The Shotgun Blog
« Pro-America Iranians | Main | With friends like these . . . »
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Michael Ignatieff: Plagiarizes a C.D. Howe report for his environmental plan
Do all Liberals have the academic equivalent of sticky fingers? I ask because now Michael Ignatieff's environmental plan seems to be a copy. At least he had the decency to go back to 2004 to steal his ideas, instead of to last week.
Let's compare and contrast.
On August 21, 2006, Michael Ignatieff publishes "Kyoto and Beyond Options for Long-Term Reductions in Canada's Greenhouse Gas Emissions".
Let's go way back to March 2004, to the report "The Morning After: Optimal Greenhouse Gas Polices for Canada's Kyoto Obligations and Beyond".
If I could only say that the only common element was the use of the word "beyond" in the title.
And before we begin, to make it clear, nowhere in Ignatieff's report is this C.D. Howe report credited, in footnote form or by some general statement of thanks or acknowledgment. A different C.D Howe report appears in a footnote for an unrelated quote on page 4.
Sampling from the Ignatieff report:
This type of policy provides a strong incentive for privately-funded research, development, and commercialization of new technologies, without triggering prohibitive levels of production cost and energy price increases in the short- to medium-term, and without engaging government in the risky role of picking technology winners and losers. p3
The specific market-oriented regulations presented here are consistent with policies already implemented in some major regions of the US, and are growing in popularity there and elsewhere, which reduces the competitive risks to Canada from the US decision to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. p3
Large Industry Emission Cap and Tradable Permit
Renewable Portfolio Standard
Vehicle Emissions Standard
Carbon Sequestration Requirement
Building and Equipment Standards
And from the C.D Howe report:
This type of policy stimulates privately funded research, development, and commercialization of new technologies without triggering politically unacceptable increases in production costs and energy prices in the short term, and without engaging government in the risky role of picking technological winners and losers. p2
Because our policies are consistent with those already implemented in major regions of the U.S., and are growing in popularity internationally, they also mitigate competitive risks to Canada from the U.S. decision not to ratify Kyoto or from the possible collapse of the entire protocol. p2
Large Industry Emissions Cap and Tradable Permit Program p6
Renewable Portfolio Standard for Electricity Generation p6
Vehicle Emissions Standards p6
Carbon Sequestration Standard p7
Building Standards p7
Appliance Standards p7
And now the irony. On page 3 of the Ignatieff report:
These policies have not been pulled out of thin air...
No, not out of thin air.
I'd like to offer an opinion, but I found another that says it so eloquently, concerning the Dion controversy:
What happened today was a real gaffe, or mistake, or whatever you want to call it. If it was caused by the campaign team, then the perception is a given tha Dion has a simple, amateur team.
Personally, I highly respect Dion and have met him, but I don’t see the leadership abilities within him. I see an “administrator”, the same kind that have led the country for the last 13 years.
That appeared on Michael Ignatieff's website yesterday, in the discussion forums, as a comment from an Ignatieff supporter suggesting that Dion's alleged plagiarism made him unworthy to be Liberal leader.
Posted by Steve Janke on September 6, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83462daee69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Michael Ignatieff: Plagiarizes a C.D. Howe report for his environmental plan:
» Why I Prefer Michael Ignatieff to Stephane Dion for the Liberal Leadership in Canada from EclectEcon
He plagiarizes from people I respect.
For those who do not want to follow the link, it appears that Stephane Dion's statement on the environment was the sa... [Read More]
Tracked on 2006-09-06 12:40:28 PM
Comments
August 19th Globe and Mail says, "The Ignatieff plan is the result of months of consultation with experts, including: Mark Jaccard, a Simon Fraser University energy economist; the David Suzuki Foundation; Matthew Bramley, director of climate change at the Pembina Institute in Gatineau, Que.; and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers."
Mark Jaccard is the lead author of the CD Howe report. It looks like, once again, there is a simple explanation for the similarities. The tempest in a tea pot continues....
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-09-06 12:42:45 PM
I hate to have to agree with you Logan. I try to avoid that sort of thing...
This story just gives free publicity to the candidates positions. They're should be greatful for the coverage...
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-09-06 12:58:02 PM
Why bother with policies and standing for anything in particular when you go with the prevailing winds of political oportunism. Steal other peoples ideas and results of their hard work and run with them.
That's the Liberal Way.
Remember the Clarity Act? Prime example.
Iggy may have been living out of Country for many years but he's well tuned in to Liberal modus operandi.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-09-06 1:49:09 PM
Liz,
Too true. But why should we help him do it?
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-09-06 2:05:16 PM
Warwick: How can we stop worms and weasels? They have access to the same information. They are about the weakest pack of candidates in memory and doubt they will haul in too many people with a thought process. We can't risk putting our Country in the hands of any of them.Actually, we're exposing them.
A Bob Rae win would cook their goose for some time in Ontario, we all remember "Rae Days".
Iggy may be their only hope but he looks like a guy standing at the station long after the train has gone. He could be a fooler, he may get a battery charge from the Energizer Bunny in the last lap.
We should be forcing their hands, they're desperate and will latch onto anything that might give them publicity in their pathetic plight.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-09-06 2:48:35 PM
Are you saying that Liberals are predisposed to thievery?
Eveyone knows they steal from anyone for whatever reason will improve their wealth, power or that of their friends and families.
Liberal = Thievery
That equasion is a law of Liberal nature.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-09-06 2:51:00 PM
Thank Heaven some of us have long memories, Liz J. In fact, the Liberanos 'stole' almost all their 'governing' ideas from the Reform Party. Why? Because the Liberano type are all like cows - not an independent thought in the herd. The Liberanos are social engineers - full stop - and they 'use' the ideas of others and take credit for these ideas IF the said ideas are successful. It was once a win-win for the Liberanos because people with ideas are always eager to have their ideas adopted. The Liberanos know nothing of fair play or giving credit where credit is due.
Thanks to Steve once again for doing an outstanding job of digging and exposing the plagiarist. Iggy is not a scientific thinker - he specializes in travel journalism and social problems - he was never a whacko lefto crook type in the past - I like his books -I don't know what ever possessed him to sink into the Liberano cesspool in Canada but I bet he will be sorry later if he is not sorry now. He cannot have any credibility in the future as he has muddied his good name by aligning himself with a brain dead criminal element - the Liberanos.
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-09-06 2:52:34 PM
The Liberal Party of Toronto will steal anything they can get their hands on apparently - setting a fine example for the people of Canada.
If Canadians endorse that party in an election then parents will have a tough time trying to teach kids right from wrong - kids figure things out pretty quick.
Perhaps parents that vote Liberal are not interested in teaching kids right from wrong anyhow, so it won't really matter to them - until their little darlings get tempted by their retirement nestegg...
Posted by: philanthropist | 2006-09-06 3:07:50 PM
If Canadians endorse that party in an election then parents will have to tell their kids about the good old days when the Solar System had nine planets which included Pluto and Canada had ten Provinces which included Alberta.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-06 3:16:07 PM
If Alberta ever decides to pull the plug on this pretend country, I am moving back there before I need a visa and a passport to do so.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-09-06 3:42:12 PM
In the world of Disney ... you know the guy that made us think that four legged creatures were fur persons .... Pluto was a dog ... Donald was a duck ... what the hell was Goofy?
Posted by: Duke | 2006-09-06 3:43:52 PM
Im guessing Goofy was a Liberal!!!
Posted by: Paul | 2006-09-06 4:33:15 PM
If Canadians endorse that party in an election then parents will have to tell their kids about the good old days when the Solar System had nine planets which included Pluto and Canada had ten Provinces which included Alberta.
Posted by: Speller | Sep 6, 2006 3:16:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------
If Alberta ever decides to pull the plug on this pretend country, I am moving back there before I need a visa and a passport to do so.
Posted by: Duke | Sep 6, 2006 3:42:12 PM
If you kind people will have us BC would like to join you...
Posted by: Daniel | 2006-09-06 4:34:30 PM
As long as you put Snowrunner on a boat and float him out into the ocean.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-09-06 4:48:46 PM
All of this policy-making and policy-stealing fails the AHT. The carbon emissions being targeted for "non prohibitive" prohibition are causing no demonstrable harm to anybody, and the theft of the non-prohibitive prohibition policy by the politicians in the Liberal Party from the politicians at the CD Howe Institute is also harmless.
The real problem is with the thieving nature of the environmental plans themselves.
Speaking of vote-buying schemes that steal money from the average Canadian, how's the Conservative environmental plan coming along? I know that it's a western-based party and everything, but are there really enough corn farmers in swing ridings to make all of this bogus ethanol hype worth it? Even the lefties at Consumer Reports are smelling a rat. On the newsstands now, their headline is "The Ethanol Myth: The True Costs and Mileage". When they tested it with a real vehicle in the real world there was only a 46% decrease in fuel efficiency with a 15% ethanol blend. Which means that "smart" fuel will cause you to use around 25% more gasoline!* Which means that the price of oil will be driven higher and higher, and they'll get more and more tax revenue, and the higher prices will cause more and more hardship, which will provide them with the excuses to interfere more and more in your lives and pocketbooks. Suckerrrrs!
* NOTE: actual electoral benefits accruing to a political party buying votes with pseudo-scientific fear mongering will vary.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2006-09-06 6:08:25 PM
What's new does Ignatieff actually have any original ideas? This is the same guy who wrote 2 books on the Serb conflict in Kosovo and got all his facts wrong, as he did what most others did, he went solely by media reports from the Pentagon and Jamie Shea.
When Canadian author and journalist Scott Taylor spoke with Ignatieff on his false statements, Ignatieff just blew him off.
Taylor for those who don't know wrote the book "An uncivil war", was in Kosovo during the war and had first hand accounts of the complete fabrication of events reported to us by the Clinton gangs propaganda machine. But as things are in the west here, we can blindly follow a corrupt left wing President anywhere, but heaven forbid we help a right leaning President without making that connection every breath we take.
Posted by: niv | 2006-09-06 6:25:01 PM
Justzumgai says,
"Speaking of vote-buying schemes that steal money from the average Canadian, how's the Conservative environmental plan coming along? I know that it's a western-based party and everything, but are there really enough corn farmers in swing ridings to make all of this bogus ethanol hype worth it? Even the lefties at Consumer Reports are smelling a rat. On the newsstands now, their headline is "The Ethanol Myth: The True Costs and Mileage". When they tested it with a real vehicle in the real world there was only a 46% decrease in fuel efficiency with a 15% ethanol blend. Which means that "smart" fuel will cause you to use around 25% more gasoline!* Which means that the price of oil will be driven higher and higher, and they'll get more and more tax revenue, and the higher prices will cause more and more hardship, which will provide them with the excuses to interfere more and more in your lives and pocketbooks. Suckerrrrs!
* NOTE: actual electoral benefits accruing to a political party buying votes with pseudo-scientific fear mongering will vary."
As opposed to the flat out theft that was taking place by the vaunted Liberal party? You people are a piece of work. Here's a link to just how poorly this "fear mongering" works. Who is the sucker moron?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/29/eveningnews/main1454613.shtml
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-09-06 6:52:21 PM
So we have Czar Iggy treating everybody like we are dummies in his college class, waiting to run back to the states if he doesn't get his own way. And we have Bob Rae who still sends shudders up everyones backs in ontario. Then we have an exhockey player. Oh and Gerald Kennedy that seems to live everywhere, when you can find him. So that leaves us the ndp and conservatives for choices. Gee, lets elect white feather jack.
Posted by: john a. | 2006-09-06 7:45:02 PM
"Who is the sucker moron?"
Judge for yourself:
"Most ethanol apologists like to use the example of Brazil. Unfortunately, I live in Brazil and I see no ethanol revolution here. In fact, the heavily subsidized ethanol program (Pro-Alcool) used to be an ecological and social disaster. From 1975 to 1989, the Brazilian government spent nine billion dollars in subsidies for ethanol production (and that's not counting special loans, that were never [re]paid, from state-owned banks) ...
"Large areas of land were wasted for monoculture (some people complain one of the most fertile lands of the country, in the Ribeirão Preto region, is being degraded by sugar cane monoculture), semi-slave (and child) labor were heavily used. Nasty environmental problems were only surpassed in the 1990's, like the pollution of rivers by vinhoto (produced in ethanol refining) and crop burning ...
"I don't remember anyone that owned an ethanol-fueled car besides my father. And he used to complain a lot about it. He complained that he had difficulties to ignite the car in cold days (and a cold day in Brazil is warmer than a summer day in most cities of the United States). Only when there were created flexible-fuel vehicles (allowing people to run cars both on gasoline and ethanol) that the Brazilian consumer began to see ethanol as a compelling alternative. In 1997, only 1,117 cars running on ethanol were produced in the whole country, in 2000 almost zero! No one wants to rely only on ethanol ...
"Earlier this year, Brazil faced a heavy problem: since there were rising sugar prices in the international market, most producers decided to produce sugar instead of ethanol. Without federal government intervention, we could have faced shortage of the product. Most of the ethanol apologists like Mark Steyn and Thomas Friedman like to point out the solution [for the USA] to simply import ethanol from Brazil, but if the Americans begin to do that, then ethanol would have unaffordable prices compared to gasoline ...
"Ethanol apologists shouldn't be talking about "Brazilian ethanol success" because there is no such success. And learn that these kinds of decisions should be made by the market, no by the government."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/desousa1.html
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2006-09-06 8:50:36 PM
Jaccard's permission is irrelevant. First, he was one of three authors. Second, the copyright is held by the Institute, not the authors. And third, permission or not, you still need to credit the source. No one can give you permission to represent someone else's thinking as your own. It is still dishonest unless you provide credit.
Posted by: Steve Janke | 2006-09-06 8:57:16 PM
"So that leaves us the ndp and conservatives for choices. Gee, lets elect white feather jack."
There you have it, Conservatives: you must stand in silence and allow Stephen Harper to expand government through the creation of more socialist boondoggles, because he isn't a coward/pacificist/terrorist sympathizer like Jack Layton. Let your government violate your freedom, or the terrorists win.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2006-09-06 9:05:26 PM
"I'm an academic. We're so thrilled if someone actually listens to us. We're what we call a cheap date," said Simon Fraser University professor Mark Jaccard. Mr. Jaccard said he was consulted on and gave his approval to use his words in Mr. Ignatieff's document.
Steve Janke: "Jaccard's permission is irrelevant. First, [blah blah]. Second, [blah blah]. And third, [belch]."
Your 15 minutes are up. Move on.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-09-06 10:02:26 PM
Well done Mark Logan :)
It was much todo about nothing...same as with Dion.
Posted by: badbeta | 2006-09-06 10:22:25 PM
"Jaccard's permission is irrelevant. First, he was one of three authors. Second, the copyright is held by the Institute, not the authors. And third, permission or not, you still need to credit the source. No one can give you permission to represent someone else's thinking as your own. It is still dishonest unless you provide credit."
The words of a desperate man who just got owned. Move on Steve, surely there's something equally irrelevant you can harp on.
Posted by: poploser | 2006-09-06 11:17:37 PM
I'm really looking forward to the Liberal convention in December because we'll then know who our new Prime Minister will be in the spring. Paul Martin was hung out to dry in the last election because the true Liberal Party bigwigs knew they couldn't win a majority with Martin. They got what they wanted, a conservative minority. The Liberals are only a couple points behind the conservatives and they don't even have a leader. The next election will be a cake walk. They already have Quebec back and Ontario will follow suit. Gotta love Ontario. Thank goodness for them, the only ones with there heads on straight.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-06 11:40:58 PM
Hate to break it to you Lefty, but Ontario is far from giving the Libs a pass. There has been a sea change in the attitudes of Ontarians since the CPC were elected.
The truly dreamy-eyed will still go NDP, but the
traditional middle of the road Libs will go CPC rather than NDP, now that Layton has revealed their hatred for anything truly Canadian.
"Steve" and his crew are going to come in with a clear majority. Mark my words.
Posted by: Ralph Rattfuc | 2006-09-07 6:41:09 AM
"Gotta love Ontario. Thank goodness for them, the only ones with there heads on straight."
Posted by: Lefty_99 | Sep 6, 2006 11:40:58 PM
Hmmm... Live in Toronto do you Lefty?
Posted by: Daniel | 2006-09-07 8:54:14 AM
Nope, I live in Calgary.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-07 9:31:20 AM
Lefty_99,
That's why you sound like a minority!
Whoever the Liberals elect as their leader, from Ontario, will be titty-titty ca-ca in Quebec!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-09-07 10:03:19 AM
http://www.tdhstrategies.com/home.html
The Grits' Rap Sheet. ...-
Excerpt:
I remember back in 2000, when an impromptu election call for November 27th made a previously scheduled provincial AGM occur during the writ period (within the first week of the campaign, actually). So, you'd think that this kind of a meeting would be cancelled so that people could focus on winning more seats here in British Columbia, right? Wrong. A couple of dozen Martin supporters went up to Whistler to elect a new slate for the executive, and also to enshrine a constitutional change allowing these same executive members to serve for terms of two years rather than one. These were the same people who were unconcerned about how well we did electorally, specifically because Jean Chrétien was still at the helm of the party.
So, if Ms. Cadario is in charge of the logistics behind these upcoming DSMs, and specifically the locations, then I think it is pretty self evident as to why I am a little weary. In some ridings, the choice to hold a DSM in one city as opposed to another can make the difference between which candidate will control the delegate spots. And remember, it was Ms. Cadario, along side Karl Littler, Scott Reid, David Herle, Tim Murphy, and Terrie O'Leary, who presided over the disintegration of the Liberal party, all in the name of power at all costs.
So here's a challenge I issue to the officials out here in BC - simply, run this process on the straight and narrow. Do not provide lists to some campaigns, and not others. Do not schedule meetings that are only advantageous in location, time and convenience to certain candidates. Do not let any more membership forms go missing (like the ones that have mysteriously disappeared into thin air over the past few weeks).
Is this kind of parity too much to ask? Only time will tell. ...-
Posted by: maz2 | 2006-09-07 11:11:28 AM
maz2: Yep, it's too much to ask, betcha.
It's about the same as asking the Mob to change it's code of behaviour. They may do a little surface cleaning but old, ingrained habits will take a lot more time to clean up, it's genetic. They've been fooling a lot of people for a very long time, more people than ever before are onto them and calling them to account,that's why they're in the disarray they're in today.
Sleaze, lies and trickery aren't working any more for the Liberals and their cohorts in the media.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-09-07 12:19:47 PM
You know what the Liberals will get when they elect a new leader?
The leader of one of the back-bencher parties!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-09-07 3:27:29 PM
Lady,
That is all they have ever had a leader suited to do, but they have still managed to end up running the country, mostly into the ground.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-09-07 3:31:30 PM
Ethanol production? Yeah! Let's farm the shit out of the soil, pump it as hard as we can to squeeze out some cheap grain and then BURN IT ALL!! That sounds like an effective long term solution.
When we're done that and most of Western Canada is a desert, lets scrape the bottom of the ocean and deprive that of all productivity. Oh wait, uhh, well, uhh, get some Newfies to move to BC and show them how. It worked out well for the Newfies.
Meanwhile, I'll be making a fortune on gas greenhouses. "Don't waste your money on glass and plastic. Just use my concentrated gasses."
Posted by: johnmac | 2006-09-07 9:02:36 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.