James Wood, Saskatchewan News NetworkPublished: Friday, May 02, 2008
The Saskatchewan Party took in more than twice as much cash as the NDP in 2007 as they romped to victory in the November provincial election.
Party financial statements filed with Elections Saskatchewan and posted on its web site Thursday show the Saskatchewan Party with a whopping $4.79 million in donations last year.
In fact, the party's take from corporate donations alone -- $3.02 million -- exceeds the NDP's total haul of $2.28 million.
The financial documents come just weeks after the Saskatchewan Party accused the NDP of being puppets of organized labour for its reliance on union donations -- $165,999 in the 2007 documents.
University of Saskatchewan political scientist David McGrane said it was a dangerous argument for the Saskatchewan Party to make given its dominance in business money.
"It's easy to turn that around now and say the Saskatchewan Party is in the back pockets of the corporations ... like it's been said before, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones," said McGrane with a laugh in an interview Thursday.
Read More From Woods HERE
Also
Wall Accuse NDP of favouring Labour Unions
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
SaskPower posts profit
Bruce Johnstone, The Leader-PostPublished: Wednesday, April 30, 2008
SaskPower posted a $138-million profit in 2007, thanks to record peak load, customer hook-ups and service applications, and is expected to show another $130-million profit in 2008.
But the utility's record results don't necessarily mean that SaskPower customers will be spared a rate increase in 2008.
Rising natural gas prices, unpredictable hydroelectricity supply and large capital budgets could see the Crown corporation applying for a rate increase this fall.
A five-per-cent increase in the fall is quite reasonable and is not out of the question,'' Crown Corporations Minister Ken Cheveldayoff told reporters Tuesday following the release of SaskPower's 2007 results.
"The last increase was 4.3 per cent in February of 2007, so we will take a long, hard look at it,'' Cheveldayoff said. "If rates do increase, we'll be able to provide the business plan to support that.''
Cheveldayoff stressed that the company will look at cost factors, like natural gas prices, which have risen to $10 per gigajoule (GJ) from the forecast level of $8 per GJ. Natural gas represents about 17 per cent of SaskPower's annual $500-million fuel and purchased power costs.
In addition, the amount of mountain run-off, which affects the availability of hydroelectric power, will remain an unknown until after the second quarter. "It's a too early to say,'' Cheveldayoff said of any decision on rates. "If we have strong run-of from the west, as well as natural gas prices go down from where they are now, that increase may not be entirely necessary.''
But SaskPower is proposing to add or replace 2,800 megawatts (MW) of electrical generation capacity by 2030, which will require a large capital spending program over the next 20 to 30 years. SaskPower currently has installed capacity of just over 3,200 MW, as well as 454 MW of generating capacity from other sources.
Read More From Johnstone HERE
More riches flow into Sask.
SaskPower posted a $138-million profit in 2007, thanks to record peak load, customer hook-ups and service applications, and is expected to show another $130-million profit in 2008.
But the utility's record results don't necessarily mean that SaskPower customers will be spared a rate increase in 2008.
Rising natural gas prices, unpredictable hydroelectricity supply and large capital budgets could see the Crown corporation applying for a rate increase this fall.
A five-per-cent increase in the fall is quite reasonable and is not out of the question,'' Crown Corporations Minister Ken Cheveldayoff told reporters Tuesday following the release of SaskPower's 2007 results.
"The last increase was 4.3 per cent in February of 2007, so we will take a long, hard look at it,'' Cheveldayoff said. "If rates do increase, we'll be able to provide the business plan to support that.''
Cheveldayoff stressed that the company will look at cost factors, like natural gas prices, which have risen to $10 per gigajoule (GJ) from the forecast level of $8 per GJ. Natural gas represents about 17 per cent of SaskPower's annual $500-million fuel and purchased power costs.
In addition, the amount of mountain run-off, which affects the availability of hydroelectric power, will remain an unknown until after the second quarter. "It's a too early to say,'' Cheveldayoff said of any decision on rates. "If we have strong run-of from the west, as well as natural gas prices go down from where they are now, that increase may not be entirely necessary.''
But SaskPower is proposing to add or replace 2,800 megawatts (MW) of electrical generation capacity by 2030, which will require a large capital spending program over the next 20 to 30 years. SaskPower currently has installed capacity of just over 3,200 MW, as well as 454 MW of generating capacity from other sources.
Read More From Johnstone HERE
More riches flow into Sask.
Belle Plaine ideal for plant: report
Neil Scott, The Leader-PostPublished: Friday, April 25, 2008Belle Plaine would be the right location for a $4-billion polygeneration plant, according to a report submitted to the province by TransCanada Energy Ltd.
The "project description'' report was submitted by TransCanada Energy this week as part of an environmental assessment analysis of the project.
"The proposed site offers the right location, infrastructure and customer characteristics to make development like this possible,'' the report said.
The site "is one of the few sites in North America that could support the development and operation of a world class polygeneration plant,'' said the report, which was submitted to the Environmental Assessment Branch of Saskatchewan Environment.
The project would convert petroleum coke, likely obtained from northern Alberta, into 300 megawatts of electricity as well as into hydrogen, nitrogen, steam and carbon dioxide for industrial use.
"It is a great environmental story,'' said John Jenkins, the commercial manager for the Belle Plaine project.
The $4-billion project would also be the largest in the province's history in terms of capital investment, Jenkins said.
Read More From Scott HERE
Why we're stuck with insane prices
Forget supply and demand. We're now seeing scarcity economics at work -- what happens when buyers fear they won't get what they need at any price.
By Jim Jubak April 29, 2008
If you think prices have become insane, you're right. But insanity rules markets for everything from oil to rice right now. In fact, insanity is the new "normal."
For example, why should oil sell for $119 a barrel, a whopping $55 a barrel, or 86%, higher than it did last April?
It's like the United States is suddenly out of oil, right? March crude oil reserves in the U.S. were actually 2.4 million barrels higher than reserves in February and only a trifling 3.4% lower than reserves in March 2007, according to the Energy Information Administration. An 86% jump in oil prices because reserves fell by 3.4%? I don't think so.
The global picture is similar. Global oil stocks held by developed economies came to 2.58 billion barrels at the end of March -- pretty much the same as at the end of 2007.
Global supply and demand is tight, with the latest projections from the International Energy Agency showing supply at 87.3 million barrels a day and demand at 87.2 million barrels. Tight, but supply is still ahead of demand.
Don't stop with oil prices, though. Look at rice, which recently cracked $1,000 per metric ton. The price of export-quality rice is up 173% in a year, even though global rice stocks will finish 2008 about 1 million metric tons higher than at the end of 2007, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Or copper, which is setting record highs just about every day and has climbed in price by 30% so far this year. Or aluminum -- up 28% this year. Or wheat. Or corn. Or, well, you name it.
Why normal rules don't apply
We've all heard the explanations. Demand for this or that has soared due to growth in developing nations, increasing production of biofuels or whatever, and supply has stumbled due to miners' strikes or an electricity shortage or a drought in Australia.
But lots of folks -- I get e-mail about this every day -- don't buy these stories. They see small production shortfalls, but still substantial stockpiles, and ask how this adds up to a 100% increase in the price of oil or rice or wheat in a year.
Read More From Jubak Here
By Jim Jubak April 29, 2008
If you think prices have become insane, you're right. But insanity rules markets for everything from oil to rice right now. In fact, insanity is the new "normal."
For example, why should oil sell for $119 a barrel, a whopping $55 a barrel, or 86%, higher than it did last April?
It's like the United States is suddenly out of oil, right? March crude oil reserves in the U.S. were actually 2.4 million barrels higher than reserves in February and only a trifling 3.4% lower than reserves in March 2007, according to the Energy Information Administration. An 86% jump in oil prices because reserves fell by 3.4%? I don't think so.
The global picture is similar. Global oil stocks held by developed economies came to 2.58 billion barrels at the end of March -- pretty much the same as at the end of 2007.
Global supply and demand is tight, with the latest projections from the International Energy Agency showing supply at 87.3 million barrels a day and demand at 87.2 million barrels. Tight, but supply is still ahead of demand.
Don't stop with oil prices, though. Look at rice, which recently cracked $1,000 per metric ton. The price of export-quality rice is up 173% in a year, even though global rice stocks will finish 2008 about 1 million metric tons higher than at the end of 2007, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Or copper, which is setting record highs just about every day and has climbed in price by 30% so far this year. Or aluminum -- up 28% this year. Or wheat. Or corn. Or, well, you name it.
Why normal rules don't apply
We've all heard the explanations. Demand for this or that has soared due to growth in developing nations, increasing production of biofuels or whatever, and supply has stumbled due to miners' strikes or an electricity shortage or a drought in Australia.
But lots of folks -- I get e-mail about this every day -- don't buy these stories. They see small production shortfalls, but still substantial stockpiles, and ask how this adds up to a 100% increase in the price of oil or rice or wheat in a year.
Read More From Jubak Here
Charred Earth Examined as Carbon-Storing Option
Jessica Marshall, Discovery NewsMay 1, 2008 -- If only we could put all that climate-damaging carbon somewhere other than in the atmosphere. One idea is to make it into dirt.
According to new analysis, this approach could be a way to make energy and store carbon at the same time.
Plants sequester carbon in their tissues through photosynthesis, but when they die, microorganisms decompose them,
However, when plants burn in forest or brush fires, part of the carbon ends up as charcoal, or biochar, which is resistant to microbial attack and can stay in the soil for hundreds or thousands of years.
Biochar could be a useful long-term
carbon storage option, especially because it can improve the fertility of the soil and enhance crop yields, according to Johannes Lehmann of Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. Lehmann proposes that plant residue or crops grown for bioenergy could deliberately be turned into biochar as a way to store carbon, while making energy in the process.Biochar is made when it is pyrolyzed: heated with little to no oxygen. It is also possible to burn the resulting biochar for energy, which obviously produces more energy out of a given parcel of plants than putting the biochar back into soil, but it doesn't store any carbon.
Lehmann and colleague John Gaunt calculate that storing biochar produces 30 percent less energy, but avoids two to five times more CO2 emissions than burning biochar for energy.
Read More From Marshall HEREProvince ponders greenhouse gas law
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Food crisis could hit Canada, expert warns
Updated Thu. Apr. 24 2008 8:38 AM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Mel Fruitman, of the Consumers' Association of Canada, said that while food costs in Canada are currently among the lowest in the world, that will change.
"We are going to continue to be somewhat insulated for the next little while, but then the bubble is going to burst," Fruitman told CTV's Canada AM on Thursday.
"Competition between the retailers helps us as consumers keep the price of our food basket down, but it also puts increasing pressure on the farms, on farmers, and that can't continue. Somewhere along the way the dam is going to burst."
For Canadians, the rising cost of fuel will have particular impact on the cost of food, particularly when consumers have come to expect a year-round supply of fresh fruits and vegetables in their grocery stores, Fruitman said.
"Anything that is trucked in, flown in, that comes from farther away than our normal hundred kilometres, say, is going to cost that much more to get to us," Fruitman said.
"And of course, the cost of fuel affects the cost of production of that food, it affects the cost of feed for the various animals. So, we are on a rising curve, there's no question about it."
Read more From CTV HERE
World Vision cuts aid for 1.5 million people due to rising food costs
World food crisis puts spotlight on biofuels
Better get ready for $2.25 gas
Appetite and debate growing over biofuels
Mel Fruitman, of the Consumers' Association of Canada, said that while food costs in Canada are currently among the lowest in the world, that will change.
"We are going to continue to be somewhat insulated for the next little while, but then the bubble is going to burst," Fruitman told CTV's Canada AM on Thursday.
"Competition between the retailers helps us as consumers keep the price of our food basket down, but it also puts increasing pressure on the farms, on farmers, and that can't continue. Somewhere along the way the dam is going to burst."
For Canadians, the rising cost of fuel will have particular impact on the cost of food, particularly when consumers have come to expect a year-round supply of fresh fruits and vegetables in their grocery stores, Fruitman said.
"Anything that is trucked in, flown in, that comes from farther away than our normal hundred kilometres, say, is going to cost that much more to get to us," Fruitman said.
"And of course, the cost of fuel affects the cost of production of that food, it affects the cost of feed for the various animals. So, we are on a rising curve, there's no question about it."
Read more From CTV HERE
World Vision cuts aid for 1.5 million people due to rising food costs
World food crisis puts spotlight on biofuels
Better get ready for $2.25 gas
Appetite and debate growing over biofuels
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Sask. may still go nuclear: minister
James Wood, Saskatchewan News NetworkPublished: Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Cheveldayoff, whose responsibilities include SaskPower, was asked in a media scrum about Saskatchewan's nuclear options following an Earth Day question period where the NDP chastised the government for neglecting wind power development.
He said all power options, including nuclear, are in the mix as the utility grapples with growing short and long-term need, which is currently estimated as an additional 800 megawatts in the next 10 to 12 years.
"It's not a matter of what comes first, it's a matter that we need it all. Not only wind and nuclear but we also need hydro generation, we also need to expand the clean-coal project. We're not excluding anything, we're looking at developing all facets of electrical production," he said.
Cheveldayoff cited Saskatchewan's world-leading supply or uranium and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions -- the province has committed to a cut of 32 per cent by 2020 -- as potential factors in favour of nuclear development.
But the large scale of nuclear reactors -- which typically produce a minimum of 1,000 megawatts -- has meant that they have generally been seen as too large for the province. SaskPower's generating capacity is 3,600 megawatts.
There are also huge costs involved in construction of a nuclear plant and significant environmental concerns about nuclear waste.
Read More From Woods HERE
Also
Targets coming, minister says
Cheveldayoff, whose responsibilities include SaskPower, was asked in a media scrum about Saskatchewan's nuclear options following an Earth Day question period where the NDP chastised the government for neglecting wind power development.
He said all power options, including nuclear, are in the mix as the utility grapples with growing short and long-term need, which is currently estimated as an additional 800 megawatts in the next 10 to 12 years.
"It's not a matter of what comes first, it's a matter that we need it all. Not only wind and nuclear but we also need hydro generation, we also need to expand the clean-coal project. We're not excluding anything, we're looking at developing all facets of electrical production," he said.
Cheveldayoff cited Saskatchewan's world-leading supply or uranium and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions -- the province has committed to a cut of 32 per cent by 2020 -- as potential factors in favour of nuclear development.
But the large scale of nuclear reactors -- which typically produce a minimum of 1,000 megawatts -- has meant that they have generally been seen as too large for the province. SaskPower's generating capacity is 3,600 megawatts.
There are also huge costs involved in construction of a nuclear plant and significant environmental concerns about nuclear waste.
Read More From Woods HERE
Also
Targets coming, minister says
Labour bill power grab, SUN charges
Angela Hall, Leader-PostPublished: Tuesday, April 22, 2008
The head of the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses says proposed essential services legislation gives government too much power to deem which categories of workers will be included.
While Bill 5 will allow unions to challenge at the Labour Relations Board the number of workers required to maintain essential services during a labour dispute, unions won't be able to challenge which classifications of jobs are impacted by the legislation, said SUN president Rosalee Longmoore.
Longmoore argued employers will "over-designate" both what and who is considered essential, resulting in a weakened bargaining process and longer labour disputes.
"If we look at health care, the Crowns sector, if we look at corrections, there are a number of classifications of workers and in a lot of those workplaces the work is very specific," Longmoore said.
"With large numbers of classifications like that they are likely to name every classification in the event they need someone to come in during a work stoppage."
Read More from Angela HERE
Nurse Strike Becoming Likely
SFL protests Bills 5, 6
The head of the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses says proposed essential services legislation gives government too much power to deem which categories of workers will be included.
While Bill 5 will allow unions to challenge at the Labour Relations Board the number of workers required to maintain essential services during a labour dispute, unions won't be able to challenge which classifications of jobs are impacted by the legislation, said SUN president Rosalee Longmoore.
Longmoore argued employers will "over-designate" both what and who is considered essential, resulting in a weakened bargaining process and longer labour disputes.
"If we look at health care, the Crowns sector, if we look at corrections, there are a number of classifications of workers and in a lot of those workplaces the work is very specific," Longmoore said.
"With large numbers of classifications like that they are likely to name every classification in the event they need someone to come in during a work stoppage."
Read More from Angela HERE
Nurse Strike Becoming Likely
SFL protests Bills 5, 6
Deep Water: The Rising Seas
When it comes to global warming, are we getting in too deep? Here’s a look at the top 10 U.S. cities at risk from rising sea levels.
By Shiwani Srivastava for MSN City Guides
Global warming might be the current hot topic in the news, but the threat of rising sea levels can often seem distant, uncontrollable and even abstract. Just how soon can we expect to feel the impact? And is there really anything we can do about it?In December, the OECD – a Paris-based international organization that gathers and analyzes economic statistics and social data to benefit the global economy – released a report listing the cities worldwide that are most threatened by rising seas in the next 60 years, measured by population and property assets at risk. U.S. cities ranked surprisingly high on the list, capturing five of the top 10 spots, with all but one of the top 10 U.S. cities ranking in the top 30 worldwide.
See a slide show of U.S. cities most at risk
Read More from Shiwani Srivastava
Report: Climate change will threaten beer production
By Caroline McCarthy, CNET news.com
We all know already that climate change will affect everything from food prices to cute baby polar bears.But now it's really hitting home, folks. A report from a researcher at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand suggests that rising temperatures may threaten beer.An Associated Press report details the findings from climate scientist Jim Salinger, who presented his research at the Institute of Brewing and Distilling's annual convention in Wellington, New Zealand. The grim results? Climate change may affect the production of malting barley, an ingredient crucial to the tasty beers we all know and love.If we aren't careful, the regions in Australia and New Zealand in which malting barley can grow could experience some tragic shrinkage. Salinger's study didn't extend beyond those two countries, but he did warn that "similar effects could be expected" across the globe."It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up," the Associated Press article quoted Salinger as saying.One word: Noooooooooooo!
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Wall won't join TILMA, but he likes co-operation
Angela Hall, Leader-PostPublished: Thursday, April 17, 2008
Premier Brad Wall says his Sask. Party government still has concerns about the trade pact forged between British Columbia and Alberta, and brushed aside NDP suggestions that he's now thinking about signing on.
Wall said he's not in favour of joining the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) because of outstanding issues about its impact on certain tax incentives and on Crown corporation subsidiaries.
The premier said TILMA has been presented as a take-it-or-leave-it agreement.
"Under those circumstances we will not take it," Wall said.
Read More from Hall HERE
Premier Brad Wall says his Sask. Party government still has concerns about the trade pact forged between British Columbia and Alberta, and brushed aside NDP suggestions that he's now thinking about signing on.
Wall said he's not in favour of joining the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) because of outstanding issues about its impact on certain tax incentives and on Crown corporation subsidiaries.
The premier said TILMA has been presented as a take-it-or-leave-it agreement.
"Under those circumstances we will not take it," Wall said.
Read More from Hall HERE
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Saskatchewan oil: Persia on the Prairies?
Energy finds in Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, North Dakota and Pennsylvania could give investors cheap, low-risk -- albeit unconventional -- entries into oil and gas now, and handsome profits later.
By Jon Markman
April 10, 2008
Western North Dakota and western Pennsylvania, by which I mean the middle of nowhere, are on track to become the center of the universe for energy companies over the next few years as geologists, speculators and attorneys battle for control of two of the most important and unusual oil and gas finds of the past three decades.
Before the battle is fully defined and winners are awarded the spoils, there's plenty of time for investors to make low-risk bets that could generate great returns over the next few years. There are even cheaper opportunities north of these two hot spots, in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, which share the same rich rock formations but have yet to attract as much interest.
It may be a little hard to believe that these forlorn areas -- far from the glamorously derrick-dotted plains of Texas, Oklahoma and California -- could yield the sort of riches that attract the diamond-studded-cowboy-hat crowd, but energy exploration has never exactly gone hand in hand with the tourist trade. So put on your mukluks and parka, get out your atlas and prepare for a visit to the Bakken and Marcellus shales.
Read More From Markman HERE
Also
Oil survey brings good news for Saskatchewan
Wall taps Lougheed for advice on boom
By Jon Markman
April 10, 2008
Western North Dakota and western Pennsylvania, by which I mean the middle of nowhere, are on track to become the center of the universe for energy companies over the next few years as geologists, speculators and attorneys battle for control of two of the most important and unusual oil and gas finds of the past three decades.
Before the battle is fully defined and winners are awarded the spoils, there's plenty of time for investors to make low-risk bets that could generate great returns over the next few years. There are even cheaper opportunities north of these two hot spots, in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, which share the same rich rock formations but have yet to attract as much interest.
It may be a little hard to believe that these forlorn areas -- far from the glamorously derrick-dotted plains of Texas, Oklahoma and California -- could yield the sort of riches that attract the diamond-studded-cowboy-hat crowd, but energy exploration has never exactly gone hand in hand with the tourist trade. So put on your mukluks and parka, get out your atlas and prepare for a visit to the Bakken and Marcellus shales.
Read More From Markman HERE
Also
Oil survey brings good news for Saskatchewan
Wall taps Lougheed for advice on boom
Wall accuses NDP of favouring labour unions
Here's a good one........
Angela Hall, Leader-PostPublished: Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Saskatchewan Party government is accusing NDP members of opposing labour bills at the behest of unions that donate cash to their election campaigns.
But Premier Brad Wall said corporate donations the Saskatchewan Party receives each year do not have an influence on his government's positions. The Saskatchewan Party government drew attention Tuesday, for the second day in a row, to the fact that a number of NDP campaigns received contributions from unions during the fall election.
Read More From Hall HERE
Also From Mandryk
So is the Sask. Party a puppet of business?
Angela Hall, Leader-PostPublished: Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Saskatchewan Party government is accusing NDP members of opposing labour bills at the behest of unions that donate cash to their election campaigns.
But Premier Brad Wall said corporate donations the Saskatchewan Party receives each year do not have an influence on his government's positions. The Saskatchewan Party government drew attention Tuesday, for the second day in a row, to the fact that a number of NDP campaigns received contributions from unions during the fall election.
Read More From Hall HERE
Also From Mandryk
So is the Sask. Party a puppet of business?
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Misconceptions get in the way
By Jane Foster - The Battlefords: News Optimist
The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour Aboriginal Committee has identified three common myths which stand as barriers to a workforce which is representative of the population
of Saskatchewan.
Misconceptions about Aboriginal people, says the committee, are based on stereotypes and lack of information. In extreme cases, misconceptions can manifest themselves as discrimination and racism. In the workplace, these conditions can adversely impact Aboriginal employment and retention intitiatives.
This three part series will address those three myths, which are: Myth No. 1 - All Aboriginal people get a free education; Myth No. 2 - All Aboriginal people don’t pay taxes; Myth No. 3. - All Aboriginal people get free housing.
The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour Aboriginal Committee has identified three common myths which stand as barriers to a workforce which is representative of the population
of Saskatchewan.
Misconceptions about Aboriginal people, says the committee, are based on stereotypes and lack of information. In extreme cases, misconceptions can manifest themselves as discrimination and racism. In the workplace, these conditions can adversely impact Aboriginal employment and retention intitiatives.
This three part series will address those three myths, which are: Myth No. 1 - All Aboriginal people get a free education; Myth No. 2 - All Aboriginal people don’t pay taxes; Myth No. 3. - All Aboriginal people get free housing.
Above, delegates at a Saskatchewan Federation of Labour Aboriginal Committee is seen in front of the Gold Eagle Lodge in North Battleford. The Lodge and the Gold Eagle Casino are located on urban reserve land, which means First Nations people who are considered “Status Indians” do not have to pay income tax on income earned there. Left to right (standing) are: Al Chaisson; Bill Anderson; Pete Tompkins; Jackson Hein7; Darwin Delorme; (seated) Darla Leard; Glenna Olenick; Marjorie Huard; Tracy Seidel; and Leone Neville. Photo by Jayne Foster
Myth No. 1 - All Aboriginal people get a free education;
Myth No. 2 - All Aboriginal people don’t pay taxes;
Myth No.3. - All Aboriginal people get free housing.
Also
Report foresees carbon tax on polluting countries
Jobs could return to Canada, CIBC World Markets predicts
Mar 27, 2008 02:59 PM Romina Maurino THE CANADIAN PRESS
Countries such as Canada and the United States may impose a "carbon tariff" on goods from China and other developing countries in the next few years, a move that could bring manufacturing jobs back to North America, CIBC World Markets predicts.
The investment bank's report says the economies of China, India and other developing countries have expanded so much that they now surpass the established industrialized world in belching out carbon dioxide pollution blamed for climate change.
"It becomes absurdly quixotic to ban coal plants in North America while at the same time China's got 570 coal plants slated to go into production between now and 2012, 30 plants between now and the Olympics," CIBC economist Jeff Rubin said.
"We're moving in opposite directions."
With some advanced countries enacting carbon taxes, carbon trading systems and other measures to lower emissions, CIBC believes the growing pollution from developing countries will provoke penalties against their exports.
That would benefit the environment, and will also bring certain jobs back to North America, since carbon emission taxes and high oil prices would offset the benefit of cheap labour, Rubin says.
Read More HERE
Mar 27, 2008 02:59 PM Romina Maurino THE CANADIAN PRESS
Countries such as Canada and the United States may impose a "carbon tariff" on goods from China and other developing countries in the next few years, a move that could bring manufacturing jobs back to North America, CIBC World Markets predicts.
The investment bank's report says the economies of China, India and other developing countries have expanded so much that they now surpass the established industrialized world in belching out carbon dioxide pollution blamed for climate change.
"It becomes absurdly quixotic to ban coal plants in North America while at the same time China's got 570 coal plants slated to go into production between now and 2012, 30 plants between now and the Olympics," CIBC economist Jeff Rubin said.
"We're moving in opposite directions."
With some advanced countries enacting carbon taxes, carbon trading systems and other measures to lower emissions, CIBC believes the growing pollution from developing countries will provoke penalties against their exports.
That would benefit the environment, and will also bring certain jobs back to North America, since carbon emission taxes and high oil prices would offset the benefit of cheap labour, Rubin says.
Read More HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)