Letters to Editor

Rural and farm assessments up to and beyond 71%, over the next 4 years - who's next?
Dear Editor
Recently a member of the Grey County Federation of Agriculture sent me a notice that MPAC and Grey County would be increasing rural and farm assessments up to and beyond 71%, over the next 4 years.    
In this announcement it was stated: “This increase contemplated currently by Grey County Council sends a negative message and may be the tipping point for the future of many family farms in Grey.”  So obviously this must employ some use of the Mill Rate proposed by the County, but there is also the purported assessment used by MPAC that needs to be questioned.
To be honest and merely my opinion, MPAC needs to be dissolved and returned to the Municipal level so there is recourse for the private property owner, because I’ve been told the Assessment Review Board process is way to onerous on property owners.  
Having read through the process MPAC has instituted (which may be unlawful) they are not basing the assessment on “fair market value,” they are using “replacement value” for barns and out-buildings.  It states on MPAC’s web-site:
“Farm Outbuildings
We establish the replacement cost of the outbuildings, taking into consideration the design, age, size and quality of construction.
Other Buildings
We value other buildings, such as wineries and stores, according to the cost of replacing them, taking into consideration the building’s design, age, size and quality of construction. They are valued and classified according to use (e.g., commercial, industrial, residential).”
Since when is “replacement value” involved with “fair market value”?  And is there any such thing as “fair market value,” when the province is involved in “market manipulation”?  Also, will this “replacement value” eventually be used for all properties?  It would seem so considering the statement “They are valued and classified according to use (e.g., commercial, industrial, residential).” These are all questions which need to be asked.
The next questions might be – if the buildings don’t need to be replaced - why is the assessed value at a “replacement value”? This is not part of the mandate of MPAC – they are to deal in “fair market value” and not “dreamed up replacement value,” aren’t they?  
This type of assessment is similar to the “best estimates” of the Conservation Authorities for the 100 year flood events, isn’t it?  And the question begs to be asked…shouldn’t both MPAC and the Conservation Authorities be dissolved and put back where they belong – as a municipal responsibility, considering you are paying for redundant entities that use “best estimates” and “replacement values” instead of real information?  Something to think about in June (provincial election) and October (municipal elections), isn’t it?  
Elizabeth F. Marshall,
Candidate – Trillium Party of Ontario, Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound
Director of Research Ontario Landowners Association
Author – "Property Rights 101:  An Introduction”
Secretary – Canadian Justice Review Board
Legal Research – Green and Associates Law Offices, etc.,
Legislative Researcher – MPs, MPPs, Municipal Councillors,
President All Rights Research Ltd.,
Steering Committee – International Property Rights Association
I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.  Any information relayed is for informational purposes only.  Please contact a lawyer.

Roll on democracy!
If ever we get the chance to decide together our common future, we will not let any of us get a far larger part of the wealth and leave a large group with just enough to survive.
Of course this call for democracy can hardly be understood these days, as everyone seems convinced, despite all evidence, that “representative democracy” is democracy. This has been repeated so many times, over such a long period of time, in the mainstream media, that even several progressive forces are buying it.
I can already hear strong reactions. Oh, but this real democracy is not possible today, we are far too many. Nonsense! First, the technology is there; second, and more importantly, most decisions should be taken by the concerned people, directly or indirectly, not by absolutely everyone – concerned or not. Plus, democracy would eliminate a lot of issues raised by the actual absence of democracy in terms of peace, fairness, environment.
Most of what we can do now is listening to the rich and powerful ones, laughing at us, despising us, protected by this fiction of democracy – the representative democracy. A time will come, I hope, for our own collective future and the future of our planet, that democracy, real democracy, will prevail.
Bruno Marquis  Gatineau

Friday, April 6, 2018
Five cuts Ontaio's next Premier can make to save taxpayers money right away
By: Christine Van Geyn, CTF Ontario Director
This article was previously published on the Huffington Post
The Progressive Conservatives have a new leader in Doug Ford, who says his goal is to save taxpayers money. After years of waste and mismanagement by the Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty governments, taxpayers do indeed need relief. But the question is where to start.
Here are five easy cuts to government waste that a new government could make immediately.
1. Cut the cap and trade carbon tax and the cap and trade welfare fund
The cap and trade carbon tax adds to the cost of heating your family's home and driving to work. It also hurts businesses across the province, especially in the already vulnerable manufacturing sector where American states are courtingOntario factories with lower tax rates and taxpayer subsidies. Cap and trade will send $2.2 billion of taxpayer dollars outside of Ontario to Quebec and California by 2030, while failing to make a measurable impact on the world's climate.
Meanwhile, the government is using that money not to give hardworking Ontarians tax relief. Instead, they've spent $1.9 billion in 2017 on green project subsidies through something called the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account, for things including $100,000 Teslas.
A recent report on how money in this account has been spent found that $47 million was spent on the electric vehicle incentive program, $1 million was spend on the "electric vehicle discovery centre," and $200 million was spent on school upgrades, which should otherwise be funded through the general budget. The report also found a number of projects funded by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account and Green Investment Fund which did not even meet the minimum threshold for funding: they were not even "reasonably likely to reduce, or support the reduction of, greenhouse gas emissions."
2. Cut spending on government advertising
Government advertising in Ontario is the highest it has been since 2006-07. In 2016-17, the government spent $58 million of our taxpayer money telling us how great they are at spending our money. The auditor general found that a significant part of that, $17.4 million, was being used as partisan advertising. The government should cut the budget for government advertising and enact legislation that restricts when taxpayer money can be used on advertising.
3. Cut the LCBO monopoly and sell the assets
Prohibition ended decades ago, and Ontario doesn't need to rely on the government to sell liquor to the public. Wynne recently allowed the sale of wine and beer in a select number of grocery stores, adding a layer of micromanaged political interference to something that is as straightforward as selling a consumer a product they want to buy.
Meanwhile, large and flashy LCBO stores, complete with test kitchens, tasting bars and glossy magazines cut, with unionized employees into the profits of a business that could be more efficiently operated privately. Private stores would also improve consumer choice; after liquor stores were privatized in Alberta, product selection increased from 2,200 varieties to more than 20,000 now. Selling off the LCBO and ending the monopoly on beer, wine and liquor would improve consumer choice, provide a shot of revenue to the government and get government out of a business they shouldn't be in.
4. Cut the Wynne experiment in basic income
The Wynne government is spending $50 million per year on a new welfare experiment handing out free taxpayer money. They call it the "basic income project," and the project gives up to $17,000 for low-income individuals and $24,000 for couples. The money is given no-strings-attached to 4,000 low-income individuals or households, and the benefit is reduced as the recipient earns income. Paying some people tens of thousands of dollars not to work while continuing to increase taxes for the rest of us makes no sense. There is no corresponding reduction in other welfare entitlements. This crazy experiment needs to be shelved and forgotten.
5. Cut the size of government with a hiring and wage freeze
The number of government employees in Ontario has grown dramatically in the past 20 years. Since 1997, there are 43 per cent more bureaucrats, which is faster than private-sector job growth and self-employed job growth. Government employees in Canada have seen an average wage growth of over 26 per cent since 1997, second only to those in the mining industry. It's true that Canada has been fortunate with a resource boom. But that does not justify a corresponding government boom. Government employees are also paid an average of 13.4 per cent more than private-sector workers for similar work, in addition to non-wage benefits. We need to cut the size of government, starting with a wage and hiring freeze, and allow natural attrition to occur.
This year, the Ontario government ran a $6.7 billion deficit, despite recommitting in November to a balanced budget this fiscal year. These five suggestions are just a start — the government also wastes billions on corporate welfare and unnecessary renewable energy contracts. Taking these first steps is necessary if the Ontario government is going to start to dig out of this hole.
For more information:
Ontario Director Christine Van Geyn cell: 647-607-6633, email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This is a free commentary provided every two weeks to media outlets and opinion leaders by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF).  The CTF is Canada's leading non-partisan citizens' advocacy group fighting for lower taxes, less waste and accountable government.  Founded in 1990, the CTF more than 137,000 supporters and seven offices across Canada.  The CTF is funded by free-will, non tax-receiptable contributions.

Ontario's government is too big
By: Christine Van Geyn, CTF Ontario Director
This article was previously published in the Toronto Star
The Ontario government is too big and shrinking it must be a priority for the next provincial government.
There are many ways to measure just how mammoth the Ontario government has become. Whether you look at Ontario’s deficits, debt, number of employees or they way they spend taxpayer money, it all points to the same conclusion that the government is too large.
In the last ten years, Ontario has more than doubled the province’s debt, which is the largest sub-national debt in the world, and the government continues to spend more than it collects, to the tune of $12 billion this year.
Between 2003 and 2017, the government increased program spending at an average annual rate of 4.9 per cent, and in the last two years this pace increased to 12.2 per cent. This is faster than economic growth, inflation and population growth.
As spending has increased, so too has this bloated government’s wasteful spending.
Last week, the Financial Accountability Officer released a report that found the government spends $1 billion a year on corporate welfare without even trying to find out if the money achieves anything. Four days later, Premier Wynne announced she was handing $110 million to Toyota, a company that made a global profit of $22 billion last year.
Increased government spending isn’t just used on corporate welfare, it’s also used to do literally nothing. For example, consider the $70 million Ontario spent on a provincial pension plan that never happened, or the infamous $1.1 billion gas plants that were never built. Doing nothing sure is expensive in Ontario.
There are also the programs funded by the $2 billion cap-and-trade tax. For example, last year taxpayers paid $47 million to subsidize electric vehicles, which until recently included cars like the $150,000 Tesla, and the $1.1 million Porsche 918 Spyder. The government even spent $1 million on a shiny “Electric Vehicle Discovery Centre” – a storefront at Finch and Steeles, where people can test drive an electric BMW, grab a free coffee, and learn about taxpayer subsidies. But don’t try to buy a car – they don’t sell them there.
This is the tip of the iceberg though, because it’s really the complex government programs that cost us the most; $8 billion on eHealth, $37 billion on above market rates for renewable power, or the $93 billion Fair Hydro Plan designed to fix the high hydro rates caused by the Green Energy Act.
These schemes are all dreamed up by politicians and the ever expanding Ontario bureaucracy.
Since 1997, the number of government employees has grown by 403,100, or 43.1 per cent. And while the government recently bragged of 10,600 jobs being added to the economy in March, the largest gains were by hiring government staff.
The cost of these government employees is significant. On average, government employees in Ontario earn 13.4 per cent more than non-government workers. And government staff in Canada have seen an average of over 26 per cent wage growth since 1997, making it the second fastest wage growth in Canada, second only to those in the mining and oil and gas sectors.
The province’s Sunshine List of government employees earning over $100,000, now has 131,741 people on it, a nearly 7 per cent increase from last year. The List includes 518 TTC vehicle operators, 25 summer school teachers, two janitors, 14 Toronto parking enforcement officers, and 7,878 staff at Ontario Power Generation.
Some may argue that the province’s per capita program spending is lower than other provinces. This is true, but it is not the result of any restraint on the part of government. Rather, Ontario is the most populous province in Canada, and benefits from economies of scale, a point acknowledged by the province’s Financial Accountability Officer.
By way of example, a town could hire one bus driver to drive the town’s half-empty bus. If the town grows larger and the bus fills up, cost of the driver’s salary per rider goes down.
With bigger bureaucracies come bigger government plans, which means more government waste, paid for with higher taxes on the population. The first step in tackling waste and mismanagement is shrinking the size of government, and this must be a priority for the next premier.
For more information:
Ontario Director Christine Van Geyn
cell: 647-607-6633, email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This is a free commentary provided every two weeks to media outlets and opinion leaders by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF).  The CTF is Canada's leading non-partisan citizens' advocacy group fighting for lower taxes, less waste and accountable government.  Founded in 1990, the CTF more than 137,000 supporters and seven offices across Canada.  The CTF is funded by free-will, non tax-receiptable contributions.

Beautiful, sunny morning, still a fresh, coolish breeze, but got to love the change in the seasons – and the cool Spring air blowing softly thwarts the Black-flies attempts to disturb my happiness; and they are really not too bad here up at Sawlog Point.
After the morning dog-walk, a few chores to do.  Rinse the lemon iced tea and chocolate milk containers, flatten and into the recycling; rinse that 'tall boy' & flatten for the deposit.  Wouldn't it be nice for the Beer Store employees, too, if we all at least rinsed our stuff (as they suggest), but no, too much to ask of the common populace, indeed.  Nice place to work, I would think, except for the stench, esp. in Summer, but what are they [we] to do? We being the people that take a few moments, each day, and cooperate in a more positive coexistence with each other.
Or what if we all behaved like slobs, and for instance, just left our garbage behind. Like whoever they were, last night, after enjoying that park bench at 'the Point', just tossing those containers on the clean, white sand beach?
Littering is COOL to some people, and of course, being cool is important. Whatever. Could you imagine what our neighbourhoods would look like, without – the people who clean up after others.  
Equally disgusting - as I walked my dog, bags aplenty – is having to deal with someone else's 'dog-dirt', as my Dear Mother would say, and right in the middle of that path down to Sawlog Point.  No shit!  (I 'took care of it').       
A shout-out to local friend, Billy DeWolfe. He's retired, but not too tired to pick-up litter, you'll often see him litter-bag in hand, out on his strolls. And cool can unfortunately mean cruel to some, as well.  I had the pleasure once of 'listening to a story', of how a 'former' customer of mine, (I stress the word former),  had cleverly put in his attic, a little sign:  “NO SQUIRRELS ALLOWED”.   He was having a peek (and a giggle) as to how the little 'pest' had made out.  Apparently, much to this man's amusement –quite quiet, and 'stiffed' indeed - as it was a slow-kill glue trap.
“Did you fix the hole?”, I remember asking, “No” being the reply.  (That would mean 'work').
I asked one of the local associations up here, if I could advise people on the abuse of glue-traps, lots of cottagers in the area, too, and I didn't even get an e- reply.  I wasn't even answered last year as to who actually receives, or looks at the mail for their association's Gmail address.  Don't forget this is a 'community' group.
I've tried to do my part, I still tout the point that it is ridiculous to have TWO neighbourhood associations covering the exact same area, and a question to the same association as to if there had been 'communications' with the 'other' association, to 'come to an agreement' and resolve the issue(s), perhaps, reunite – well THAT went unanswered too.  Of course, business as usual.
Well, off I go.  I have to type a 'response' letter to the OPP officer, who came in person to my home, to tell me I was to cease and desist any direct contacting of a former customer who thinks the issuance of a flat amount, somehow magically clears up all the 'dollars and cents' in our outstanding balance.  Just, 'business as usual', a day in the life, of 'me'.
I'll 'stick with' being honest, helpful, giving a s**t – or 'taking care of it', and 'looks good on you', to all the disrespectful people amongst us.
I intend to have a fabulous Summer and wish the same to all the kind souls out there, a few bad apples will not spoil my time here, and being the positive sorts that we are – I'm sure you'll have a great Summer too!
Cheers  Peter E Davenport TINY

Time to talk clean energy transition
As a young environmental sector professional I do not support the Kinder pipeline. The impacts to the environment do not out weigh the benefits. The Kinder Morgan pipeline would cross more than 500 streams in the Fraser River watershed, one of the world’s greatest salmon-producing rivers, and threaten already depleted salmon stocks, including the chinook, which are critically important for resident orcas.
Canada is a first world leader and as such should be looking to renewable and sustainable sources of energy instead of relying on fossil fuels which negatively effect the land, water and animals. Additionally, the indigenous communities located along the pipeline and tank traffic route are not supportive of this initiative and the government should respect and support their position to uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Furthermore, the global market demand for fossil fuels is decreasing so financially it makes sense to invest in the same alternative fuels that the rest of the world is. This project also hinders our commitment to decreasing climate change impacts under the Paris Agreement.
Overall I feel that this project is a lose-lose situation with Canada's environment, economy and people ultimately paying the price while thegovernmentandselectbusinessleaderslinetheirpocketsforafewshortyears.
The Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion project is too risky for the economy, climate, coast and progress on Indigenous reconciliation.
Anna McClymoont   L4R 4P5  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

How Reliant on Fossils Fuels are People In Ontario?  
Contributed by Robert Lyman © 2018 - Robert Lyman is an Ottawa energy policy consultant.  He was a public servant for 27 years and prior to that a diplomat for 10 years.
Blair King is a professional chemist and consultant who conducts risk analysis, as well as remediation analysis, of environmental hazards in British Columbia. He is also the author of several articles that have appeared on his blog, “A Chemist in Langley” and in print media such as the Huffington Post. Reading his articles is a pleasure for those who value sound, objective analysis based on facts. While he cares deeply about environmental quality, he courageously challenges the claims of environmental organizations and politicians when they depart from sound science and economics. I greatly admire his writing and his demonstrated integrity in the face of severe criticism from powerful advocates.
Thus, I hope that Mr. King will not object if I borrow an idea of his and apply it to a different context. In September 2016, Mr. King wrote a blog article in which he figuratively asked how reliant people in British Columbia are on fossil fuels. He invited his readers to follow along with him in thinking through a scenario in which some “mystical power” arrived on earth and, using some unknown technology, eliminated all fossil fuels from the planet instantaneously. As a thought experiment, he tried to answer the question, “What would happen?” with special reference to British Columbia. In what follows, I will repeat his thought experiment, but with reference to Ontario, where I live.
The National Energy Board occasionally publishes provincial and territorial energy profiles, in which it analyzes the energy supply and demand conditions in each Canadian jurisdiction. In its most recent profile of Ontario, it noted that, while most of the province’s electricity generation is based on non-fossil fuel sources (mainly nuclear and hydroelectric energy), in 2016 the breakdown of end-use demand by fuel was: refined petroleum products, 1,402 petajoules (PJ), or 46%; natural gas 919 PJ, or 30%; electricity, 494 PJ, or 16%; biofuels, 130 PJ, or 4%; and other, 104 PJ, or 3%. Including the share of natural gas as a source of electricity generation, fossil fuels thus accounted for about 77% of Ontario’s energy demand.
On day one without fossil fuels, all transportation systems (except a few electrically powered streetcars and a few thousand electric vehicles) would immediately stop. Stores would stop receiving supplies, as all supplies are transported from warehouses by gasoline or diesel-powered transport trucks. No new supplies would get to the warehouses, as the semi trucks that transport them depend on diesel fuel, as do railway systems.  Transport aircraft rely on aviation and jet fuel, and container ships rely on bunker fuel or diesel. Soon, the people living in urban areas like Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, London and Windsor would be first bidding for, and then fighting over, the remaining scraps in the stores. Once those supplies were gone, there would be nothing to replace them. There simply are not enough horses or horse-drawn wagons to move goods and food from the rural areas into the cities.
Someone may argue that electric vehicles would save the day. In 2017, electric vehicles represented less than 1% of new vehicle sales in Canada. Ontario has exactly zero electric transport trucks that can carry long-haul freight. The number of electric freight trains is just like that of electric trucks – zero. The same for ships or cargo planes – zero anywhere in the world.
After a few weeks, people would have exhausted their supplies of canned goods. General hunger, then starvation, would begin to set in. That would not necessarily be the worst problem. Potable water supplies and electricity supplied depend on diesel for pumps, and people with trucks maintain the electrical system. Without those pumps and trucks, the electricity supply would end and people would have to get water from rivers and lakes, if any were nearby. This assumes that the ending of fossil fuels happens during the warmer weather months. If it happened in winter, people would have to cut down local trees and forests to burn for warmth and chop through the ice on rivers and lakes to get water supplies. Getting wood and ice back to one’s home would be a perilous experience.
Within a couple of months (weeks if in winter), the city-centres would look like a scene from an apocalyptic science fiction movie, with corpses everywhere as the weakest lost out in battle for the quickly diminishing supplies of food, water and wood. Without working toilets and sewer systems, those still alive would be fighting dysentery, as human waste polluted the limited freshwater supplies. Anyone who could would move away from the city centres as quickly as possible to forage as far as they could roam on foot and on the remaining bicycles (the horses having been eaten).
The Greater Toronto area would be most savagely affected, as the large number of people there would stream out in every direction. There, they would discover that everything edible (from plant to animal) had long since been eaten by the people who live in the surrounding urban areas, who themselves would be streaming out into the Niagara peninsula and the areas east, west and north of the metropolis. Few would survive. The remaining settlements, if any, in the rural areas would be forced to hoard food supplies behind barricaded walls to keep the marauding survivors from the larger cities at bay.
Within a few months, or by the end of the winter, over 95 per cent of today’s Ontario urban population would have died from the lack of clean water and food, leaving a small minority fighting it out for the remaining crops.
In the developing countries, the 7.5 billion people now alive would be reduced to a few hundred thousand, who would be living in subsistence-level communities that were sufficiently isolated that they avoided the attention and attacks of the refugees from the cities. Survivors would eat most of the animals and much of the plant life. These would take hundreds of years to regenerate their populations.
This is the point of this thought-experiment. We remain extraordinarily dependent on oil, natural gas and coal for the energy services upon which modern life depends. When advocates claim that we can soon do away with fossil fuels, or that a transition away from fossil fuels would be quick and low–cost, be very skeptical.

What if someone told you it’s not normal for Ontario families to be gouged on their hydro bills?
What if someone told you it’s not normal for governments to hike taxes while more than doubling the debt?
What if someone told you it’s not normal for government insiders to get rich from sleazy contracts and inflated salaries?
What’s been happening in Ontario the last fifteen years is a bad dream that’s been our reality.
It’s been a long time since families kept more money than what they gave to the government - a long time since we felt like the government was working with us and not against us.
Ontario’s provincial election is finally on. We now have the chance to elect a fair government. However, we can’t be so foolish as to assume change will come automatically. And, we can’t coast by on the belief that all our troubles will end with the anticipated defeat of Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals.
Granted, the Wynne Liberals have devastated our province’s economy and executed a sustained attack on the family budget. Since 2006, hydro rates have increased by a whopping 150 percent. This summer, gas prices are expected to reach a four-year high. And, the budget recently introduced by Kathleen Wynne tried to levy $2 billion in new taxes.
Only the most die-hard Liberal partisans now contend Kathleen Wynne deserves to be re-elected. Even then, their smiles are forced, and their words ring hollow.
At Ontario Proud, we’ve worked hard to build a movement ready to defeat Wynne and her cronies. We’ve broken into the mainstream consciousness by holding Wynne accountable for her failures and building the most engaged online political movement in Canada. Today, our membership is more than 350,000 strong and it continues to grow. Yet, even with this success, I’m concerned.
As an electorate, I’m worried we’ll go on autopilot. Kathleen Wynne may be cratering in the polls, but she’s a formidable campaigner. The age-old tactic of trying to buy votes with big-spending platforms that waste more of your hard-earned money is alive and well. And we can’t afford to let it win.
As citizens, it’s on us to remain vigilant and take control of this election. We must become activists. We can’t let politicians set the agenda this time. This is our election, not theirs!
It falls on us, ordinary citizens, to make sure we get the answers and the leaders we deserve. We’re calling on voters to hold town hall meetings, ask our politicians direct questions on the doorsteps and we galvanize friends and neighbours on the internet – as Ontario Proud has done.
Our movement is bigger than Kathleen Wynne. Our mission has meaning beyond ensuring her defeat. We exist to defend the interest of everyday Ontario taxpayers.
In this election, Ontario Proud will continue to be the voice of families who are sick and tired of out-of-control hydro rates, high taxes and governments who waste your hard-earned money. When politicians make promises that are bad for you and your family, we’ll be here to call them out on it.
Together, we can hold the politicians accountable and finally elect the government we deserve. Our friends, neighbours and most importantly – our next generation – are all counting on us to get it right.
Jeff Ballingall is the Founder of Ontario Proud, a people-powered movement with a membership of more than 350,000. In this election, he will be working to hold politicians of all political stripes accountable for their actions and defending the interests of every taxperson Ontario. Learn more at www.OntarioProud.ca or www.Facebook.com/OntarioProud

CO2 Fundamentals
The debate about global warming and climate change has shifted from genuine scientific exploration to a campaign demonizing CO2. The use of energy, the primary source of human CO2 emissions, have played an essential role in the economic progress and improved standard of living that has been experienced in many nations since the Industrial Revolution.
The mission of the Coalition is to demonstrate with science-based facts that:
CO2 is a nutrient that is essential to life. CO2 at current levels and higher enables plants, trees, and crops to grow faster and more efficiently. It is essential for life.
Just as we require oxygen for life, our economy requires energy, often described as the oxygen or lifeblood of the economy. Energy must be abundant, reliable, and reasonably priced for an economy to achieve robust and sustained growth.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a natural and beneficial constituent of the atmosphere.  By volume percentage, 99% of dry air is nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%). Most of the rest is argon (0.93%), with carbon dioxide amounting to only 0.04%, but slowly increasing. Even smaller amounts of other gases, neon, helium, methane etc., make up the remainder.
Atmospheric CO2 is essential to life on earth, since plants use sunlight to combine CO2 molecules from the air with H2O molecules to make carbohydrates (for example, sugar) and other organic compounds. In the process, oxygen molecules (O2) are released to the atmosphere. At CO2 levels less than 150 ppm (parts per million), most plants stop growing. Over most of the history of multicellular life on earth, CO2 levels have been three or four times higher than present levels. Current CO2 levels of 400 ppm are still much less than optimum for most plant growth.
Air also contains water vapor (H2O), from as much as 7% in the humid tropics to less than 1% on a cold winter day. Human exhaled breath typically contains 4% to 5% CO2 and about 6% H2O.Water vapor,
Water vapor, clouds and carbon dioxide hinder the escape of thermal radiation to space and allow the earth’s surface to be warm enough for life.  Without this “greenhouse warming,” most of the oceans would be frozen.  Increasing levels of the greenhouse gas CO2 from fuel combustion will slightly increase the surface temperature of the earth.  Observations indicate that every doubling of the CO2 concentration will increase the earth’s surface temperature by 1 to 2 C, and perhaps less.  The warming is so small that the resulting longer growing seasons and increased plant productivity from additional CO2 will of great benefit to life on earth.
Higher carbon dioxide levels will be beneficial for the Developing World.