On one of those political listservs, NL Politics, I often engage in quite provocative exchanges and discussions with other interested parties. Whilst we don't always agree, out of debate (and yes, discourse) can sometimes come novel ideas worth sharing. This is one of those. What does this have to do with Labrador, the South Coast specifically, or Newfoundland and Labrador in general? Read, and decide for yourselves.A New Energy Policy for N.A.F.T.A.What's wrong with legislating an energy policy for the entire country?
One that sees a benchmark for domestic oil used for domestic production, for domestic consumption at $50 a bbl? And a formula that says for every $1 on a barrel of oil = 1ยข on a liter of any fuel?
It's a pretty simple idea: Set aside so much production for domestic consumption and legislate/regulate the price to protect the economy and prevent poverty: Seeing as energy is the catalyst for all aspects of life these days. Apply the same formula to natural gas and hydro.
Is this too radical an idea? Is governed capitalism too socialistic?
As for the carbon tax, after the benchmark for fuel pricing has been set, then add a carbon tax that is progressive in nature. A carbon tax on fuel hogging personal vehicles, but not on semi's and the like. A progressive carbon tax on electricity as well, no tax on your first $250 bill, but after that, incremental increases in the tax.
I realize this is all very Chavexian (new term coined, yay me!) in theory. I realize it's all quite a bit like it has been touched by the ghost of Karl Marx, but that isn't the case.
I believe economic stability and national security for both Canada and the United States, as well as Newfoundland&Labrador lies in energy stability. Why do you think there is such a push on to make Canada and Newfoundland&Labrador energy warehouses? Why? Because the primary interest of the USofA is National Security and that can only be achieved through economic stability, and central to that is stability in the energy market.
This is very much a capitalist approach, and the NAFTA renegotiation that Hillary dared speak of (let slip is more like it) is on the minds of all three present candidates in the great republic just south of us. Our cousins in the lower 48, Alaska and Hawaii. And certainly on the minds of PM Harper, Messrs Dion, Ignatieff and Ray, as well as Presidente Felipe De Jesus Calderon Hinojosa.
If our NAFTA economy can be planned and managed, in general terms, with economic stability in mind, then all countries win. If our NAFTA economy can be protected and thus our National security, then we must stabilize the one commodity that unites all: energy in all its various forms.
I believe that a new economic tenet has to be resolved in the hearts of all capitalists and governments in the new world first, and then adopted by other free nations: Basic commodities that are building blocks of human survival must be exempt from normal controls and also from free-for-all market forces. Such commodities must include, but not be limited to: energy, water, oxygen and soil... which just happen to be the main elements (Earth, Wind, Fire, Water).
Perhaps I'm getting a little loopy off my Jack & Coke. Perhaps I'm making sense.