Orts From the Table

Sometimes I think that we have become so jaded with government in general that when an apparently new 'flavour' comes along, our reaction is disproportionately enthusiastic. You don't need me to tell you how in most quarters (excepting the Conservatives, of course), the fact that the Carney Liberal government has now achieved majority status is being hailed as the dawn of a new, stable era. While the latter may be true, one should bear in mind the old caution: be careful what you wish for.

The Carney government is, without a doubt, a very conservative one; its worldview seems to be one in which taxes are bad and the corporate ethos of almost limitless profits is not to be questioned.  So in announcing the pending 10 cent reduction in the federal gasoline excise tax, he is providing but an ort from the table. It is one designed to satisfy the immediate demand for relief while ignoring underlying causes. 

Seth Klein offers his advice on what Carney should have done. Observing the monstrous profits oil companies are deriving from soaring gas prices, he suggests now is the time to bring in a tax on their windfall profits.

The Financial Times reports that Canada’s oil producers are in line to land $90 billion in windfall profits due to the Iran war. According to modelling by the research firm Enverus, “Canadian companies will generate an extra $25-$30bn in revenue for every $10 rise in oil prices this year following the market turmoil caused by the conflict.”

Because the ripples of these increased fuel costs will ripple throughout the economy, it is time to derive a public good.

By not taxing these windfalls, much of the profits are leaving the country. Political economist Gordon Laxer notes, “oil corporations in Alberta and Canada are overwhelmingly foreign-owned,” mainly by Americans.

The windfall from spikes in the price of oil also overwhelmingly go to the wealthy, producing a hidden redistribution from lower-income households to the superrich. A study by University of Massachusetts Amherst economists Isabella Weber and Gregor Semieniuk found that the price shock triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine resulted in the 2022 net income of publicly listed oil and gas companies reaching $916 billion globally, “a figure more than three times that of the preceding years (even excluding 2020).” Moreover, within the US, they found, “50 per cent of all fossil fuel profit claims accrued to the wealthiest 1 per cent of individuals. The bottom 50 per cent of the population … received 1 per cent.”

Their solution: “a permanent excess profit tax on oil and gas, defined as returns above a specified threshold.”

The obscene profits accruing to companies cry out for this tax, and it one that finds much favour among the general public.

Politically, a windfall profits tax is a winner. First, it is hugely popular; polling conducted two years ago found 62 per cent of Canadians support such a tax. Second, the climate movement would be thrilled. Third, a windfall profits tax on oil and gas could raise roughly $1 billion a year (or considerably more, depending on the rate and the price of oil). 

[T]axing the oil and gas companies’ profits means we can deploy some of those revenues to directly help lower and modest-income households, while using some to expedite our transition off these deadly fuels.

There are compelling arguments to support a windfall tax on the oil giants. Unfortunately, because such a tax would benefit the people instead of corporate entities, I expect those arguments will fall on deaf Ottawa ears.

Thou Shalt Not Worship Graven Images

This from the NYT:

Pope Leo XIV is one of the world’s most powerful critics of the U.S. war with Iran. In recent days, he has condemned the worship of mortals and money, the pitfalls of arrogance, and the “absurd and inhuman violence” unleashed by fighting that has further destabilized the Middle East.

His many admonishments over the past week appear to have reached President Trump, who responded to those calls for peace by scorching the first American-born pontiff on social media and then taking personal credit for Leo’s ascension to the papacy.

“Leo should be thankful because, as everyone knows, he was a shocking surprise,” Mr. Trump wrote in a lengthy social media post on Sunday night. “He wasn’t on any list to be Pope, and was only put there by the Church because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump. If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.”

As Trump slips further and further into paranoid dementia, his disciples continue to pretend that all is fine. 

The world watches; the world suffers; the world awaits his demise.

UPDATED: Spectacle Abounds

 

I am old enough to remember the early days of space exploration, days that included John Glenn in orbit, the Mercury space program, followed by the Apollo missions, etc. In those early days, achievements in space commanded a great deal of attention, in part because it was essentially a battle of ideologies, capitalism against evil communism, an ongoing grudge match between the U.S and the Soviet Union. Who would emerge victorious, the world wondered.

But those days are long over. The U.S.  'won', as if somehow its technological prowess atoned for its racism, its foreign wars, its naked imperialism. 

So what accounts for the current fascination with the Artemis 11 mission and its almost endless news coverage? 

There is, of course, the matter of spectacle, an always useful, time-tested way to capture the attention of the masses and divert them from the really important matters that plague all of us. Americans are especially prone to embracing such blandishments, always ready to put hand over heart in patriotic fervour. So what if they started a needless and senseless war? So what if so many of their fellow citizens live on the street, with no chance of better lives? So what if ICE' murders fellow citizens? So what if their president is a dementia-ridden despot? Such matters pall in the face of going to the moon, eh?

But beyond that, it is striking that the news networks seem willing to carry the water for those who benefit the most from such 'excursions': the billionaires who walk amongst us. Consider the fact that the majority of television media are now part of large corporate conglomerates, and you have the perfect conditions for influencing and molding public opinion; thus we become conditioned to cheer on the prospect of a permanent moon base being established in the not-too-distant future. Somehow, that has become the imperative, as if establishing such a base would confer American lunar hegemony and ensure a bright future.

But a bright future for whom? From the perspective of the billionaires, the almost limitless profits to be made from such a feat, almost totally funded by taxpayer dollars, is undoubtedly occasioning all kinds of pavlovian salivation. And while the oligarchs amass even greater profits, the general public is left to hope for a few orts from the table, reminded yet again of their true place in the scheme of things. 

Democracy's ill-health is a precondition of such predatory monetary achievement, and given that the U.S. has now devolved into a vicious autocracy, clearly the conditions are golden for new rounds of pillaging. 

UPDATE: A thoughtful letter-writer offers offers his reality check on the new space race:

Why aren’t we taking more care of Earth? It has everything to sustain life

If only the moon was made of any kind of cheese, then spending $95 billion to go there might begin to make sense. You can’t live on the moon. There is no existing photosynthesis.  Everything to establish a “moon base” must be brought from Terra Ferma. Even if after a trillion dollars or many trillion dollars are spent, building a base in order to launch to Mars is laughable. There is no oxygen on Mars, it gets extremely cold and it has a covering of iron oxide (rust). Trips can only occur every 26 months and there would be no return flights from Mars as re-fueling is not available. The human body could not sustain the change in gravity. We know that interplanetary colonization is impossible. The shame of this waste lies in the forgetfulness of just how magnificent our precious Earth actually is. Everything we need is here, with the exception of more people willing to save the planet from those who seek to destroy it. So, the question remains — why can’t we take more care of a place that provides everything we need instead of chasing dreams of inhabiting the moon?

Dave de Sylva, Aurora, ON

Signs Of The Times

One of these days, I hope to get back to actually writing something meaningul. Until my inspiration returns, this will have to do: 

So much for values, eh?

Democrat Ro Kohhana Explains Why The Democrats Are Such Losers

 Couldn't have said it better myself:

When the President of the United States threatens genocide against millions of innocent people, Democratic leadership should stand in clear moral opposition — not hide behind procedure.

UPDATED: How Stupid Is MAGA?

 Anthony Scaramucci thinks even they have limits:

While the above may give MAGATS pause, the following verified profanity-strewn post from the mad king will surely serve to stir their bloodlust:

I Didn't See This Coming

 

Last night I had a brief conversation with my daughter. As a mother of two little ones, she is rightly concerned about the environmental future that awaits them. She expressed special concern about the possible construction of a second Canadian pipeline. I quickly reassured her, saying that since it would have to be built with private funds only, it will never come to fruition.

I may have spoken too soon.

A deeply disturbing article by Althia Raj suggests public money may ultimately be involved.

Federal Liberals, who hoped the government’s pipeline pact with Alberta was a public relations effort that would never see the light of day, should brace for its approval — including, possibly, with public money.

Three Liberals privately suggested to the Star that Prime Minister Mark Carney may put federal money behind a new pipeline to the west coast — despite the memorandum of understanding signed with the province lays only a path for the “construction of one or more private sector constructed and financed pipelines.”

This revelation must come as a shock to many Liberal MPs, who are on record as saying that the MOU signed with Alberta meant little, given the reluctance of private oil to put up the kind of money needed to build such a conduit. 

Last fall, when the prime minister was asked in Calgary if he was prepared to do more to de-risk the project to attract private capital, Carney said he was already “de-risking the project in several ways” through regulatory clarity and setting aside “billions” for financing Indigenous People’s equity ownership in projects.

But sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, say Carney wants to see the pipeline built, and is realizing it may not happen without more public money behind it.

Environmental waffling on matters related to oil presage Carney's capitulation on the actual pipeline.

[E]arlier this month, Environment and Climate Change Minister Julie Dabrusin referred to the government’s rising industrial carbon price as the “backbone” of the government’s climate plan, key to reducing Canada’s emissions, and providing industry the “right signals to move our economy in that direction.”

But on a briefing call with journalists hours before the MOU announcement, Alberta’s representative suggested $130 was a ceiling not a floor. While it’s higher than the province’s current headline price of $95 a tonne, and much higher than where credits effectively trade, between $20 and $40 a tonne, it’s not high enough to make projects, such as the $16.5-billion Pathways Alliance carbon capture and storage network viable — without even more public funding. (So far, the project has received tax credits worth 62 per cent of its construction costs, and the oil companies behind the massive project — a soft prerequisite for the pipeline — want more public funding.) 

Additionally, when Danielle Smith introduced regulations making the credits easier to obtain, Carney's government said not a word. 

If you do any research on carbon capture technology, you will realize it is more fable than reality. In reality it is not viable either on the scale necessary to make a difference or the amount of energy required to operate it, thus negating the amount of carbon captured.

Canadians have grown used to being stabbed in the back by our former 'friends', the United States. Few, I suspect, are prepared for the knife being wielded by our own government.