried and smeared […]”
His article, aptly named “I write this as a warning to the world,” should serve as warning still; a warning that when it comes to truth, the government isn’t interested. There was/is an obvious disconnect between the will of the American people and the way in which their leaders inflict ‘foreign policy’ on the rest of the world. While most citizens would see interventionist foreign policy such as sanctions and war acceptable only as a reaction to threat or violence the reality is, it seems, that the US has wanted nothing more then to bait countries into war, or diminish its own atrocities, (as in the case of Hiroshima) under the guise that a greater evil exists. The truth, however, remains that no other country in recorded history has ever used atomic weapons on civilians other then the US (who also seem to be the ones who are quickest to remind the world they still have the bomb, kinda like a game of chicken).
Liberal Solution: Tax it…
By: James Burge
September 18th, 2008
So after hearing that the Liberals are rolling out their “Liberal Green Shift” program as a response to voters climate change concerns I was a bit hesitant (to say the least) to embrace what is virtually the US carbon tax idea with a bit of a Canadian sugar coating. Stephane Dion said that the average Canadian should expect to see a reduction in their taxes not an increase, I’m just not sure I get it.
First off I have to say that the carbon tax idea is, in my opinion, the exact opposite of an expectable approach to addressing the problems associated with climate change. It seems to try and profit of a genuine concern for our environment. What it does is tax us for energy that we already use today, mostly because of the available energy infrastructure, (most Canadians would happily choose green power, but would they pay twice as much for it??) while promising tax relief for everyone in order to cover their carbon costs. This is by no means a hand out, nor will it offer the right type of incentive.
Obviously the greatest carbon producer is the energy industry which we all rely on for most of the energy we use every day. Anyone who thinks that industry will absorb the cost of the carbon tax is kidding themselves. Any increase in energy production costs to industry can be seen as a direct increase in cost to the consumer, and maybe not just once. Keep in mind the high cost of oil has impacted the cost of food as well; another way I think the average family can expect to see their cost increase under this plan.
So really what we are looking at is a tax break for everyone, coupled with increased ‘cost of doing business’ which will affect those that use the most energy (don’t worry Parents, because you have kids you are allowed (expected?) to use more energy and will therefore receive a “child tax credit worth $350 per year per child, on top of all other existing child benefits.” gotta keep those parents happy). The idea of a monetary penalty for polluting is nothing new; this is likely what has gotten us in this mess. Industry shifts the regulatory cost of emissions on to the consumer, as any business model would in order to protect the bottom line. I just don’t see the incentive to change to green energy.
Let me take this moment to relay something that may shock you.
In my opinion, climate change has yet to be conclusively attributed to humans.
‘Proof’ exists on both sides of the argument, one example being the temperature increase of other planets in our solar system, suggesting the sun’s output plays a roll. Also, evidence exists showing that this has occurred many times throughout Earth’s history and could very well be a part of a natural cycle.
Whether you feel we are to blame or not, is irrelevant!
Regardless of where the blame lies, the fact that our climate is changing is not being disputed and therefore will require a shift in thinking. We must first stop fighting over the cause and start trying to look to the future. Either we embrace the changes and be willing to accept that the climate we have come to enjoy may not last, or we begin to find new and innovative ways to adapt and/or effect the climate in order to combat climate change.
What innovation and voluntary adaptation of new technology needs is incentive, not burden through increased taxation (even the production of solar cells will produce carbon dioxide, should solar cell manufacturers be charged the same tax as oil companies, I don’t think so). All this does is further inflate the cost of adapting green technology. What we need is an increase in tax incentives for both business and residential adaptation (or production) of ‘green’ technology. Make environmentally friendly technologies more lucrative and more easily accessible by the greater public and you will see a change. If nothing else, it allows a business to cover cost for homeowners to convert to green energy.
Green Tax Incentives are, in my opinion, the best way to ensure that you get peoples attention without adding more financial burden on energy. For those individuals that ‘going green’ is important, tax incentives and government (or private) subsidies bring currently available green technologies to the average Canadian today while still offering incentives for new technology. The only thing it will require is a comprehensive plan to audit these incentives to ensure that the right people are getting them (keep in mind that the Liberal plan is to give the tax break to everyone). The added benefit is that businesses that use green technology will hopefully be able to pass some of the cost savings on to the consumers making it possible to undercut less-green businesses farther fueling the incentive to ‘go green.’
