bk59

That does seem to be the strategy of the Conservatives and NDP. "If we say tax grab enough times maybe Canadians will believe us." Isn't it convenient that opponents of the Green Shift always talk about the carbon tax, but somehow always seem to forget about the income tax reductions.

Yes, it is the country that does X. In your post, the Crown. Fine. But what happens at that point is that someone from country B shows up and says, "Wait, you can't do that. You guys promised not to. Here is the promise from Foreign Minister A not to do X." And, even if Foreign Minister A's party is no longer in power, by international law country A is obligated to stop doing X. Even if it is the Crown that is doing X. The obligation entered into by the person (foreign minister A) is binding upon the nation, including the Crown. Now country A, or the Crown in your example, could conceivably continue to do X. But they would be held as violating international law and (depending on what X is and who countries A and B are) there can be consequences. So again, we have a person who is representing the country and can bind the country to a course of action. Has this cleared up your confusion? By that definition no one would ever speak for the state. 30 million people will not agree on how to say anything. Then please give me the 30 second recap, because in all of these posts I still have no idea how you can say that politicians cannot speak on behalf of a nation because the individuals have different opinions, but the Queen can speak on behalf of a nation even though the individuals have different opinions. It seems to me that if a politician cannot speak on behalf of a nation because someone might disagree with him or her, then neither can the Queen. Your request for an example is fairly pointless, but here it is anyway. From a speech given by the Queen in Vancouver in 2002 (see here): I am willing to bet that there are some Canadians who do not have admiration for multiculturalism and how immigrant cultures have affected Canada. (Have you seen some of the posts on this forum?) And they oppose multiculturalism because they do support Canada and see multiculturalism as hurting Canada. They definitely do not "admire" it. And they would think it inappropriate for their representative to express any admiration for what they see as the erosion of Canadian traditions.

The Green Shift then goes further and taxes other sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Which will effect the behaviour of Canadians and the environment. The Green Shift is a combination of a new tax, a reduction in income taxes, and a few new tax rebates. A better tax grab would have been to just introduce the new tax and not return all of that money back to taxpayers through other tax reductions.

If the entire plan consisted of simply renaming the excise tax, then I would agree with you. But that is not the entire plan. Let's be honest here, there is a reason that the rate of $40 per tonne of emissions was chosen. It was chosen because that is what the current gasoline tax works out to. It might be politically convenient, but this does not make the plan somehow invalid. At the end of four years Canada would have a carbon tax that treats all carbon emissions the same. That is a valid goal. And the entire plan, even without raising taxes on gasoline in those first four years, WILL make a difference. There is substance there. The tax renaming is no different than most political games that get played. Remember all those tax credits Harper recently gave us? They were always touted as worth (for example) $100. When in reality the actual money people would save was only a percentage of that because you didn't get $100, you got $100 off your taxable income (i.e. you only saved something like 15% of that $100). My only point here is that all political parties play games with renaming things and shuffling numbers. But when you look at the complete proposal Dion has put forward for a carbon tax... it isn't bad. And the complete plan looks like it will have some serious impact on Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.

If this were true then your opinion would carry more wait. It is not true. Say a foreign minister A promises foreign minister B that country A will not do X. It does not matter whether or not A goes back to the Cabinet (in Canada's case), it does not matter if country A passes a law, etc. If country A attempts to do X then country B can demand that they stop. And according to international law, country A must stop (i.e. because country A has an obligation to stop). It does not matter if a law has been passed; it does not matter if there has been an election within country A and there is a new party in power. Now country A can still continue doing X, but it would be in violation of its obligations. An obligation created by a foreign minister. That isn't really what I am saying at all. I am saying there is a difference between how the state is symbolized and who can speak on the state's behalf (or who can represent the state). You see, "the symbol" is not the only person who can represent the state. That has been my point all along. Different people in different capacities all have the power to represent the state. You have said that a politician cannot represent the state because not everyone in the state will agree with the politician. But the same is true for the Queen. Not everyone in the state will agree with the Queen. So, under your own theory, how can the Queen represent the state? I am curious to see why it is you think your logic does not apply to the Queen.

I tried to explain how I was using the terms "represents Canada" and "speaking on behalf of Canadians" before. I'll do so again because we have a disconnect there. When I use that term, I mean that the person speaking can create an obligation that the entire nation must fulfill. Not just the segment of the population that may have voted for that person. When a foreign minister appears before other foreign ministers and makes a commitment, by international law other countries can then hold the foreign minister's country to that commitment. The words of the minister are considered binding on the nation. Why is this? Because no one outside the country cares how that country is organized. It does not matter if it has a Cabinet or a Governor General or a Queen. The person representing the nation committed the nation to a course of action and the nation will be held accountable. This is why I say that it is not just the Queen who can represent Canada. It may be true that a flag or other object can symbolize a nation, but an object can never represent the nation or speak on its behalf in this way. So why does this matter? Because the Prime Minister does not have to be the embodiment of the nation in order to speak on its behalf. Not everyone will agree with the views of the Prime Minister, or the French or American President. But they still can speak on behalf of the nation. They are not repeating the personal viewpoints of every citizen, they are speaking as the nation. Taking your way of viewing things, you still have a problem with the Queen. See, the Queen also does not represent the nation in its entirety (as you put it) because there are people who disagree with the Queen. (And if you don't think the monarchy can divide a nation politically just look at places like Australia.) The point is this: if your criteria is that so long as people have different views then a politician cannot represent them, then the same is true for a monarch. If people have different views then how can a monarch represent them? If people are against the monarchy in general, how can you say that the Queen represents their views? What makes the Queen special? All of this is just to say that the Prime Minister can express Canada's opinion on things like apologies. When the Prime Minister expressed sympathy to the United States on September 11, 2001 he spoke on behalf of the nation. Even though there were some Canadians who did not feel sympathy for the US. Likewise, the Prime Minister can convey an apology to a specific group of people. The apology covers actions that Canada took as a nation, regardless of how its government is structured.

Let's not go too far here. Someone can post about the carbon content in a fuel, but if someone can't even admit the simple fact that some fuels produce less carbon emissions than others then there is a problem. Because we are interested in the carbon emissions, not the carbon content. There is a relation between the two obviously, but one is what the carbon tax actually taxes (the emissions) and the other isn't. Wilber is only looking at one specific example of how two specific fuels are used. That is all well and good. But the point is to tax the sources of greenhouse gas emissions and not create a patchwork of taxing random things based on conditions that change every year (e.g. vehicles). Which is more scientific: taxing all emissions at a certain rate or picking and choosing different methods of producing emissions and then taxing them at different rates or not at all? I would think that picking and choosing would result in the type of political manipulation that you talk about in your post. Which is why I am glad to see that Dion did not do that in his plan. He set a rate on carbon emissions and left it at that. It can be. But in this case the carbon tax is being applied equally, at the same rate, to every source of emissions. Or it will be at the end of the fourth year. I don't really see having a four year transition period as a problem. The facts remain very simple (as I have stated before): you will pay less carbon tax with a diesel car than a gasoline car since you use less diesel than gasoline. But diesel should still be taxed because it still emits carbon dioxide when burned. There is this idea that everyone will run away from diesel because it will be seen as having a higher price per litre. Well guess what? It already has a higher price per litre and it is still cheaper to use over a period of time than gas. The carbon tax will not change that. People who do the math now will still be able to do the math after a carbon tax is introduced. People who don't do the math now still won't do the math after a carbon tax is introduced.

In terms of emitting greenhouse gases, more efficient fuels are fuels that release less greenhouse gases per litre. This is a characteristic of the fuel. NOT the machine that burns the fuel. Yes. Very good. CO2 is produced when the fuel is burned. Now here was my point: different fuels give off different amounts of CO2 when burned. Those numbers were not the amount of carbon in a litre. They were the amount of CO2 that gets produced by burning a litre of the fuel. This is pretty simple stuff and it's all written down right there. Exactly! Which is why it taxes all carbon, regardless of its source. It makes no sense to create a patchwork of taxing some carbon, but not taxing other carbon, and then maybe taxing some carbon in some applications, but not in others. Just make it simple: tax all sources of carbon. In the first four years it is entirely possible that people will see it this way. So be it. It has already been talked about here why it is that gasoline is already taxed at the appropriate rate and therefore it does not need to be modified. But this plan isn't about a four year time period, it's about putting in place a system that taxes carbon over the long term to bring about long term change. The simple fact is that the existing tax on gas will be used as a carbon tax on gas. After four years all carbon will be taxed at the same rate. More efficient fuels and (pay attention here) more efficient methods of using those fuels will result in the taxpayer saving money. This holds true even during the first four years, even if you refuse to see that.

Wait, the NDP are in power now? Gotta give the NDP credit. Jack Layton became Prime Minister without even having an election.

Wilber, this whole long discussion started out because I was trying to show you what the carbon tax ACTUALLY taxes. The carbon tax is based on the amount of CO2 that the fuel will release when used. It is that simple. It is in dollars per tonne of CO2 released. Diesel is actually a worse fuel than gasoline in terms of emitting carbon. Your own link shows that: I have clearly stated that the total amount of carbon released per year will depend on: 1) the fuel used, and 2) the amount you use. But you tried to claim that mileage shows diesel is the more efficient fuel. It is not the more efficient fuel in terms of releasing CO2. And mileage shows you nothing about how many tonnes of CO2 will be released when you burn a litre of fuel.

This is not just about transport. It is about everything that emits greenhouse gasses. Simply saying that does not make it so. Wait, the "logical reason" to use diesel was that it gets better gas mileage? Is that the logical reason? GAS MILEAGE HAS NO IMPACT ON HOW MANY TONNES OF CARBON DIOXIDE A FUEL WILL EMIT PER LITRE USED. Gas mileage does not show whether or not a fuel is a lower or higher carbon burning fuel. In fact, the REAL data shows that diesel may not be that more efficient than gasoline, and in fact, in most cases, is worse. See my post above. Damn that science. Or is that "political BS spin" as well? The whole point is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore the tax is on greenhouse gas emissions. That means the current tax on gasoline can stay where it is to help put pressure on people to use less. But to achieve the goal, it means that we need to start taxing everything else that emits greenhouse gas emissions. Including diesel and heating oil and etc. All in an effort to reduce emissions. At the end of the four years the taxes on diesel, heating oil, gasoline, etc. will all be equal with respect to carbon emissions. It is true that over the first four years people may not feel the need to reduce their gas use simply because it does not appear that there is a carbon tax on gas. Fair enough. But going forward, that tax will be there and it will be treated the same as everything else. As it should be for a carbon tax. As for securing lost revenue... what are you talking about? What lost revenue needs to be made up by introducing the Green Shift plan? Remember, the income tax cuts and added tax benefits that come along with this package means that the government will not be making more money because of the carbon tax.

In an effort to bring some rationality back to the discussion I did a bit of digging. And found an interesting webpage here (from the US EPA): Looks like diesel may not be as efficient as gasoline. But maybe that is regular diesel they are talking about. I am not sure. So, best case scenario for diesel is if we then go to a bio-diesel blend. Apparently bio-diesel blends can give up to a 15% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions (see here). That would mean that bio-diesel blends would emit approximately 8.585 kg of carbon dioxide per gallon. Perhaps diesel isn't so great after all?

What can I say? I'm an optimist! Realistically, compared to the number of programs being run by the government, those are only a few big scandals (I'm not counting gun registries as a scandal). Without any doubt, many more programs are run inefficiently (here I am definitely including the gun registry). That does not excuse the scandals or justify inefficiencies. But the situation isn't as bad as some would like to believe. In my (perhaps overly optimistic) opinion anyway.

Well, obviously "well recognized in the arts community" must mean something more than "my buddy Joe". And honest people do exist! People who would dispense the money fairly and impartially. Not just to their friends.

Good, you have grasped the first half of the problem. Burning more of substance X will give more emissions than burning less of substance X. Now for the part that REALLY matters: When burned, different substances (or fuels) will give off different emissions. Example: burning coal does not release the same amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as burning natural gas. Likewise, gasoline and diesel are different. Now then, a carbon tax does not tax fuel based on mileage. A carbon tax will tax a fuel based on how much carbon it emits when used. The amount of carbon released in a year due to your driving therefore depends on 1) the composition of the fuel itself, and 2) how much you use. Incidentally, in your post, that is NOT the definition of efficiency. Using less fuel to go further is one type of efficiency. Releasing less carbon into the atmosphere using less fuel is a DIFFERENT type of efficiency. "Gaawd." Yeah... I'm going to have to see the link to the actual data. Mostly because your example using gas mileage was so far off point I have no idea where you got your numbers or what numbers you were even looking at. You are becoming incoherent. What exactly are you referring to when you bring up "53% of Western Europeans"? The percentage of drivers who use diesel? How is that relevant to your "point"?

All I can say is that you might want to read someone else then. Perhaps someone who is actually talking about what is being taxed rather than bringing in facts that have nothing to do with a carbon tax. If diesel emits less carbon per litre when burned than gasoline then the amount of money you spend on the carbon tax in a year will be less on diesel than on gasoline. This will encourage people to use the more efficient fuel - that is the fuel that releases less carbon into the atmosphere per litre. The mileage you get is irrelevant to the carbon tax. Gas will be taxed. The current tax will become the carbon tax. It is a straight up swap - drop the old tax, add the new tax.

Well here is your first problem. You are not talking about the right kind of efficiency. You are talking about gas mileage. The carbon tax has nothing to do with gas mileage (per se). The carbon tax is a tax on greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore the efficiency we are talking about is how much carbon gets released into the atmosphere per litre of fuel. Not how many kilometers the car can go on a litre of fuel. When comparing two vehicles, one that can get 10 kilometers per litre and one that can get 15 kilometers per litre, the gas mileage does not indicate the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that are released by either car. The two fuels may release carbon dioxide in a much different ratio (e.g. instead of 10 to 15 the gas emissions may actually be 12 tonnes per 100 litres versus 15 tonnes per 100 litres). What couldn't be more clear is that with your example of gas mileage you do not understand what it is that is being taxed. I was curious as to where you got your diesel versus gas stats before. Could you please share that link? I wouldn't mind taking a look at it for myself. Your second problem is that you still haven't realized that this is not a tax that is just being added to diesel only. The current gas tax equates to a carbon tax of $42 per tonne of carbon. Under the plan the current tax would essentially become the carbon tax. While it will take four years to bring the diesel tax to that level, the gas tax is already there. They are replacing the current gas tax with a carbon tax on gas at the same level. You may want to refrain from accusing others of "dogma run amuck" when your post is nothing but a misguided attack based solely on your belief that this carbon tax plan is bad.

This is the problem with a complex tax like carbon tax. Because people may look at that three cents and say exactly the same thing. What everyone will have to consider is that you will generally be able to drive further on a litre of diesel than on a litre of gasoline. Meaning less emissions over a period of time and less money paid in taxes. Not to mention fuel price over the same period. It is entirely possible that instead of switching to diesel people will simply drive less. If that does happen though, it is entirely possible that driving less will be better for the environment than switching to diesel. So perhaps not a bad thing. Even though it is perhaps complex, it is still necessary to tax the carbon emissions themselves, and not pick and choose which methods are worthy of the tax and which get blessed with carbon tax-free status.

Mmm.... soup sandwich... Trust me, I don't want that job either! Because it would be hard. But you get some recognized people from the arts community and I'm sure they could come up with something that would be acceptable to the government / auditor general / Canadians.

Then you are against pretty much all funding. Almost no government spending benefits everyone. Except for those parks that attract the so-called "riff-raff" and are considered unsafe (particularly at night). And let's be honest here, what benefit does a park give to someone's land value on the other side of town? Kids will find places to play whether there is a park or not. You do not need a child tax benefit to "raise the next generation". Sports teams keeps kids off the street? Athletics funding is more than just the local kids team. It's not like people are saying "Yeah, we don't want those Olympic athletes on the street. They'd probably just cause trouble." We do not fund these people because they generate economic activity or because it "keeps kids off the street". Yet there is still value in having a group of Canadians at the Olympics that we can be proud of. This is only true if you think the only thing of value in the world is the almighty dollar. Art has intrinsic value to a culture independent of how much the art itself sells for in a gallery. Plus you are taking a shortsighted view. Many artists, authors, etc. only get better with time. A few grants at the beginning of a career could help launch the next Margaret Atwood. Someone who creates economic activity and, some would say, respect for Canadian culture. Sorry, I was not clear. I am not saying that government should only spend money if you can somehow trace a benefit to everyone in Canada. I am saying that government should spend money on all areas of Canadian life. If you want to support the local sports team with government money then support the local arts community as well. If you want to support a street festival in an urban area then support a rural community fair as well. I am saying that government is there to serve everyone, not just select areas of society. Exactly: "or your employer". Two people, A and B, do equal jobs for equal pay. A works for company X. B works for themselves. X gets to reduce their taxes, as does B. A does not. When comparing individuals, A is paying for B's tax break despite doing the same job. This is the conclusion you get when you look at spending programs as "I am paying for this". So why should we allow this? A huge portion of Canadians are paying for a few people to get tax breaks. That isn't in the best interest of those people. Not even remotely. Well, your last statement isn't true. A number of people will get a boost at the beginning of their career and then be able to sustain themselves. After all, look at all the government spending on helping students get jobs. Using your own argument: if a student is really talented he doesn't need government support. The student will be able to find work without government help. Yes, there will be judgment passed in giving out funds. That is why the criteria should be as neutral as possible. That is hardly a reason to cancel a spending program. There is discretion in all spending programs.

Obviously some determination must be made to give out money no matter the spending program. But you are right in that the government should be giving that money out based on neutral criteria not based on "which artists [they think] are worthy of support".

Nope. The reason that gas will be exempt from this tax is that the current gas tax is equal to a carbon tax of approximately $42 per tonne of carbon. After four years the end goal is to tax carbon at a rate of $40 per tonne of carbon. So there is no point in adding tax to gas since it is already where they want it. Think of it as renaming the current gas tax to a carbon tax at the end of the fourth year. But make no mistake. If, after four years, the carbon tax is increased to something like $50 per tonne of carbon then you will see the tax on gas rising to keep it consistent.

The only info I have seen says that the carbon tax is based on a dollar value per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted. I have not seen documentation on carbon content of fuel. Please let me know where I can find such information because I would like to read it. Regardless, the carbon content in the fuel has to go somewhere. Where does it go? The air. As emissions. So you can base a carbon tax on the carbon content of fuel by knowing how much of that carbon gets emitted into the atmosphere when the fuel is used. There is no real difference then between "carbon content" and "carbon emissions" for the purposes of the tax once you do this conversion. I am not saying "let's add a tax to diesel and that will reduce emissions". I am saying that the tax applies to all emissions equally no matter the source. More efficient fuels will emit less carbon and therefore the tax paid over a year will be less than those fuels that emit more carbon. People will pay less using diesel. This sounds like a financial reward to me. The tax does not produce lower emissions directly. It encourages behaviour that lowers emissions. Driving a gas car will be more costly than driving a diesel car. Driving a diesel car will be more costly than taking public transit. Public transit will be more costly than riding your bicycle or walking. The tax isn't there to reward the most efficient automobile fuel. It is there to encourage behaviour that lowers greenhouse gas emissions. The stunning technical ignorance comes from those who do not realize that the point is to tax the emissions themselves. Not a fuel. The emissions. Not a fuel. Fuels that produce fewer emissions get taxed less. Activities that emit even less than diesel will be even cheaper for people. Et voila. Your goal is achieved: lower emissions through modified behaviour.

One more time... The primary goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by taxing ALL greenhouse gas emissions. All greenhouse gas emissions are taxed at the same rate because all greenhouse gas emissions are the same REGARDLESS of the source. Compare diesel and gas. Using gas emits more greenhouse gases. Let's say the carbon tax on gas amounts to $X per year. Let's say the carbon tax on diesel amounts to $Y per year. If Y is less than X then more people will want to use diesel in order to save money. And Y will be less than X for all of the reasons you have pointed out: diesel emits less greenhouse gasses than normal gasoline. The reason you tax the emission themselves is because the emissions are what you want to reduce. When a more efficient fuel reaches market then the cost of the carbon tax on that fuel will be $Z per year where Z is even less than Y. People will move to the new fuel. And we won't have to change the tax legislation (by introducing a new diesel tax). It is called a carbon tax for a reason - it taxes carbon! Not a specific fuel. More efficient fuels will be chosen by consumers because the tax paid will be less. The tax paid will be less because the fuel emits less greenhouse gasses.

That would depend on your interests I guess. Even for those who are not interested in art I would guess that in some way government money is going towards something they are interested in. Athletics, sporting events, parks, whatever. Even so, not all artists, as you yourself point out, receive funding. I have no problem with saying that government spending should be fair and benefit all of Canadian society. While this idea that you are paying for someone else's interests is interesting, it gets a bit messy. By that perspective, if you derive income from your writing and (I hope) reduce your taxes by claiming materials (e.g. computer, home office, etc.) then even if we make the same income you pay less taxes. In this way I am paying you to be a writer. It is your right not to apply for a grant. As it is your right to apply for one. And I have no doubt that there are a number of bad writers out there trying to get as much out of the system as they can. But you go to any workplace or organization and you will most likely find someone who is bad at their job and trying to get as much out of the system as they can. These people do not define the groups to which they belong. Your statements were aimed at the entire arts community whereas your last post shows a more balanced, and realistic, approach to how things are. If government spending required 100% approval nothing would get done. There are people who do not think they should have to pay for other people's children and yet we have a child tax benefit. There are numerous other examples. Government should not be passing judgment on what it considered good art or bad art. Simply supporting the arts community is a worthy goal in itself. Sometimes that means supporting art that you consider crap. Sometimes that means supporting art that you consider a masterpiece.