Dueling Experts

Impolitical raised an interesting question today as she surveyed the numerous highly qualified economic experts who have concluded that Harper's whole "The Green Shift will destroy the economy" meme is utter bollocks.

She questions whether the Liberals are doing enough to inform people of these expert opinions, and asks

"whether such independent expertise will be legitimately valued by the Canadian public as the election proceeds or whether there will be lazy succumbing to Conservative fearmongering".

In short, no - I don't believe such expertise would be valued by the public even if the Liberals ran ads featuring it a hundred times a day from now until the 14th. But is it laziness? I thought about it, and while that is undoubtedly part of the problem, I'm not sure that's all there is to it.

I suspect it has more to do with an inability to think critically.

Critical thinking requires not only an analysis and synthesis of available information, but an ability to discern between varying qualities of information based on the quality of the source. A critical thinker would, for example, give more weight and consideration to multiple peer-reviewed scientific studies on the effects of fluoridated water than, say, something your friend sent you in an email.

This would seem to be self-evident, but the persistence of such idiotic notions as "Global warming is caused by sunspots" and "Obama is a Muslim" in public discourse speaks volumes about the public's inability to distinguish fact from rumour, and expertise from hackery.

(I'm sorry - I've been sitting here watching "The Grapes of Wrath" on CBC, and the next thing I know I'm having to suffer through not one, not two, but THREE consecutive sweater-wearing Steven Harper ads during the commercial break. The cognitive dissonance just made me throw up in my mouth a little. Anyway...)

I'm not sure who or what is to blame for this shocking inability to tell the difference between smart people and idiots. Part of it may be a failing in our education system. Part is a creeping anti-intellectualism that started with Nixon at the end of the sixties and has infected North American consciousness ever since. Part may well be the media's insistence on giving equal time and weight to both sides of any given issue, even if one side is entirely out of its weight class. As in, "Next on CNN, physicist Stephen Hawking faces off against the President of the Flat Earth Society".

Jim Travers ran an op-ed in the Star today that may offer some insight.

Beating up elites is almost always better politics than talking down to voters. So if it weren't for extraordinary events it would be no surprise at all that this election's question mark is the size of the approaching Conservative victory. But these are suddenly turbulent times that in theory should be raising doubts that Harper's preferred role for government, a role drawing heavily on coffee shop wisdom, is the best one to pull Canada through.

... Only voters can decide and it's to Harper's considerable advantage that they don't have much time to mull variables. Consensus forms slowly around complex issues – balancing the federal budget took nearly a decade to rise to the top of national priorities – and the issues now muscling their way into public consciousness weave tightly through the very nature and purpose of 21st-century government.

Harper's other advantage is Dion. Electioneering isn't primarily about policies, it's about character and identity, and Conservatives are far superior to Liberals in making voters comfortable with their leader. Harper is positioned as Everyman driving kids to the rink in a Chevy minivan – as if he didn't have a chauffeured limousine. Dion is the nerd carpooling academics to a symposium in a Volvo wagon – as if he didn't have a government Prius.

There's more to Harper and Dion than either stereotype. Still, there's no evidence yet that Conservatives were wrong to assume that voters are happier being told what they already know by politicians than what they should think by experts.

Someone else (I wish I could remember who) also pointed out today that people are always more inclined to accept information when it serves to confirm that which they already think they know. He got himself ragged upon as I recall.

Al Gore has a lot of answers in his extraordinary book, "The Assault on Reason". Go. Read. I'm going to bed. I can't take the end of "The Grapes of Wrath" right now.

It looks too much like the future.

My Other Blog is the Milton Champion

Milton is blessed with not one but two local newspapers that almost everyone in town actually reads and is influenced by. One is the Halton Compass (formerly the North Halton Compass), which is one of the few surviving independent local papers left in the GTA. It's small, but mighty.

The other is Milton Canadian Champion - a Metroland paper that nonetheless has enough of a history in town (150 years) that it's managed to maintain its own character.

Not long after moving to Milton fourteen years ago, I discovered the power of a well written Letter to the Editor of the Champion. Over those years I've written several - the most effective of which was one decrying a proposed increase in the speed limit on my street. That one inspired a petition started by a little girl up the street, a series of supporting letters, and an invitation by my town councillor to speak as a delegate before council.

I brought maps, and photos, and traffic calming studies - and consequently my little stretch of road is still a school zone.

My point is, despite the emergence of the internet and the blogosphere as potent tools for political change, sometimes nothing beats a good, old fashioned letter in the local dead trees media for reaching the local masses. I highly recommend it.

Sometimes, though, these things take time.

I don't think I've ever written a letter to the Champion that was never published, but they have often delayed publication long enough for the subject to lose its relevence. Such might be the case of my response to this letter, published two weeks ago, from an emissions control specialist who claimed to have attended the Turner / Dion extravaganza last month and yet somehow came away with the impression that The Green Shift was a cap-and-trade system. I sent my letter immediately, but so far the only response they've published was one from... Garth Turner.

Sigh.

So, in case they never get around to printing my (vastly superior) letter, here it is in full:

To the Editor,

Jon Komow's recent letter critiquing the cap-and-trade system of pollution control was fascinating and obviously based on professional expertise. However, I'm not sure if he actually attended the same town hall meeting that I did because Stephane Dion's 'Green Shift' plan is not, in fact, a cap-and-trade system.

Perhaps he's thinking of another party. The NDP is proposing a cap-and trade system, and Jack Layton has criticized the Liberals for not doing the same. The Conservatives have brought in a sort of cap-and-trade system, although the 'cap' is actually an 'intensity target' and the 'trade' system has not actually been set up. And of course neither plan provides tax relief to individuals and businesses to offset the resulting cost increases.

I am also curious about his complaint that the U.S. pollution control credit system brought in 15 years ago (I'm assuming he's referring to the Clean Air Act of 1990) just allowed major polluters to keep on polluting. It's my understanding that that program directly resulted in a 40% reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions and a comparable reduction in acid rain levels. Even he cites the massive reduction in conventional air pollutants over the past four decades, so I'm not sure exactly what his argument is.

One other correction: previous Liberal governments (and a couple of Conservative ones) have, in fact, provided Ballard Power Systems with hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and R&D funding over the past two and a half decades.

As for Mr. Komow's concerns about the business impact of a carbon tax, he would do well to consider what the impact will be when Europe and even the U.S. stop doing business with us because of our high carbon emissions. Or when Canadian businesses can simply no longer afford the carbon-based fuels they've come to depend on and find themselves with no alternatives.

In the coming years, businesses that cling to the past instead of embracing the new low-carbon economy are going to find themselves in dire straits, with or without a carbon tax. With the Green Shift, they will at least have some resources to help them adapt.

I strongly recommend that Mr. Komow and anyone else who is interested in the facts actually read the Green Shift plan at www.thegreenshift.ca. Read it, work out the costs and benefits, and decide for yourself if you find it sound. But please, base your decision on the facts and not on rumours or political fear mongering.

- Jennifer Smith

My only regret is that I didn't have access to that carbon tax economic impact study the Conservatives commissioned and subsequently buried in a drawer - along with that TASER report.

The Green Shift Shift, Sarah Palin... and Kitties!

I was thrilled to hear that Stephane Dion and the Liberals have listened to the legitimate concerns of farmers, fishers and truckers, and come up with a way to help them bear the costs of the Green Shift by giving them subsidies for equipment and technology to help them actually reduce their emissions. And all within the financial leeway already built into the Green Shift plan.

Win, win - right?

Pulease.

..................

I am getting seriously fed up with all the "You hate her because she has a vagina" crap coming out of the Republican Party. I got news for you guys - we hate her because she's a religious right-wingnut with a gun fetish and a propensity for using her powers for evil.

How about this. Every time someone criticizes Sarah Palin, let's apply a little test and ask ourselves, "Would [X] be an issue if she were a man?" Let's try it, shall we?

Would the fact that she's anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage be an issue if she were male? Of course it would!
The fact that she's being investigated for abuse of power? Oh yeah.
The fact that she tried to have a librarian fired for not removing 'offensive' books from the library? You betcha.
The fact that she's a supporter of abstinence-only education who now has an unwed pregnant teenaged daughter? Rightly or wrongly, yes. Absolutely.

Even this would still be funny if she were a man. Ok, maybe not quite as funny...



In fact, the only person who seems to be treating Palin any differently because she is a woman is John McCain. Because if she were a man, would McCain have even considered picking her? Uh...

Oh, and check out the shenanigans on Wikipedia today:



Heh.

....................

And just for fun, here's my cat Max watching a YouTube video called "The Kittens discover the crack under the door":

Dion / Turner Show: Video #1

Here's the question I asked Mr. Dion during the Blogstravaganza portion of the program:



And here are couple more that I didn't get a chance to ask but would like to at some point:

1) Philosophically, would you say that your vision of Liberalism is closer to that of Pierre Trudeau or Paul Martin? And no, you can't say "both".

2) Conservative governments on both sides of the border appear to have made it their mission to reduce tax revenues to the point where government can barely function. Do you plan to increase government revenues in order to restore social programs and the public sector, and if so, how?

Watch This Space

Today's the big day here in Sprawlville! The Great Green Shift Road Show and Turner Town Hall Shindig is coming to Halton, and yours truly will be there with bells on, bringing you the live(ish) play-by-play and (possibly next day) video coverage.

Ok, so Kady O'Malley I ain't, but I'll do my level best.

As if I won't have enough to do juggling laptop, still camera and camcorder, praying the Wi-Fi holds out while I desperately try to film and type at the same time... I have also volunteered to be the event's Official Blogger Wrangler. Yes, Garth Turner in his infinite wisdom has invited every rabble-rouser and miscreant who frequents his blog's blood-soaked comments section to c'mon down and hang out with Mr. Dion a while before the main event.

They still haven't responded to my requisition for cattle prods and a Taser.



Oh, and I have to pick up the pipe and drape this morning. Can't forget.

It should be an interesting event, if only to see how many members of the "Garth is the Anti-Christ" anti-fan club actually show up. Some have been making a lot of noise about staging a protest, but I suspect that actually being invited to attend might have taken a bit of the wind out of their sails. But it sure would be entertaining.

For everyone else, if you are anywhere near St. Vlod's in north Oakville tonight around 7:30, please drop by. Or at least, try to get there at least an hour early and fight your way through the crowds to stake out some standing room along the back wall. No matter what your political inclinations might be, everybody really is welcome to come and ask whatever questions you might have.

Come see me. I'll be the one with the lasso.

Worst. Headline. Ever.

There's article today in the New Brunswick Times & Transcript talking about a Green Shift Road Show meeting between Liberal MPs and representatives of New Brunswick's agricultural community.

Here's how it went:

Yesterday's discussion was certainly lively, as the Liberals' plan was met with its share of criticism by the gathered agricultural community.

"What farmers are facing as a result of the Green Shift is a considerable increase in input costs, whether it's a result of fuel that farmers use or even as a result of how much their input costs may go up as a result of this carbon tax," says Bob Friesen, CFA president. "What we're basically saying is look, agriculture already provides a lot of carbon sequestration, farmers have done all kinds of things to create more carbon sinks... We're saying, look, there's got to be some calculations here that agriculture provides this -- they're the solution providers, so why tax them?"

Easter says a carbon tax exemption isn't likely to happen.

"I was on a series of meetings in the farm community last week and had farmers say to me if there's an exemption made for us we would be looked down on by the rest of society," Easter says. "Let's find the way of recognizing the cost impact on the farm community of this program and ensure that on the benefit impact at the end of the day there's economic opportunities for farmers and they receive their just due."

Easter says the platform will include other incentives for alternatives such as carbon sinks, biofuels, anaerobic digesters and wind power.

Despite his concerns, Friesen says he was still pleased the Liberal MPs came to speak with the industry.

"I think it was a positive thing that they came here and are prepared to listen to the farm leaders across Canada and they are prepared to go back and to analyze where they could improve (the plan) for agriculture," he says.

And here's the headline:

Agriculture industry opposes Green Shift

Groan. Honestly, did anyone even read the article before coming up with that one? Or maybe someone was just trying to put their own spin on things.

The effect of a carbon tax on farmers concerns me as well, but the fact is, modern agriculture just isn't as 'green' as people like to think. Large industrial farms go through a huge amount of oil and gas for both equipment and fertilizer, not to mention the negative environmental effects of excessive irrigation and pesticide use, soil depletion, etc., etc. Smaller farms are better, but are still frequently at the mercy of hybrid seed suppliers pushing sterile seeds that require massive amounts of water, fertilizer and pesticides just to survive.

(Yes, I confess - I'm in the middle of reading "The End of Food". Shut up.)

But really, the industry needs to find a better way. It needs to go smaller, with more diversification. It needs to get off this obsession with "yield" and recognize the true costs of the Monsanto school of farming. The cost of carbon, the cost of fertilizer and pesticide, the cost to the land, and the cost to the actual nutritional value of these so-called "high yield" crops, which is making them bigger but almost completely devoid of nutrients.

Putting a price on carbon is a start, but there needs to be a far more comprehensive plan to transform agriculture in this country and wean it away from the current unsustainable system. Not necessarily promoting full-on "organic" farming per se, but certainly a program of incentives towards the more traditional family farm would be in order, and would ultimately be financially beneficial to the farmers themselves.

That would be a real "Green Shift".

The Green Shift: Someone Talking Sense. Sort of.

After weeks of unsubstantiated accusations that 'The Green Shift' (or whatever we're going to be calling it) is nothing more than a back-door way of funding 'Liberal social programs', someone has actually gone to the trouble of trying to substantiate this position. Namely, Adam Radwanski of the G&M.

Is it really revenue neutral?

Short answer: Only if you accept the broadest possible definition of what qualifies as a tax cut. But then, that's pretty much the definition we've been accepting for years.

Straightforward tax cuts, in the form of reductions to business and income taxes, add up to roughly $9-billion in Year 4 of the Liberal plan. The rest of the more than $15-billion the party expects its carbon tax to generate would go mostly toward spending initiatives dressed up as tax benefits and credits - a $465-million supplement for low-income workers, a $150 supplement for every rural resident (totalling $749-million) to help pay their bills, a $600-million capital cost allowance for green technologies, another $400-million for R&D, an $800-million boost to the guaranteed income supplement for low-income seniors. Biggest of all is a nearly $3-billion child tax benefit - quite possibly a worthwhile expenditure, as are many of the others, but not exactly a tax cut in the traditional sense of the word.

No, I suppose not. Quite right. I still wouldn't call it a 'social program' either, but at least someone is looking at this with a level head for a change.

My argument would be as follows:

Tax cuts benefit those who make enough money to pay taxes. The richer you are, the more you benefit. Tax credits (specifically refundable credits) benefit those who DON'T make very much money. The poor. The self-employed. Those in the film and television industry.

And since the 'Green Shift Plan' (can we call it that?) incorporates both tax cuts AND tax credits, and will therefore return all of the carbon tax to rich and poor, individuals and businesses, in proportions that approximate their ability to absorb the additional cost, I'm not sure how that isn't "revenue neutral".

But kudos to Radwanski for making a well thought-out critique of the 'Liberal Green Shift' (can we call it that?). Again, this is what we call civilized debate.

Green Shift vs. Green Shift

I originally had a bit of sympathy for this company, and certainly the Liberals could have handled it better. However, when Green Shift Inc. founder Jennifer Wright appears on CTV boo-hooing about how badly their business has suffered since all this publicity came their way, and all the emails they've received threatening a 'boycott' of her company (and you know who those emails are from), I get a little suspicious.

When she claimed that her company had all but vanished from the results of a Google search on 'green shift' under the onslaught of hits for the Liberal plan, you know I had to check it out...



Well whaddaya know. Look who's number one.

Cry me a river.

(posted by Jennifer Smith - not to be confused with Jennifer Wright)

The Green Shift: Rational Discourse

With so many people, bloggers and otherwise, either defending the Liberals' 'Green Shift' plan uncritically or dismissing it out of hand - with their positions almost always based on party affiliation - I cannot tell you how refreshing it was to read the following from Devin Johnston:

Stéphane Dion has asked Canadians to engage in an honest discussion of his "Green Shift" carbon tax proposal. I thank the Liberal leader for his maturity in engaging in an open policy discussion of a matter of critical importance to the country, unlike the Conservative government which has adopted the strategy of inaction and denial on the climate change issue, while using immature and dishonest rhetoric rather than substantive policy analysis in opposing Dion's proposal. While I ultimately conclude for reasons to follow that the proposal as it currently stands is bad policy, the potential exists for the Liberals and NDP to come together to create broader-ranging, multifaceted plan that makes better policy sense. I encourage both parties to seriously examine this "third option" instead of allowing their differences to prevent substantial action from being taken (as was the case on the Afghanistan file.)

He goes on to provide some of the most intelligent and thoughtful analysis I've read so far on this issue, discussing the pros and cons of not only the Liberal plan but the NDP plan as well, and making some concrete suggestions as to how the best elements of both might be combined.

Before proceeding to some of the pros and cons in general terms, though, it should be pointed out that there is nothing incompatible about these policy options. A hybrid system in which there is a hard cap and emissions under that cap are taxed is possible. Moreover, neither one of these options is viable in and of itself. Any basis policy framework aimed at reducing carbon emissions must also be supplemented by additional measures such as investments in green technology and low-interest loans for home retrofitting (just to give two examples.) Moreover, both increase the cost of goods and thereby distribute the burdens addressing climate change on to individuals, leaving lower income persons particularly at risk. Therefore, climate change policies must include provisions that soften the blow to the working poor, who are often not in a position to adapt to a less carbon-intensive lifestyle.

It goes on, with even most of the commenters making rational, productive contributions to the discussion. Read and learn.

This is how the grownups do it, folks.

Talking With Libertarians

For some reason I've been trying to correct some misconceptions about the Liberals' "Green Shift" over at Saskatchewan Liberty Train. I've tried to remain calm and rational and use facts and logic to make my case, but at this point I'm about ready to claw my own eyes out and run screaming from the room.

For example, one person was claiming that $6 billion of the $15 billion was going to fund "Liberal social programs" - including some mythical "child care initiative". To which I responded,

"I'm looking at page 41 right now, and what I see is $2.9 million [should be 'billion'] for the Universal Child Tax Benefit. Is that what you're referring to? Because that has nothing to do with child care. That's a refundable tax credit for ALL families with children that is in addition to (and almost identical to) the one brought in by the Conservatives. Similarly, the refundable Employment Tax Credit would replace the smaller, non-refundable credit introduced by... the Conservatives."

To which I received this response:

Oh goody - more social engineering - more wasteful social programs...this is EXACTLY the type of thing we don't need.

Blink.

AAAAAARRRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!

Garth Turner on 'The Green Shift'

As promised, here's my brief encounter with Garth Turner before he did his requisite blah blah blah at the Milton Strawberry Festival (don't ask - it's a local thing).



I still have a lot more questions, so I hope to have an opportunity to finish my "interview" in the weeks to come.

BTW, I can't help thinking that if we had a Conservative MP here in Halton (ok, other than Garth), that the second he saw some chick with a video camera sneaking up on him from around the corner he would have FLED.

Access. It's all about the access, man.

The Green Shift: Questions and Comments

I've been cruising around the blogosphere trying to find legitimate arguments against the Liberal 'Green Shift' plan. It hasn't been easy, let me tell you. Even my buddy Raph has been reduced to comments like this:

Laugh. Out. Freaking. Loud.

$60 in inflation? That's it? Come on Jennifer, you know you are too intelligent to buy that. Can you see a massive carbon tax contributing a mere $5 extra per month to your spending? $5 a day more like.

I may have been a little... short with him in response. But at least he has an excuse - he doesn't actually believe in all this global warming crap anyway.

The LOL thing seems to be a common theme, BTW. Even the Conservative radio ads (which, of course, were written before any of them actually read the plan) are just two people laughing at Dion and his crazy 'Tax On Everything'. As my husband put it so well, their entire argument amounts to nothing more than, "Yeah? Well, you smell!"

There have been a couple of exceptions, mostly from the Progressive end of the pool. JimBobby will be happy to tell you exactly why the Liberal plan is ok but the Green plan is WAY better. And John Murney is very concerned about how this will affect Saskatchewan - it's people, its energy industry, and its hopes of ever electing another Liberal. Ever.

Even in that case, there are assumptions being made that are either a) patently incorrect, or b) unclear from the text posted on the website. Most of the obvious fallacies have to do with the notion that gasoline will be taxed under this scheme, so I'll say it slowly for the hard of hearing: NO. NEW. TAXES. ON. GASOLINE.

As for the rest, yes, there are questions. Questions I'd like the answer to. Here are a few:

1) At what point in the chain will the carbon tax be charged? It sounds like it is going to be charged to the end user of the oil, gas, coal, etc., but it isn't entirely clear. Murney quotes an editorial that claims the refineries are going to have to pay for the gasoline they produce, but I don't believe that's true. Is it?

2) There is a mention of a Carbon Tariff on imports in the plan, but it's all a little vague. One would think that adding a carbon tax to domestic products would only make cheap imports shipped from thousands of miles away that much more attractive - unless the carbon emitted through their shipping and manufacture was also taxed or tariffed. Will this be done, or is it just a suggestion?

3) What about Dion's 'Carbon Budget', unveiled over a year ago in this very town? Does the Green Shift replace that plan or complement it? If the latter, would the $20-$30 levy on the excess CO2 from large emitters be instead of, or in addition to, the carbon tax?

4) How exactly did they arrive at the estimate of $60 - $240 per year per household in increased consumer costs? (excluding home heating, propane and other direct fossil fuel purchases) In my brief debate/cat fight with Raph, I made some attempt to figure out exactly what those added costs might be based on the fact that the average Canadian has a carbon footprint of about 20 tonnes/person/year and stripping out gasoline and home heating. Even for me with my tiny impoverished footprint it still worked out to more, although still much less than the tax savings. What formula are they using?

Happily, I ran into Garth Turner at the Milton Strawberry Festival yesterday and managed to get a couple of answers before we were so rudely interrupted by the bagpipes. I should have the video up sometime Monday.

The Great Green Shift Debate

"So, what do you think?", my husband asked.

I told him I hadn't checked all the details, but from what I heard from Dion's speech, it sounded pretty good.

He disagreed. He is convinced that Liberals' 'Green Shift' plan is going to cost us a fortune, especially when the gas bill comes, and he didn't believe me when I told him that almost all of these tax credits were going to be refundable. Which is important for us, given that we are both mostly self-employed and so our taxable income is as close to nothing as we can make it.

So today I checked the details.

First, I did that little "Calculate Your Benefit" thing, and based on our income last year we'd be saving about $1900/year, or $160/month. Looking more closely at the specific tax credits and benefits, it looks pretty accurate, and would certainly be more if we have a good year.

Then I tried to figure out what this all would cost us - and just a suggestion, but the Libs might want to consider putting a "Carbon Cost Calculator" on there as well.

First the gas bill. We live in an old, rickety, poorly-insulated little house, so we go through somewhat more than the 3,000-3,500 ft.cu./year mentioned in the handbook, but even accounting for that we'd only be spending an extra $6.60/month in year 1, and $26.50/month in year 4. But hey, if we actually got off our asses and put plastic film on all the windows in the winter like we keep talking about but never do, we'd save a bundle.

Oh, look - that's exactly the kind of thing this plan is designed to encourage people to do. Fancy that!

On top of that, the handbook acknowledges that most people will incur added costs related to increased transportation, electricity, food and other price increases passed on by business and industry. They estimate these added costs to amount to about $60/year/household in year 1, up to $240/yr in year 4.

Even assuming they are grossly low-balling it, I can't see how it would exceed the money we would save and/or get back in tax credits.

So, yeah. Looks good, for us anyway. I even played with the calculator to figure out the tax savings for my parents, my sister-in-law, etc, and it all looks pretty straightforward: the tax savings exceed the predicted costs.

Still, I don't want to be schmuck. So I wandered over to the Conservative Party website to check out their numbers. Surely they've had their math wizards all over this thing for the past day and a half, happily dissecting the Liberals' hopelessly flawed calculations and exposing the real costs to Canadians.

Meh. Not so much.

Aside from some broad claims about everybody and everything getting taxed with this plan, there was no reference to the offset tax credits other than to dismiss them as "a trick".

No evidence. No specifics about what they think the real costs will be, or why they dispute the claims that the carbon tax will be 'revenue neutral'. No numbers. No debate. Just mockery.

Oh, and they're calling Dion an "elitist". How very Republican of them.

Green Shift: The Video

I'm not going to get into a point by point analysis of the Liberals' new 'Green Shift' plan that was unveiled today to much fanfare. From what I saw today and have read in the extended lead-up, it looks like a smart approach and hopefully bold enough to make a real difference. But I'm sure there will be plenty of people chewing it up and spitting it out over the next few days, so I'll leave them to it.

What I did want to mention was the video now posted at thegreenshift.ca. It's very slick - downright inspiring, in fact. Nice job. I'm guessing this is going to form the basis for an upcoming advertising campaign. No wonder the Conservatives are scared. I thought it was an especially nice touch including the shot of the Last Spike, given Ignatieff's recent reference to our national railway when talking about an east-west oil and electrical corridor.

Another shot that I found interesting was this one:



I'm pretty sure that's the ZENN Motor Company plant. Nice.

I know you're probably sick of me going on about this car, but I was listening to an interview with company president Ian Clifford talking about the company's plans for the future and their alliance with EEstor, a Houston-based company that is in the final stages of developing a truly revolutionary solid-state energy storage system (not a battery; it's sort of a ceramic super-capacitor). The combination will result in an electric car capable of above highway speeds and a 250-500 mile range on a five minute charge - at a reasonable cost, light weight, and no nasty chemicals in the battery.

Wow.

It got me thinking about that CBC mini-series about the Avro Arrow. Yes, yes, I know, it was all rosy and filled with inaccuracies. It's TV - whatever. But one scene always stuck with me, even though it was obviously created by the writers. The boss has just found out that the Arrow is doomed, and one of his engineers (who doesn't know yet) comes in to talk to him about all these cool ideas he's had based on the technology and design innovations they've developed with the Arrow.

He talks about how, with a little tinkering, the Arrow could be modified for use as a low-orbit space platform. He even pulls out a very space shuttle-like model of a beefed-up Arrow to show how it could roll over with its belly to space to deploy satellites and even, someday, a craft to take us to the moon.

He's obviously excited at the prospect of Canada taking the lead in aerospace technology, and all the while his boss is sitting there with a tragic look on his face, knowing it will never come to pass.

Fiction or not, that scene keeps coming back to me as I read about the incredible potential of this company and companies like it. Imagine if the ZENN was actually supported by this province and this country. What if it really took off? What if EEstor decided to move its operations to Ontario? What if other electric car companies started popping up and moving here, even developing other technologies and products based on EEstor electric storage? What if all those empty truck and SUV plants started producing electric vehicles - 100% Canadian vehicles? What if Ontario became the new Detroit of the electric transportation industry?

Now, what if the Ontario government continues to drag its heels until ZENN just gets fed up and moves to the U.S.?