Carbon Tax Propossal

[Wilber]

Don't you see that pollution control and carbon dioxide control go hand in hand? Where there is carbon dioxide being formed from the combustion of fossil fuels, there is also pollution being formed.

Actually they don't necessarily. A taxed based on carbon will tax diesel fuel at a higher rate than gasoline because it has a higher carbon content, ignoring the fact that diesel vehicles are far more efficient and produce on average 20% less CO2 than a comparable gasoline vehicle. This is often what happens when people get religion on these issues, dogma ends up trumping the allegedly desired result.

[madmax]

Actually they don't necessarily. A taxed based on carbon will tax diesel fuel at a higher rate than gasoline because it has a higher carbon content, ignoring the fact that diesel vehicles are far more efficient and produce on average 20% less CO2 than a comparable gasoline vehicle. This is often what happens when people get religion on these issues, dogma ends up trumping the allegedly desired result.

That's if you believe this tax is designed to do anything to reduce CO2 emmissions to begin with. You have to "BELIEVE" that it will. There is little to suggest that it will have a significant impact if revenue neutral, (maybe even the reverse effect). But if you do believe that a Tax will reduce emmissions, then your argument is valid, and those Gas Taxers should address your information on Diesel vehicles.

I don't believe Dion has given it a 2nd thought.

[jdobbin]

It seems Suzuki has lots of criticism of the NDP over the lack of support for the carbon tax.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...18?hub=Politics

Famed environmentalist David Suzuki has strongly backed Liberal leader Stephane Dion's emerging carbon tax plan and slammed the NDP and Conservatives.

After hearing the NDP's criticism of Dion's plan, Suzuki said: "I'm really shocked with the NDP with this. I thought that they had a very progressive environmental outlook."

"To oppose (the carbon tax plan), its just nonsense. It's certainly the way we got to go," he said Sunday on CTV's Question Period.

[Alta4ever]

It seems Suzuki has lots of criticism of the NDP over the lack of support for the carbon tax.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...18?hub=Politics

If suzuki said it then it must be right

[jdobbin]

If suzuki said it then it must be right

A lot of NDP supporters certainly think Suzuki is right.

[Bryan]

If suzuki said it then it must be right

Whatever Suzuki says, the truth is usually the polar opposite.

[madmax]

Whatever Suzuki says, the truth is usually the polar opposite.

That is your opinion. David Suzuki has never held back his opinion. He believes this is the way to go. He believes that a revenue neutral tax will save the planet.

Problem is, to believe that the Liberals, even under Dion, would follow through on a campaign platform issue to begin with is like believing in Santa Clause.

I don't believe there is any merit to this proposal. Suzuki is entitled to his opinion. I am tired of hearing people bash Suzuki because he speaks his mind.

But I do not trust Dion, Dions Flip Flop nor do I believe that a revenue neutral tax will save the planet.

[jdobbin]

But I do not trust Dion, Dions Flip Flop nor do I believe that a revenue neutral tax will save the planet.

There are some who say Layton is a flip flopper on ethanol. I happen to agree with him on that one in terms of food for fuel but he is hurting NDP chances with farmers and environmental groups.

[Bryan]

That is your opinion.

Of course it's my opinion, I wrote it.

[madmax]

A carbon tax will work only if the consumer doesn't ended up paying for it. Tax the polluter like oil and gas and then what will they do, send that on to the consumer in price increases.

Ok, did some digging (Old Story). Is this similar to what you are suggesting? Look at the participants involved. I think this is similar and appears to "tax the polluter" , and benefits, the communities. (That's if they don't blow the money on limo rides )

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/20...carbon-tax.html

Energy companies will pass cost to consumers, say analysts

Last Updated: Thursday, June 7, 2007 | 9:31 AM ET

CBC News

Quebec will implement Canada's first carbon tax in October, collecting just under one cent a litre from petroleum companies in the province, which will raise about $200 million a year to pay for energy-saving initiatives such as improvements to public transit.

The tax will amount to 0.8 cents on every litre of gas sold in Quebec, and 0.9 cents on each litre of diesel fuel.

About 50 companies will be affected by the tax.

Oil companies will be hardest hit. They will pay about $69 million a year for gasoline, $36 million for diesel fuel, and $43 million for heating oil.

Natural gas distributors will pay about $39 million, while electricity distributor Hydro-Québec will pay $4.5 million for its thermal energy plant in Tracy, Que.

Natural Resources Minister Claude Béchard said Wednesday he hopes the petroleum industry will pay the tax without passing on the cost to drivers when they fill up their cars at the pump.

"We all have a responsibility. Every Quebecer has a responsibility. It's important for every Quebecer. So I hope that all those companies will have the same sincerity that we have, that Quebecers have," Béchard said.

and like you suggested would happen....

Petroleum industry spokesman Carol Montreuil said there is no guarantee companies will swallow the tax, rather than tacking it onto the price of fuel at the pump

[Keepitsimple]

It all seems so surreal to me. No significant warming has occurred for the past decade and now that cyclical ocean current data has been entered into the IPCC computer models, no warming is projected for the next decade. That means that no warming of any significance will have occurred for 20 years. And the science is settled? And we need a Carbon Tax? Mother Nature has indeed joined the ranks of the sceptics.

Edited May 22, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[Riverwind]

It all seems so surreal to me. No significant warming has occurred for the past decade and now that cyclical ocean current data has been entered into the IPCC computer models, no warming is projected for the next decade. That means that no warming of any significance will have occurred for 20 years. And the science is settled? And we need a Carbon Tax? Mother Nature has indeed joined the ranks of the sceptics.

Here is an interesting comment from a climate scientist with 300+ peer reviwed papers to his credit:

http://climatesci.org/2008/05/21/can-the-i...-years-of-data/

Thus the value of global warming of the last 4 years fails to agree with the IPCC projections (the values are not even close!). The agrument that this is too short of a time is spurious unless the modellers can account for where else in their model results the missing Joules went.

Moreover, this is not too short of a time period to compare with the models. Heat, unlike temperature at a single level as used to construct a global average surface temperature trend, is a variable in physics that can be assessed at any time period (i.e. a snapshot) to diagnose the climate system heat content. Temperature not only has a time lag, but a single level represents an insignificant amount of mass within the climate system.

The answer to the question on this weblog “Can the IPCC model projections of global warming be evaluated from just several years of observed data” is YES. The conclusion for the past four years is that the model projections are not skillful on this time period.

Edited May 22, 2008 by Riverwind

[Alta4ever]

Here is an interesting comment from a climate scientist with 300+ peer reviwed papers to his credit:

http://climatesci.org/2008/05/21/can-the-i...-years-of-data/

Peer reviewed means nothing.

Who is the peer are they actual climatologists or are they just geneticists?

Global warming alarmists are nothing more than a cult of Statist professional protestors, who have found another vehicle to push their agenda of wealth redistribution.

[Riverwind]

Peer reviewed means nothing.

Did you read what the guy had to say? He is a dissenter that believes the IPCC is overstating the effect of CO2 on climate. I mentioned the peer review because the alarmists think they can ignore anyone who does not have the 'correct' credentials.

[gc1765]

I don't think Layton understands economics, or else he is doing this because he thinks it will win him votes:

In a speech to staff and volunteers of an Ottawa homeless shelter, Mr. Layton will argue a carbon tax would penalize the growing number of Canadians who are already having a hard time making ends meet.

“Canadians believe that it's high time we place a price on carbon,” states an advance copy of the speech to be delivered today. “While many, like me believe that the most effective way to price carbon is through a cap-and-trade system where the big profitable polluters begin to pay their fair share, others suggest a carbon tax.

“Advocates of a carbon tax suggest that by making the costs for certain things more expensive, people will make different choices. But Canada is a cold place. Heating your home is not a choice... We should not punish people, but that is what a carbon tax does.”

link

If I remember correctly, there was a poll that suggests the majority would be in favour of a revenue neutral carbon tax. Seems like the Liberals and Greens are the only ones offering it though.

I don't think that the NDP can claim to be the best choice for the environment anymore...

[madmax]

If I remember correctly, there was a poll that suggests the majority would be in favour of a revenue neutral carbon tax.

It has never been beyond the Liberals to pander to a poll........ why else would such a proposal come forth from Dion.

There are two Provinces that have legislation now (Gas Taxes).

I am interested in see the results between the two choices.

BC vs Quebec.

Maybe see the answers in 5 years.

[Riverwind]

I am interested in see the results between the two choices.

The results will likely be obsured by the effect of rising oil prices (the entire BC carbon tax is 7 cents/liter phased in over several years - gas prices have risen 20 cents in six months). I suspect the tax will cost Campbell seats in the north where people don't have alternatives and are now already paying 1.67/liter for gas!

That said, I doubt we will see any drop in CO2 emissions in BC as long as the population is growing and/or the economy is growing. Reducing CO2 by fiat is a futile exercise that will at best accomplish nothing but has the potential to severily damage the economy.

Edited May 22, 2008 by Riverwind

[capricorn]

It all seems so surreal to me. No significant warming has occurred for the past decade and now that cyclical ocean current data has been entered into the IPCC computer models, no warming is projected for the next decade. That means that no warming of any significance will have occurred for 20 years. And the science is settled? And we need a Carbon Tax? Mother Nature has indeed joined the ranks of the sceptics.

IMO many Canadians are bound to come to the same conclusion. Regardless of how well a carbon tax is presented to and understood by these Canadians, it will do nothing to convince them that the Liberals are a viable option to the Conservatives. With Dion as leader and without a main policy plank, the Liberals most certainly will not win the next election.

[jdobbin]

IMO many Canadians are bound to come to the same conclusion. Regardless of how well a carbon tax is presented to and understood by these Canadians, it will do nothing to convince them that the Liberals are a viable option to the Conservatives. With Dion as leader and without a main policy plank, the Liberals most certainly will not win the next election.

I doubt they will win either. At the same time, the Tories will have to indicate whether they are really committed to the reducing emissions or if they are about to drop out of the international agreement.

At the moment, the environment has dropped in importance as an issue but it is a major weakness for the Tories. Left to a majority, it is possible the Tories would drop out of international agreements on climate change altogether.

Edited May 22, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wild Bill]

I doubt they will win either. At the same time, the Tories will have to indicate whether they are really committed to the reducing emissions or if they are about to drop out of the international agreement.

At the moment, the environment has dropped in importance as an issue but it is a major weakness for the Tories. Left to a majority, it is possible the Tories would drop out of international agreements on climate change altogether.

I'm not so sure it is "a major weakness for the Tories." The circles where so much of these ideas are popular seem mostly to be circles that would never vote Tory anyway. I don't think "mainstream" Canada buys into it that strongly.

That being said, I AM certain that if any idea even smells like costing Canadians even a pittance extra from their paycheques they will turn against it. People are strapped more than many politicians realize from their comfortable, insulated ivory towers. Harper announced here in Ontario yesterday that his government can't and won't do anything about gasoline prices. It may have been a truthful thing to say but I'm not sure it was a smart thing politically. People are well aware of the tax portion of the price of a litre of gas. Of course, Dion has even less credibility about enhancing people's disposable income. The mere idea of offsetting carbon taxes with income taxes shows he's out of touch. Carbon taxes will be paid every day while income tax refunds might be a year away. Many Canadians could not survive the wait!

[jdobbin]

I'm not so sure it is "a major weakness for the Tories." The circles where so much of these ideas are popular seem mostly to be circles that would never vote Tory anyway. I don't think "mainstream" Canada buys into it that strongly.

I agree. In some sectors it probably plays great and in some areas, it doesn't. The Tories need to win seats where the environment is an important issue. Unlike the Mulroney government, the Harper government appears to not really have an interest in the environment.

That being said, I AM certain that if any idea even smells like costing Canadians even a pittance extra from their paycheques they will turn against it. People are strapped more than many politicians realize from their comfortable, insulated ivory towers. Harper announced here in Ontario yesterday that his government can't and won't do anything about gasoline prices. It may have been a truthful thing to say but I'm not sure it was a smart thing politically. People are well aware of the tax portion of the price of a litre of gas. Of course, Dion has even less credibility about enhancing people's disposable income. The mere idea of offsetting carbon taxes with income taxes shows he's out of touch. Carbon taxes will be paid every day while income tax refunds might be a year away. Many Canadians could not survive the wait!

If Dion runs on just raising the tax, it probably won't succeed. If he runs on lowering income tax cuts 6 to 8%, it will resonate more. By the way, the gas tax for vehicles is not going up in this proposal.

I think the 6 to 8% income tax cut would be good all by itself.

[Riverwind]

I think the 6 to 8% income tax cut would be good all by itself.

8% income tax means nothing if prices for essentials go up 16% and price increases are the in-escapable result of any attempt to artificially increase energy prices. The furthermore, the inflationary impact of a carbon tax would likely put upward pressure on interest rates which would cost people even more.

[Keepitsimple]

I doubt they will win either. At the same time, the Tories will have to indicate whether they are really committed to the reducing emissions or if they are about to drop out of the international agreement.

At the moment, the environment has dropped in importance as an issue but it is a major weakness for the Tories. Left to a majority, it is possible the Tories would drop out of international agreements on climate change altogether.

What the Conservatives have done is prescient. I didn't think much of their approach 18 months ago but to economists, the writing was on the wall that the price of oil would be going way up - creating a market-based, self regulating situation. People are really starting to re-think their use of oil and gasoline. A carbon tax, unless it is onerous, will do nothing to escalate our changing mindset. The use of coal is being addressed through regulation - so either we phase it out or install scrubbers. The marketplace seems to be doing a very good job at regulating our behaviour and it will continue to do so. The regulatory package to incentify/penalize industry to be introduced by the Tories will bring about an additional slow and steady change of attitude. One need only look to the UK and Europe to see how political interference in free markets through "cap and trade" has had disastrous results.

[jdobbin]

8% income tax means nothing if prices for essentials go up 16% and price increases are the in-escapable result of any attempt to artificially increase energy prices. The furthermore, the inflationary impact of a carbon tax would likely put upward pressure on interest rates which would cost people even more.

Citation on your essentials going up 16%?

[jdobbin]

What the Conservatives have done is prescient. I didn't think much of their approach 18 months ago but to economists, the writing was on the wall that the price of oil would be going way up - creating a market-based, self regulating situation. People are really starting to re-think their use of oil and gasoline. A carbon tax, unless it is onerous, will do nothing to escalate our changing mindset. The use of coal is being addressed through regulation - so either we phase it out or install scrubbers. The marketplace seems to be doing a very good job at regulating our behaviour and it will continue to do so. The regulatory package to incentify/penalize industry to be introduced by the Tories will bring about an additional slow and steady change of attitude. One need only look to the UK and Europe to see how political interference in free markets through "cap and trade" has had disastrous results.

Yes, it appears the Tory strategy is to basically defer doing anything.

I wish they would basically be straight forward and say they don't believe in the science of global warming and that they are going to drop it.