http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080328/federal_surplus_080328/20080328?hub=Politics

Tax, GST cuts eat away at federal surplus

Updated Fri. Mar. 28 2008 7:56 PM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — The days of the federal government routinely recording surpluses in the tens of billions appear to be over, a new finance department report on its fiscal position suggests.

The department’s fiscal monitor released Friday shows that revenue growth came to a sudden halt in January, shrinking the surplus for the month to a mere $600 million as the GST cut and personal income tax reductions announced last fall began eating away at Ottawa’s tax haul.

The finance department said revenues dropped $900 million, or 3.9 per cent, in January. Last year during the month, the budgetary surplus was $2.4 billion.

For the first 10 months of the fiscal year that ends Monday, the accumulated surplus was $10 billion, down $600 million from the corresponding period last year.

“The results to date reflect the impact of personal income tax relief measures introduced in the October 2007 economic statement,” the report states.

Meanwhile, program expenses were up $10.8 billion, or 7.2 per cent, for the period, due to higher transfer payments to provinces and individuals, and program expenses, such as the cost of fighting the war in Afghanistan.

Program spending by the Defence Department stood at $14.5 billion by the end of January, up 10.7 per cent from the corresponding 10-month period last year.

Prior to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s fall mini-budget, many had been predicting the federal surplus for the fiscal year could top $20 billion.

But in last month’s budget, Flaherty forecast the year’s surplus would be $10.2 billion, dropping to $2.3 billion next year and $1.3 billion in the 2009-2010 period.

The January fiscal monitor appears to confirm that the surpluses enjoyed in recent years are unlikely to be matched for some time due to a combination of tax cuts and a slowing economy expected to grow just slightly above last year’s 2.7 per cent rate.

But Dale Orr of Global Insight Canada said he doesn’t believe the government is in any serious danger of falling into a deficit position, even though economic growth this year is unlikely to reach the budget’s working premise of 1.7 per cent.

“The drivers of their revenues and expenses have been doing better than you would suppose because the labour market remains strong and payouts for employment insurance are low,” he said. “On top of that, they could get $1 billion from the spectrum auction (for cellphone providers), and they didn’t account for that in the budget.”

Orr said real gross domestic product growth is now expected to come in at about 1.5 per cent this year. But nominal GDP, which includes inflation, is likely to meet the government’s 3.5 per cent forecast due to higher revenues from high-priced oil.

And most government revenues from personal taxes, GST revenues and business taxes reflect nominal — not inflation adjusted — growth, he noted.

Another bright spot for the government is that the cost of servicing the national debt continues to fall as a result of lower interest rates and the government’s record of making payments on the principal. Debt charges were down $400 million during the first 10 months of the fiscal year.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080328.wbcemerson28/BNStory/National/home

As Emerson weighs options, Tories contemplate hefty loss
The floor-crossing MP has brought real-world experience to cabinet, but many believe he won’t run again

STEVEN CHASE

From Friday’s Globe and Mail

March 28, 2008 at 5:05 AM EDT

OTTAWA — In big amber digits, a counter David Emerson unveiled near Parliament Hill last month tracks the time left before the 2010 Winter Olympics - much the same way the clock appears to be ticking down on the Conservative cabinet minister’s career in federal politics.

If the Vancouver MP bows out before the next election - and Tories privately say there’s a significant probability he will - his departure will be a blow for the party.

Mr. Emerson, a former CEO of lumber giant Canfor Corp., provided the Conservatives with the big-city cabinet talent they sorely lacked when he defected to them shortly after winning his seat as a Liberal in the 2006 election.

His crossing the floor gave the Tories their only seat in Vancouver. It also sent a signal, Conservatives hoped, that urban voters could embrace a party that had failed to make electoral inroads into Canada’s biggest cities: Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.

Mr. Emerson has yet to reveal whether he will run again in the next election - expected as early as this spring - and his Vancouver Kingsway riding is one of only a handful in the Lower Mainland where the Tories have yet to nominate a candidate for the next vote.

It’s unlikely he’d win in Vancouver Kingsway if he decided to run there as a Conservative. The Tories haven’t won that riding since 1958, and he’d face a concerted effort by Liberals to unseat the man who betrayed their party, as well as from New Democrats seeking to regain a seat they have often held. The Conservatives are prepared to find Mr. Emerson a safer seat in the Lower Mainland to contest, but they’re not confident he will accept the offer, sources say.

Privately, Tories say Mr. Emerson has emerged as a major contributor around the cabinet table, where he brings real-world experience to bear on discussions: know-how from his days in the business world and as a senior mandarin in the B.C. government.

“His overarching job - to be a person who has a view on the broader economic agenda - is extremely valuable and there are few people at the cabinet table who can come close to matching him in that regard,” said Thomas d’Aquino, head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, which represents 150 leading Canadian chief executive officers.

Mr. Emerson is the only minister in Mr. Harper’s 27-member cabinet who has run a major Canadian corporation.

The Tory government has recognized Mr. Emerson’s managerial smarts by steadily giving him more responsibility. In August of 2007 he took over chairmanship of the cabinet’s agenda-setting economic affairs committee from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. And just last month Mr. Emerson assumed the helm of a new cabinet committee to provide more ministerial oversight on the Afghanistan mission.

It’s expertise that is not easily replaced, Ottawa watchers say.

“I think he would be a loss to the cabinet and a loss to the Harper government … if he did not run,” Mr. d’Aquino said.

Mr. Emerson said this month that he hasn’t decided whether to run again. “I am watching the timing of an election and having discussions with my family and the [Prime Minister].”

In an interview in December, Mr. Emerson said he’d decide based on what was best for his wife and children.

“For me it’s been a very positive experience … So, as we get close to an election call, we’re just going to have to make a decision as to what’s in the best interests of the family,” he said. “Whatever [happens], I will try to continue to contribute in some way.”

More comfortable as a senior government mandarin than as a politician, Mr. Emerson justified his defection to the Tories as the best way to keep serving British Columbia from a position of influence.

The Conservatives hoped at the time that his move would attract Vancouver voters to the party, whose support lies mainly in rural and suburban Canada. But while he’s been successful as the Trade Minister - negotiating a truce in the Canada-U.S. softwood-lumber dispute and concluding two free-trade deals - Mr. Emerson’s success in attracting Conservative political support in Vancouver is difficult to discern.

University of British Columbia political scientist Allan Tupper said the controversy surrounding Mr. Emerson’s defection - only weeks after being elected as a Liberal - hurt his ability to establish himself as the public face of the Conservatives in Vancouver.

“For a long time after, he would be followed around by protesters at public events. That’s very constraining,” Prof. Tupper said.

Still, the Tories may be gaining ground in Vancouver regardless of Mr. Emerson. The Tories nearly won Vancouver Quadra for the first time in 28 years in the March 17 federal by-election, coming within 152 votes of the Liberals.

“It was certainly an impressive Conservative showing in Quadra. You can’t discount that,” Prof. Tupper said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080330.winmateinterview0330/BNStory/National/home

Federal prisoners could be muzzled from media

TAMARA KING

Canadian Press

March 30, 2008 at 11:44 AM EDT

WINNIPEG — Staff at Canada’s penitentiaries have been told that they can turn down requests from reporters to interview inmates out of concern they could be discussing how to build bombs or skirt the prison’s security system.

It’s part of a broader policy that also allows the Correctional Service of Canada to deny access if there are concerns that media coverage could revictimize those who suffered from the inmate’s crimes, or if a prison committee decides it would be “contrary to the objectives of the offender’s correctional plan.”

Public safety is the priority in any decision about whether to allow inmates to speak, said Jeff Campbell, communications manager for corrections in the Prairies region.

The guidelines, which Mr. Campbell said he received last year, mean that reporters must outline why they want to interview an inmate so the request can be reviewed by a case management team. That team can include a psychologist and parole and corrections officers.

“If you were talking about how to make a bomb or how to zap the security system, that sort of thing, certainly that would be a concern for the on-site folks in terms of the security of the institution,” Mr. Campbell said from Saskatoon.

At Stony Mountain Institution in Manitoba, it used to be fairly easy to talk to inmates such as Frank Ostrowski, a convict who has been trying to convince people for two decades that he’s not guilty of the 1986 murder for which he was convicted. Now reporters wanting a word with Mr. Ostrowski — even if they’ve been speaking regularly with him for years — have to tell a prison media handler each time why they want an interview.

No exceptions.

The policy also requires the institution to consider how a story would affect the safety of people outside its walls.

“Are you going to discuss someone who says, ‘On the eighth of July when I walk out of this place, I’m going to track down so-and-so and I’m going to burn their house,’ or whatever? That would pose, I think, a concern for the safety of that person,” said Mr. Campbell.

“That’s an extreme example, obviously, but again, that’s something we review with the institutional head, who has the ultimate jurisdiction with granting those requests.”

While it’s understood that safety is a concern, the suggestion that a media story about an inmate could traumatize victims doesn’t make a lot of sense considering the same details would be revealed in court and at parole board hearings, said Jean-Claude Bernheim, the head of a Quebec prisoners rights group

“Free speech must be applied to the inmates,” said Mr. Bernheim, a criminology professor based in Montreal.

Craig Jones of the John Howard Society prisoners advocacy group said he has not heard of the guidelines but isn’t surprised given the current political climate in Ottawa.

“This government is very controlling of all communications. I think they’ve put everyone on notice that they don’t want anybody speaking extemporaneously or at liberty,” said Mr. Jones, the executive director of the Kingston-based organization.

“They are looking, as much as possible, to control every message.”

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, who is ultimately responsible for Canada’s prison system, deferred all questions to the Correctional Service of Canada.

Guy Campeau, the service’s acting director of media relations, denied the suggestion that Ottawa is trying to control messages. He noted that only “a clear, clear minority” of reporters’ requests to interview inmates are turned down.

“You seem to think we don’t want people to talk to certain people. That’s not the case here. We have very strict guidelines, and they’re in the policy, and we abide by them,” Mr. Campeau said from Ottawa.

Mr. Campeau also said the policy has been in place for a number of years, although he may have reminded staff about it last year.

Constitutional law professor Debra Parkes says the government is allowed to limit some prisoners’ rights as long as there are strong reasons with a social objective — such as public safety.

But historically the media have played an important role in helping uncover wrongful convictions, so Ms. Parkes feels the government has to be careful about restricting charter rights such as freedom of expression.

“Frankly, as someone who researches in the area of prisoners’ rights, I think media interest in what goes on inside prisons is very important in a free and democratic society,” said Ms. Parkes, who teaches at the University of Manitoba.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/404850

Ontario developing program to tackle 12 million old tires thrown away every year
Mar 28, 2008 04:30 AM
Kerry Gillespie
Queen’s Park Bureau

Ontarians throw away some 12 million used tires a year and, unlike other provinces with government recycling programs, too many are left in dangerous stockpiles, buried in landfills or shipped out of province to be burned as fuel.

That’s about to change, says Environment Minister John Gerretsen.

Ontario motorists will likely be required to pay a fee of a few dollars when they buy new tires to ensure they’re recycled later, under a plan now being developed.

“It’s unacceptable that Ontario is the only jurisdiction in Canada that doesn’t have (a tire recycling program) right now and that’s why we want to get one going as quickly as possible,” Gerretsen said in an interview.

He has already talked to Waste Diversion Ontario, which creates recycling programs, and Gerretsen said he expects the government will approve a tire program this year.

Tuesday’s provincial budget included $200,000 to prepare an up-to-date inventory of tire stockpiles because there’s little accurate information about the millions of stored tires.

In other provinces, when people buy passenger vehicle tires, they generally pay a fee of between $3 and $5. That money is used to recycle the old tires into products from running tracks to roof shingles.

Ontario once had a similar fee, $5 per tire, but don’t try calling that a recycling program in front of Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller.

“That was the worst of all worlds. They were charging and everyone believed there to be a program, but the money was going to the general revenue stream,” said Miller, who was a bureaucrat at the time.

Given that unpopular tire tax – introduced by David Peterson’s Liberals in 1989 and killed by Bob Rae’s NDP in 1993 – recent governments have shied away from implementing a new tire program.

In 2005, when Waste Diversion Ontario proposed charging a $4 fee on passenger vehicle tires and a $6 fee on truck tires – and making sure the money was actually spent on recycling – the ghost of the previous program rose and in the middle of the controversy, Premier Dalton McGuinty killed it.

“There will be no tire tax. Everybody get that one?” McGuinty told reporters then.

When asked about that, Gerretsen said: “I’d rather not dwell on the past as to what happened when it didn’t happen.

“We as a government want to get much more aggressive in the whole recycling field. Whether we’re talking about blue box, hazardous waste, electronic waste or the tire program, we can do so much more,” he said.

That Gerretsen is taking the plunge on a new tire program is great, Miller said.

Right now, it’s hard to say what’s happening with the 12 million old tires Ontarians throw away each year. The Canadian Rubber Association estimates roughly half are shipped to the United States where they are burned as fuel and the rest are recycled, here or elsewhere, or stockpiled.

“There is some amount of tire recycling, but it’s sporadic,” Miller said. There’s a firm in Toronto that turns used tires into subflooring for new buildings and car parts and another in Woodbridge that makes playground surfaces, so, left on its own, the private market in Ontario has made inroads.

But there are consequences to not having a provincial program to direct efforts, Miller said.

For one, there’s no way to know that a company that takes used tires is actually recycling them and not just stockpiling them or shipping them for use as fuel.

“Tires are still being stockpiled and improperly disposed of,” said Miller, who doesn’t oppose some tires being used as fuel but thinks public policy should push toward higher-end recycling uses.

This week’s budget included $1.5 million to clean up an illegal stockpile of 300,000 tires in Middlesex County.

The 1990 Hagersville tire fire near Hamilton showed just how dangerous such stockpiles can be.

That blaze, involving 14 million tires, burned for 17 days and forced the evacuation of 1,200 people. It cost the province $10 million to fight the fire and clean up the mess. (The blaze prompted other provinces to pass laws to properly handle and recycle tires.)

A government-directed tire program could also force higher-end recycling, such as breaking down the tires into their original components and reusing the oil, carbon and steel, said Miller, instead of doing what’s easiest – such as burning tires for fuel or making blasting mats that are used in mining and construction but ultimately wind up in a landfill.

“We have the economies of scale, the technology, the markets, we should be doing the best of anybody in Canada,” on tire recycling, Miller said.

Gerretsen seems to agree. He speaks excitedly about Nova Scotia where tires are turned into roof shingles.

“My golly, I had a couple of them in my hand, I actually couldn’t tell any difference. It’s imagination like that, that we need as we go along,” Gerretsen said.

There will be controversy, too. Whether the fee is upfront for consumers, as was suggested the last time, or is charged to manufacturers who pass it on through a higher priced tire, consumers pay more.

Other provinces have opted for the upfront fee. That generally goes to a not-for-profit corporation that manages the recycling program on behalf of the government. It is expected Ontario would do something similar.

“The current minister has said something is coming back, we’ll have to wait and see, but I don’t anticipate it will be much different” than the $4 fee system proposed in 2005, Miller said.

While environmentally positive, this is politically challenging for the Liberals because opposition parties will try to label it as a broken promise not to raise taxes.

But Miller thinks Ontarians are well prepared for this one.

Recently, a friend asked him about the “environmental tax” he paid when he replaced his old tires.

“It’s a disposal fee that (shops) are charging on the old tires when you get new ones and they’re calling it a tax,” Miller said. “That has been happening in many tire shops across the province. … So if (the government) put this in place to drive recycling, I don’t think it would be as hard to implement because there’s an expectation now that in most shops when you buy tires you have to pay something.”

http://www.thestar.com/SpecialSections/EarthHour/article/407295

Mar 30, 2008 04:30 AM
Allan Woods

Thanks to its place of prominence in the capital, 24 Sussex Dr., the Prime Minister’s residence, is always easy to spot. As Ottawa went dark last night for Earth Hour, it was even easier.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s lights stayed on.

The ever-illuminated Peace Tower on Parliament Hill went black at the stroke of 8 p.m., as did the lighted “Canada” signs that adorn federal buildings in the capital.

Stornoway, official residence of Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, was almost impossible to find among the mansions in Ottawa’s upscale Rockliffe neighbourhood. Dion, a former environment minister, even delivered a speech by candlelight in Toronto to a gala dinner recognizing Greek independence.

Rideau Hall, home to Governor General Michaëlle Jean, was dark and federal Environment Minister John Baird was at his Nepean home “with the lights off, of course,” said spokesperson Eric Richer.

But two ground-floor rooms in Harper’s house stayed on and inquiries to a PMO spokesperson were not returned. The third-floor offices on Parliament Hill that house the Prime Minister’s Office were also among the few lights that stayed on, prompting a jeer from a handful of Green Party activists who had gathered in the cold to mark the occasion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http:/www.thestar.com/SpecialSections/EarthHour/article/407300
Mar 30, 2008 04:30 AM
Christian Aagaard
The Record of Waterloo Region

Residents in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the surrounding townships knocked power consumption down by 3 to 5 per cent, said officials of Waterloo Region’s three hydro utilities.

One resident organized a party at Kitchener City Hall that attracted about 250 glow-stick waving Earth Hour fans.

“It’s awesome to see a lot of people here,” said Dan Lauckner, who set up the party in only a month. Down the street, at 20 King restaurant, patrons enjoyed gourmet meals by candlelight. General manager Chris Farley said he had most of his lights off, including many in the kitchen. Only the light above the grill was lit “so we could see the colour of the meat.”

Donna and Dave Uez said they were pleasantly surprised to see many of the lights off in the restaurant. And Ron Caudle, who was having dinner with his wife, Sylvia, at another table, said: “It was kind of romantic. They should do this more often.”

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/407181

Mar 30, 2008 04:30 AM
Thomas Walkom

Milton Friedman, the late, great conservative economist, used to say there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Those who promote so-called public-private partnerships, or P3s, as a panacea for cash-strapped governments, should heed that adage. If the public wants something, it will have to pay. The only real question is how much.

First, let’s be clear what P3 means. Governments and private firms have done business since antiquity. In Ontario, private contractors routinely pave roads and build schools. This is not new.

What is new is the terminology and scope. “Partnership” is one of those fuzzy words beloved by management consultants and politicians. It sounds nicer than “deal.”

But in reality, a P3 is simply a deal between a government and a private firm to build something. Where it differs from a standard construction contract is in the financing.

In a modern P3, such as Brampton’s new Civic Hospital, the private-sector side is responsible for not just building the project but arranging the loans that fund it.

The government, in turn, agrees to repay those loans, as well as all other costs, over time – usually 25 to 30 years.

As always, the money for these repayments comes from taxes. So let’s get rid of the first myth, that P3s allow cash-strapped governments to tap money without bothering taxpayers. The money comes from where it always does – us. We pay now or later. But we pay.

The obvious question, then, is: Are P3s good deals? Does the public pay less by having a private firm borrow on its behalf?

This is an empirical question that is simply answered. The answer is no. Even P3 proponents agree that governments can borrow at interest rates that are one or two percentage points lower than those paid by private firms.

This is not a trivial difference. A one-percentage point interest-rate differential on a 25-year loan will increase total borrowing costs by 28 per cent. A two-percentage differential leads to a 64 per cent cost increase; three percentage points (not impossible in these credit-crisis days) more than doubles financing costs.

Proponents say that these extra costs are more than covered by the intrinsic efficiencies of private enterprise. Yet the evidence suggests otherwise.

As articles in the British Medical Journal have pointed out, P3 hospitals in the United Kingdom are more costly than their purely public counterparts. Government auditors in Australia have found much the same thing.

In Ontario, Highway 407 was trumpeted by both the New Democrats (who started it) and the Conservatives (who finished it) as a P3 exemplar.

Yet, as the provincial auditor has noted, that toll road was the product of a deal that saddled the public with all the risks and gave private firms all the rewards.

The Brampton Civic Hospital, a more recent P3, is lauded by the current Liberal government because it came in at its $550 million budgeted cost.

That’s true. But what’s also true is that this final cost figure (negotiated after Queen’s Park had chosen its private sector partner) was $130 million more than the government’s original estimate.

In short, much fancy footwork goes on to justify P3s. Yet what seems clear from real-life examples is that they rarely save money. What’s equally clear is that governments like them because their real costs remain hidden until years later.

For we who have to foot the bill, that’s not much of an argument.

Thomas Walkom writes on political economy. His column usually appears Thursday and Saturday.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
also
http://www.thestar.com/Article/407182

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jhnDMz7BxlUpLrh3T5QH3070gVVg

Japan baseball looking to fight global warming with shorter games

Mar 18, 2008

TOKYO — Japanese baseball is going green.

As part of the fight against global warming, Japanese professional baseball has come up with a plan to shorten its games and reduce carbon dioxide emissions at stadiums.

Teams will aim to cut playing time by six per cent, or 12 minutes, from the average of three hours and 18 minutes per game, Japan pro baseball officials said Tuesday.

Under the plan, teams will be required to spend no more than two minutes and 15 seconds when they change from fielding to batting.

Pitchers will be asked to throw within 15 seconds of receiving the ball from the catcher when no runners are on base.

The proposal to cut playing time was set in accordance with Japan’s pledge to cut its emissions of greenhouse gasses by six per cent from 1990 levels between 2008 and 2010 under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Japanese baseball officials said staging games results in a huge amount of carbon dioxides to be discharged through the use of energy to move players and spectators, supply electricity for lighting and other purposes.

Japan is struggling to meet its emissions cuts obligations under the Kyoto pact.

Even before the latest plan, Japanese baseball has been looking for ways to speed up the pace of games.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2008/03/19/business_groups_campaign_against_climate_change_bill/

By Matthew Brown
Associated Press Writer / March 19, 2008

BILLINGS, Mont.—Energy companies and other business interests have launched a nationwide campaign to undermine climate change legislation pending in Congress, saying it could cost millions of jobs, drive gasoline prices sharply higher and suck thousands of dollars from household incomes.
more stories like this

The effort comes as the Senate prepares to take up in coming months a bill that would cut greenhouse emissions by up to 65 percent by 2050. The bill would create a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions, forcing companies to pay to pollute.

On a 17-state tour that began this week with stops in North Dakota and Montana, industry-funded economists said the legislation threatens to sacrifice three to four million jobs over the next two decades, as higher energy prices dampen industrial production.

Higher gas and electricity prices also would take a bite out of workers’ paychecks, to the tune of up to $6,700 a year by 2030, said Margo Thorning, chief economist with the American Council for Capital Formation, whose supporters include ExxonMobil.

“The link between economic growth and energy can’t be broken,” Thorning said. “There will be cutbacks in production, losses in productivity.”

Supporters of greenhouse gas restrictions rejected Thorning’s claims as biased and exaggerated. The burning of fossil fuels is considered the top human-caused contributor to climate change.

An adviser to Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer — a Democrat who has prodded for federal action on the issue — called Thorning’s economic projections “nonsense” after she spoke Wednesday in Billings.

“They’ve been denying climate change is happening for so long, and now they’re trying anything they can to scare people,” said Eric Stern, senior counselor to Schweitzer. “This is a petroleum industry front group that is literally like a cigarette company promoting a study that says smoking is good for you.”

Thorning’s appearance was sponsored in part by the electric utility PPL Montana and MDU Resources, a North Dakota-based oil and gas company. She said Montana alone faces a 140 percent rise in gasoline prices, the loss of 15,000 jobs that might otherwise be created and income losses of up to $5,321 per household under the Congressional bill.

But Stern and other critics said the business community had failed to account for an emerging boom in “green” energy, driven by investments in wind power and advanced coal plants that produce fewer greenhouse gases.

They also said projections for a long-term drop in the gross domestic product should be cast against an economy that the federal government expects to almost double by 2030. Thorning projected the GDP drop would range from less than 1 percent to almost 3 percent.

“This is a fairly small number — in the context of a much larger economy down the road — that we can handle,” said Tom Power, economics professor emeritus at the University of Montana.

The climate bill pending before Congress is sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and John Warner, R-VA. It is the only major climate legislation so far to be approved at the committee level, passing out of the Environment and Public Works committee on Dec. 5 on a vote of 11-8.

Lieberman spokesman Scott Overland said the bill is scheduled for debate before the full senate in June.

An Environmental Protection Agency analysis issued March 14 said the bill’s cost to the nation’s economy over the next two decades could be as low as $238 billion — less than half the $631 billion figure forecast by industry.

In a statement, Warner said the EPA had shown a healthy economy and climate change action were not exclusive of one another. “You can control greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that leaves the economy whole and is not burdensome on consumers,” he said.

William Kovacs, vice president with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, another sponsor of the campaign against the Warner-Lieberman bill, said the goal of that effort was not to block emissions reductions. Rather, he said, the business community wants reductions through innovations, such as low-pollution power plant technologies. He said government should provide tax breaks or other incentives to encourage such advances.

“We have decided that politically, to be players, we’re going to have to look at carbon dioxide reductions and do it the best way we can,” he said. “Our goal is to reduce carbon and still have energy.”

Upcoming stops scheduled for the industry’s “Climate Change Dialogue” tour include locations in Alaska, Ohio, New Hampshire and Tennessee.
© Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WST_SEA_LIONS_OROL-?SITE=ORKLA&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Mar 21, 7:31 PM EDT

Humane Society files challenge to killing sea lions

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The Humane Society of the United States has filed a challenge to plans to kill sea lions that feast on threatened Columbia River salmon at Bonneville Dam.

The society went to federal court in Washington, D.C., to argue the National Marine Fisheries Service has failed to show the hungry sea lions will have a significant impact on the salmon runs.

A task force decided 17-to-1 last year to recommend granting an exemption to federal law protecting the marine mammals after efforts to scare them away failed.

A spokesman for Indian tribes affected by the sea lions says the challenge has some major factual errors and has mostly emotional appeal, not sound legal reasoning.

Oregon and Washington state will not act on federal authorization to kill the sea lions until Washington completes an environmental review, expected about two weeks after a public comment period that ends April 4th.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

http://www.register-herald.com/homepage/local_story_081001255.html

Obama pays visit to Beckley
Published: March 21, 2008 12:12 am

Democrat discusses coal, energy, veterans, economic concerns at town hall meeting
By Audrey Stanton
Register-Herald Features Editor

Almost as if he were visiting with more than 2,500 longtime friends, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama kept his prepared remarks short and devoted most of his time at the Beckley-Raleigh County Convention Center Thursday evening to candidly answering questions from the audience.

Quite candidly.

For instance, when Nelson Staples of Beckley asked him how he planned to lower the cost of gasoline in the United States, Obama responded with an answer that included investing in alternative fuel research, investing in refinery capacities, having a more sensible policy in the Middle East, strengthening the value of the dollar by improving the economy, charging polluters and creating more fuel-efficient vehicles in the United States.

“But the hard truth is, the only way to, in the long term, reduce gas prices is to reduce demand,” Obama said.

“ … So, in the meantime, what kind of car do you drive?” he asked Staples.

The laughter from those sitting around the Beckley resident gave him away even before he answered: “An Escalade.”

Obama shrugged his shoulders and widened his eyes.

“I’m sorry,” Obama said, “but this is what I’m talking about right here.”

- - -

The issue of efficient energy arose more than once during the 30-minute town hall-style forum as the Illinois senator vowed to help the environment and simultaneously create “millions of new jobs in solar, wind and alternative fuel.”

Chad Foreman of Fayetteville asked Obama how he could help the state strike a balance between the environmental damage caused by the coal and logging industries and the environmental concerns of eco-tourism.

“The truth is, we don’t have perfect energy sources,” Obama said, adding that even though he supports wind energy, he is aware windmills threaten migratory birds. “Every source of energy has some problems. …. There are ways of removing coal that work well … in a way that does not degrade the environment. But there are other companies tearing stuff up. The key for us has to be to work with those companies that are engaging in the best practices and understanding that over time everybody has an investment in the environment of West Virginia. … But we have to do it in a way that does not completely eliminate the industry that provides a livelihood for a lot of people. We have to make a transition to clean energies, but it’s not going to happen overnight.”

Obama has stated that, as president, he intends to put an aggressive renewable energy plan into place that would, by 2020, make 25 percent of the nation’s energy come from alternative sources.

- - -

Coal was also the subject of a question from one of the youngest audience members, a boy from Beckley who identified himself as Aaron. He asked the senator what he would do to keep coal miners, like his father, safe.

“Coal mining remains one of the most dangerous occupations there is,” Obama said. “I want to do everything that’s needed to improve coal mine safety.”

Obama said he planned to meet with Sens. Jay Rockefeller and Robert C. Byrd, both D-W.Va., to make sure the necessary safety measures are in place to ensure the safety of miners.

- - -

Audience questions also addressed the issues of education, veterans and clean water.

One woman, who did not identify herself, said she was an education major at Bluefield State College. She asked what he would do to help students and teachers.

“My student loans will be more than my first-year salary,” she said.

Obama said he wants to give all students a $4,000 tuition credit, “every student, every year,” in exchange for community service. He also said he wants to expand Pell grants because their value has eroded over time.

As to those in the education profession, he said he intends to raise teacher salaries and give them better training and better support for professional development.

“If you devote yourself to teaching, you should be able to devote yourself to a middle-class life,” Obama said.

Another young woman, wearing Army BDUs, asked Obama what he intended to do to help not only veterans, but their spouses. She also said she had heard concerns about his name and faith.

“There are so many rumors flying around,” Obama said. “I’m a Christian. Jesus Christ is my savior. … I’ve never been of another religion. So when people send around e-mails, all they’re trying to do is the usual political nonsense.”

Then he addressed her question, saying the nation must improve conditions for military families, including housing, day care and benefits, not only for military members but their spouses, widows and widowers.

“But the biggest thing we can do for military families is not have them go on three or four tours of duty,” he added, stating he wants to increase the size of the Army and Marines so the same soldiers aren’t constantly redeployed and National Guard troops aren’t overused.

Obama also said he wants to see a new G.I. Bill for the 21st century.

Another resident, who claimed a stream near his home was polluted by coal mining, asked for help.

“I want a strong enforcement of the Clean Water Act,” Obama said, “and I will make sure that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency believes in the environment and … enforces the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.”

- - -

A young woman told Obama his ideas sounded wonderful, but she wanted to know how he intended to fund them.

Obama responded by saying he believed the country could save money and begin working its way out of the current $9 trillion debt by ending the war.

“That will save us all money,” he said, adding money would still need to be spent to rebuild the military, replace ruined equipment and care for veterans.

A second source of money, he said, would come from charging polluters for carbons released in the atmosphere.

“That will produce billions we can invest in clean coal technology,” Obama said.

A third source would come from taking back the Bush tax cuts given to the top 1 percent and eliminating loopholes that have created tax havens for corporations, he added.

Obama also assured the audience he wouldn’t begin any new programs by borrowing.

“I’m not going to be taking out a credit card from the bank of China, which is what we’ve been doing,” he said.

- - -

Obama continued answering questions even after the forum closed as he walked through a crowd of people, shaking their hands and speaking with them. Before he left the microphone, he stated:

“I will always tell you what I think. I will always tell you where I stand. I will be honest with you about the challenges we face as a country. … I will listen to you even when we disagree. … I will wake up every single day when I’m president of the United States, thinking about how to make your lives a little bit better. … I know what it’s like to be raised by a single mother, to get food stamps, to have a grandfather to be able to fight in a war and create a good life for his wife and himself because of the G.I. Bill. … I will fight for you if you’re willing to stand up for me.”

— E-mail: bnaudrey@register-herald.com