Carbon Tax Propossal

[noahbody]

Increasing CO2 concentrations is also having other effects, some known (ocean absorbtion) and some not.

So basically you're saying "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

No, you can't be wrong.

[Riverwind]

Believing that we can adapt to any unknown changes in the environment is just naive, as we don't even know what we will have to adapt to.

Believing that we understand enough about climate to know whether CO2 will cause serious problems is naive. Even worse, believing we can do something substantial about the amount of CO2 being emitted with the technology that we currently have is incredibly naive.

I personally believe in dealing with threats that we know are real. The argument for the AGW hysteria has little real empirical data to support it - the hysteria is derived from computer models which have never demonstrated that they have any useful skill beyond random chance.

Yes, we could probably survive many changes brought on by human impacts on the environment, we have so far. But adapting to the unknown, and potentially wiping out entire species that don't have that luxury, make the risk too high.

It is about cost vs. benefit. The costs of reducing CO2 emissions in the short term are huge and we have no idea whether spending the money would 1) actually do something about CO2 or 2) cost less that the costs of adaptation.

In any case, you have already acknowledged that you are not willing to pay any price to mitigate CO2 (i.e. you oppose strict population controls) so you really can't complain when others draw the line in a different place.

Edited May 23, 2008 by Riverwind

[Keepitsimple]

Today, David McGuinty wrote a letter to the Toronto Sun defending the Liberals' Carbon Tax Plan. In it he says:

This is what we mean when we say our plan is "revenue neutral." Every new dollar in revenue will be given back to Canadians in tax cuts.

At first glance, the naive reader would think "hey, that works for me"......but of course McGuinty's claim is disingenuous, if not an outright lie. In reality the Liberals have said that they will provide personal and business tax cuts.....but more importantly, much of the Carbon Tax revenue will be used to fund the massive bureaucracy that will be needed to support a very complex undertaking. Let's not forget that something as straight forward as the Long Gun Registry cost taxpayers more than a billion dollars - this is peanuts compared to the Department of Carbon Tax. So......after we pay for the bureaucracy and business tax cuts - how much will really be left to give back to Joe Public?

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Letters/...655021-sun.html

Edited May 24, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Bluth]

Today, David McGuinty wrote a letter to the Toronto Sun defending the Liberals' Carbon Tax Plan. In it he says:

At first glance, the naive reader would think "hey, that works for me"......but of course McGuinty's claim is disingenuous, if not an outright lie.

The voters will be reminded over and over and over again about that by the Conservatives, the NDP, the BQ, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the CAW and so on and so on and so on....

Go for it Steph. Sounds like a winning strategy.

[jdobbin]

At first glance, the naive reader would think "hey, that works for me"......but of course McGuinty's claim is disingenuous, if not an outright lie. In reality the Liberals have said that they will provide personal and business tax cuts.....but more importantly, much of the Carbon Tax revenue will be used to fund the massive bureaucracy that will be needed to support a very complex undertaking. Let's not forget that something as straight forward as the Long Gun Registry cost taxpayers more than a billion dollars - this is peanuts compared to the Department of Carbon Tax. So......after we pay for the bureaucracy and business tax cuts - how much will really be left to give back to Joe Public?

Is there a huge bureaucracy for the excise tax?

[jdobbin]

Is there some discomfort on the part of the NDP members about Layton's stand?

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/o...32-40a79f18baf9

It is widely conceded that Stéphane Dion is taking a major risk trying to sell a carbon tax when gasoline prices are climbing. Less discussed is Jack Layton's challenge: opposing that same tax without forfeiting his green credentials and constituency.

Environmentalist David Suzuki, for one, has praised Dion's initiative and expressed "shock" that the NDP isn't endorsing it. There are signs that Layton's hostility to the Dion proposal isn't sitting well with some New Democrats, either. The NDP leader has been at pains, lately, to emphasize his plan for tackling climate change - notably, tough caps on greenhouse gas emissions and a carbon trading system. Not that he is changing course. In a speech yesterday on poverty, he added a last-minute swipe at Dion: "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."

That is a time-honoured message (and not unlike Stephen Harper's, who called a carbon tax "foolish and unnecessary"). It is also the strongest argument against a carbon tax: It hurts those on fixed incomes, those dependent on fossil fuels to heat their homes, farmers and small town dwellers with no access to public transit. Before you force people to change their behaviour (one of the goals of a carbon tax) you should ensure they have a choice. (Never mind that, as Harper points out, the timing is wrong.)

Edited May 24, 2008 by jdobbin

[madmax]

Bicycle. Why?

Must be tricky in the winter.

Better get a horse and buggy/sleigh. That's how it's done in communities near me.

I bet you have never ridden in a car/bus/plane,train.....

Someone politically active that only rides a bike.

I think these other communities have you beat. And they don't vote.

Edited May 26, 2008 by madmax

[madmax]

The voters will be reminded over and over and over again about that by the Conservatives, the NDP, the BQ, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the CAW and so on and so on and so on....

Go for it Steph. Sounds like a winning strategy.

McGuinty's Brother wants to bring in his own tax, like BC.

The City of Toronto is bringing in their own electronics tax.

This is to help pay to transport unwanted electronic goods to Michegin. Good for the environment.

Edited May 26, 2008 by madmax

[madmax]

Go for it Steph. Sounds like a winning strategy.

Harper doesn't have a winning strategy.

[noahbody]

Harper doesn't have a winning strategy.

Harper did save the country between 10 and 20 Billion by getting out of the kyoto scheme. As far as saving the planet goes, if you believe all the doom and gloom, we're all doomed unless india and china reduce their emissions. You might as well grab the first woman you see, tell her the world's coming to an end and make sweet love to her. That's a winning strategy to me.

[Wilber]

This is to help pay to transport unwanted electronic goods to Michegin. Good for the environment.

Who's environment?

[stevoh]

Believing that we understand enough about climate to know whether CO2 will cause serious problems is naive. Even worse, believing we can do something substantial about the amount of CO2 being emitted with the technology that we currently have is incredibly naive.

Thinking that we can, despite historical examples to the contrary, modify the elemental composition of our atmosphere without detrimental effect defies logic.

I personally believe in dealing with threats that we know are real. The argument for the AGW hysteria has little real empirical data to support it - the hysteria is derived from computer models which have never demonstrated that they have any useful skill beyond random chance. It is about cost vs. benefit. The costs of reducing CO2 emissions in the short term are huge and we have no idea whether spending the money would 1) actually do something about CO2 or 2) cost less that the costs of adaptation.

So we have to wait until the effects are proven, as they were with lead, before we act? So all life on earth has to suffer whatever these "effects" are before you agree with countering them?

Some of us can look at a dangerous traffic intersection, and see that modification needs to happen before someone gets hurt. You need to see the bodies before your willing to make a change. "It costs too much" is small consolation for things you cannot reverse.

In any case, you have already acknowledged that you are not willing to pay any price to mitigate CO2 (i.e. you oppose strict population controls) so you really can't complain when others draw the line in a different place.

Your ludicrous notion of population control is just your attempt at equating an issue with a line that no-one is comfortable drawing. That equation is false.

[Topaz]

Harper did save the country between 10 and 20 Billion by getting out of the kyoto scheme. As far as saving the planet goes, if you believe all the doom and gloom, we're all doomed unless india and china reduce their emissions. You might as well grab the first woman you see, tell her the world's coming to an end and make sweet love to her. That's a winning strategy to me.

What about the BIG fine Canada has to pay if we don't make our quota, which we won't, there's go the 10-20 Mil.

[Riverwind]

Some of us can look at a dangerous traffic intersection, and see that modification needs to happen before someone gets hurt. You need to see the bodies before your willing to make a change. "It costs too much" is small consolation for things you cannot reverse.

Actually, this is exactly what happens all of the time. City planners layout intersections following established guidelines and they will only change those guidelines once enough bodies pile up to show that there is a problem with the guidelines. For example, in my city we had a motorcyclist killed by someone making an illegal left turn into a Safeway parking lot. This was the second or third death at that intersection so the city planners responded by putting up a physical barrier that prevented the illegal left turns. They did not go around the city to look for every possible risk location and put up a barrier because the cost was not justified given the risk.

Life is full of risk and governments cannot possibily deal with all it. That is why we do cost benefit studies and that is why some risks are simply ignored because the cost of dealing with them is too high. I think action on CO2 is not justified because it would cost to too much to deal with a risk that is purely hypothetical at this point in time.

Your ludicrous notion of population control is just your attempt at equating an issue with a line that no-one is comfortable drawing. That equation is false.

Thou doth protest to much.

By refusing to consider population control as an option you implicitly acknowledge that a cost-benefit analysis is required before any course of action on AGW can be persued.

This means that you cannot argue for radical action simply because 'human's are changing the earth's atmosphere'. You must demonstrate that the cost of any action is reasonable given the nature of the risk.

You have ruled out population control which would most certainly be most effective but seem to think that artificially increasing the price of energy beyond what it would be anyways is acceptable despite the fact that this will lead to more poverty, suffering and death among those least able to afford the higher costs. Personally, I don't see why deliberately impoverishing people is considered to be better than restricting their right to have children...

Edited May 26, 2008 by Riverwind

[Wild Bill]

What about the BIG fine Canada has to pay if we don't make our quota, which we won't, there's go the 10-20 Mil.

We simply refuse to pay it!

How on earth did they ever expect to enforce it?

Only a sap country like Canada would have ever intended to pay a fine anyway.

[Riverwind]

How on earth did they ever expect to enforce it?

There is no fine. Non compliant countries are punished with lower emissions quotas if/when the next climate treaty is signed. However, it is silly to impose those kinds of penalities on a country like Canada when a country like the US who refused to ratify the protocol in the first place faces no such penalties. Edited May 26, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

Actually, this is exactly what happens all of the time. City planners layout intersections following established guidelines and they will only change those guidelines once enough bodies pile up to show that there is a problem with the guidelines. For example, in my city we had a motorcyclist killed by someone making an illegal left turn into a Safeway parking lot. This was the second or third death at that intersection so the city planners responded by putting up a physical barrier that prevented the illegal left turns. They did not go around the city to look for every possible risk location and put up a barrier because the cost was not justified given the risk.

City planners have established guidelines which presumably weigh heavily on safety. Then an intersection causes accidents partially due to design, so they change the design. Wouldn't this therefore modify the way the constructed similar intersections in the future as a PREVENTATIVE measure? Or do they continue to make dangerous intersections based on the same design, and only change them one by one until more bodies pile up, perpetuating a dangerous design (and increasing the body count)?

I don't think so, they learn from past bad designs, and change the future ones.

With intersections, we learn and apply historical knowledge to making future intersections safer. Not applying the same logical ability to atmospheric changes is a severe oversite.

Life is full of risk and governments cannot possibily deal with all it. That is why we do cost benefit studies and that is why some risks are simply ignored because the cost of dealing with them is too high. I think action on CO2 is not justified because it would cost to too much to deal with a risk that is purely hypothetical at this point in time.

Thou doth protest to much:

By refusing to consider population control as an option you implicitly acknowledge that a cost-benefit analysis is required before any course of action on AGW can be persued.

I refuse population control because I value life.

This means that you cannot argue for radical action simply because 'human's are changing the earth's atmosphere'. You must demonstrate that the cost of any action reasonable given the nature of the risk.

I am not arguing for radical action.

You have ruled out population control which would most certainly be most effective but seem to think that artificially increasing the price of energy beyond what it would be anyways is acceptable despite the fact that this will lead to more poverty, suffering and death among those least able to afford the higher costs. Personally, I don't see why deliberately impoverishing people is considered to be better than restricting their right to have children...

You are the only one advocating for actual population control, like I said, you won't do anything about emissions until the bodies start piling up. Very effective population control indeed.

[Riverwind]

City planners have established guidelines which presumably weigh heavily on safety. Then an intersection causes accidents partially due to design, so they change the design. Wouldn't this therefore modify the way the constructed similar intersections in the future as a PREVENTATIVE measure?

Only if the cost is not prohibitive. Designs that improve safety at great cost are never considered. Why do you keep ignoring this point? The precautionary measures *always* require that risk be balanced against the cost.

With intersections, we learn and apply historical knowledge to making future intersections safer. Not applying the same logical ability to atmospheric changes is a severe oversite.

Changes to intersection design are based on real data and real experience that allows the planners to properly evaluate the risks vs. costs. In many cases simple design changes cost almost nothing and can be introduced based on hypothetical risks. Expensive design changes will never be incorporated unless there is real data that demonstrates that there is a real risk.

We have no data that conclusively demonstrates that 1) higher CO2 is a net negative (it has positive effects as well BTW) and 2) agressive CO2 reduction targets are the most effective way to deal with the negative effects.

I refuse population control because I value life.

No you value abstract prinicipals - not life. If you cared about life you would show at least as much concern for poverty and suffering that will be created by any regime that artificially inflates the cost of energy.

I am not arguing for radical action.

Reducing CO2 requires more than using twisty light bulbs and driving a prius. We simply do not have the technology today that would allow us to replace CO2 emitting fuels without causing severe damage to the economy. Nuclear could but, like population control, it is another potentially effective solution that is rejected by most alarmists.

Now a technological magic bullet could appear (i.e. a cheap large scale battery and/or cheap and clean solar cells) and if this magic bullet did appear then the cost of implementing the precautionary principle might be low enough to justify action without any further evidence. However, we must assume that such a technological breakthrough will not occur when we make polcies today. That means that radical action is not justified given the hypothetical nature of the risk.

Edited May 26, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

Only if the cost is not prohibitive. Designs that improve safety at great cost are never considered. Why do you keep ignoring this point? The precautionary measures *always* require that risk be balanced against the cost.

Why do you feel I am arguing against this point? I am arguing for forsight based on hindsight. Not against cost/benefit analysis.

Changes to intersection design are based on real data and real experience that allows the planners to properly evaluate the risks vs. costs. In many cases simple design changes cost almost nothing and can be introduced based on hypothetical risks. Expensive design changes will never be incorporated unless there is real data that demonstrates that there is a real risk.

So you are supporting small measured changes to reduce emissions? You seem to be opposed to all efforts no matter how driven as "futile".

We have no data that conclusively demonstrates that 1) higher CO2 is a net negative (it has positive effects as well BTW) and 2) agressive CO2 reduction targets are the most effective way to deal with the negative effects.

Yes, I know, I know, you want to see the bodies.

No you value abstract prinicipals - not life. If you cared about life you would show at least as much concern for poverty and suffering that will be created by any regime that artificially inflates the cost of energy.

A carbon tax is a drop in the bucket compared to what standard market forces are doing right now. Tell me, caring riverwind, what are you doing about the rising costs of gas right now, causing all that poverty and suffering? You must feel this needs immediate action given your concern.

Reducing CO2 requires more than using twisty light bulbs and driving a prius. We simply do not have the technology today that would allow us to replace CO2 emitting fuels without causing severe damage to the economy. Nuclear could but, like population control, it is another potentially effective solution that is rejected by most alarmists.

Now a technological magic bullet could appear (i.e. a cheap large scale battery and/or cheap and clean solar cells) and if this magic bullet did appear then the cost of implementing the precautionary principle might be low enough to justify action without any further evidence. However, we must assume that such a technological breakthrough will not occur when we make polcies today. That means that radical action is not justified given the hypothetical nature of the risk.

I say again, who is suggesting radical action? Are you suggesting that a carbon tax, which, as mentioned before, pales in comparison to the real world price hikes occuring right now, is radical? If that is true the current price increases must seem apocolyptic, what is your plan of action?

[Riverwind]

I say again, who is suggesting radical action? Are you suggesting that a carbon tax, which, as mentioned before, pales in comparison to the real world price hikes occuring right now, is radical? If that is true the current price increases must seem apocolyptic, what is your plan of action?

The BC carbon tax is inconsequential and is a PR gesture that will likely have no measureable effect on CO2 production. I am working with assumption that the carbon tax will be followed by numerous other measures from carbon trading scams to regulations that indirectly increase the costs of goods and energy. I would not waste my time arguing if I thought that 1) the small BC carbon tax would actually solve the problem and 2) that the alarmists would be happy with those modest measures.

I agree that high energy prices are a concern and there are measures that the government can do but they have their hands tied because of the CO2 hysteria. For example, electric cars will never become more economical than gas cars if the price of electricity skyrockets as well. For this reason blocking development of coal or nuclear powered electrical plants because of environmental perfectionism increases the cost of electricity and makes it more difficult to transition from an oil to a electricity powered transportation system. Once we have made that transition we will be able to replace the coal and nuclear plants with greener options if/when alternatives become available. I see this two stage approach as quite reasonable given the fact that CO2 is largely a hypothetical concern today whereas high oil prices are a real concern.

Edited May 26, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

The BC carbon tax is inconsequential and is a PR gesture that will likely have no measureable effect on CO2 production. I am working with assumption that the carbon tax will be followed by numerous other measures from carbon trading scams to regulations that indirectly increase the costs of goods and energy. I would not waste my time arguing if I thought that 1) the small BC carbon tax would actually solve the problem and 2) that the alarmists would be happy with those modest measures.

I agree that the carbon tax is going to have a lesser effect than current market pressures.

I agree that high energy prices are a concern and there are measures that the government can do but they have their hands tied because of the CO2 hysteria. For example, electric cars will never become more economical than gas cars if the price of electricity skyrockets as well. For this reason blocking development of coal or nuclear powered electrical plants because of environmental perfectionism increases the cost of electricity and makes it more difficult to transition from an oil to a electricity powered transportation system. Once we have made that transition we will be able to replace the coal and nuclear plants with greener options if/when alternatives become available. I see this two stage approach as quite reasonable given the fact that CO2 is largely a hypothetical concern today whereas high oil prices are a real concern.

58% of Canada's energy comes from hydro-electric, far above the next major energy producer, coal, at 16%. Some provinces, such as Quebec and Labrador, are over 85% hydro electric. For this reason, unless you live in albera (where over 80% is coal or natural gas based), the cost of electricity should not be directly tied to the current cost increase in other energy sources (although I am sure there will be minor effects). So, running an electric car, particularly if you live in quebec (97% hydro generated) should not be significantly effected by the increase in oil prices. If you live in Alberta however, you are pretty much SOL.

So, depending on where you live, the cost of charging an electric car with electricity should not increase at the same rate as the current oil increases. In other words, it is gradually becoming a more and more financially viable option.

As long as oil prices continue to climb, I believe that a carbon tax is unnecessary. They are going to have an even greater effect than the carbon tax is, make other energy sources more attractive options as relative price decreases.

[Topaz]

I just found this website www.carbontax.org and its an American site and by the site the US may well bring in their own tax. It explains that big polluters are taxed and then the money is divided up among the citizens and this is just one idea to bring in the tax.

[Riverwind]

So, running an electric car, particularly if you live in quebec (97% hydro generated) should not be significantly effected by the increase in oil prices. If you live in Alberta however, you are pretty much SOL.

That relationship is only true if you assume that the province subsidizes the cost of electricity. Electricity is a commodity that can be sold to the highest bidder and higher demand in other markets would cause prices to increases in places with hydro power too.

So, depending on where you live, the cost of charging an electric car with electricity should not increase at the same rate as the current oil increases. In other words, it is gradually becoming a more and more financially viable option.

The plants necessary to provide power 10 years from now must be built today with today's technology. Unfortunately, the CO2 hysteria has forced many coal based projects to be scraped or delayed. This will lead to wide spread power shortages in 10-20 years as the naturally growing demand outstrips the current supply. This day of reckoning will come sooner if there is a wide spread move to electric vehicles.

As long as oil prices continue to climb, I believe that a carbon tax is unnecessary. They are going to have an even greater effect than the carbon tax is, make other energy sources more attractive options as relative price decreases.

There are no options other than coal, gas or nuclear. Solar is not cost effective in northern latitudes and wind is unreliable. Nuclear plants take a long time to build because of the safety systems required. Gas is in short supply in NA which means there is a limit on the number of gas plants that can be built. That leaves us with nothing but coal which is rejected by some because of CO2 hysteria.

All of this adds up to rapidly increasing electricity prices and we have no reason to believe that those increases will be slower than oil price increases. This will lead to an economic disaster unless politicians learn to set their priorities properly and work to ensure a stable electricity supply during the transition away from an oil based society.

[madmax]

Harper did save the country between 10 and 20 Billion by getting out of the kyoto scheme. As far as saving the planet goes, if you believe all the doom and gloom, we're all doomed unless india and china reduce their emissions. You might as well grab the first woman you see, tell her the world's coming to an end and make sweet love to her. That's a winning strategy to me.

I am sorry, but we already have two Bernier threads going

[stevoh]

That relationship is only true if you assume that the province subsidizes the cost of electricity. Electricity is a commodity that can be sold to the highest bidder and higher demand in other markets would cause prices to increases in places with hydro power too.

So those making "cheaper" electricity not dependent on soaring fuel costs using hydro will now see greater profit. Which adds more incentive to create more hydro generation plants.

The plants necessary to provide power 10 years from now must be built today with today's technology. Unfortunately, the CO2 hysteria has forced many coal based projects to be scraped or delayed. This will lead to wide spread power shortages in 10-20 years as the naturally growing demand outstrips the current supply. This day of reckoning will come sooner if there is a wide spread move to electric vehicles.

There are no options other than coal, gas or nuclear. Solar is not cost effective in northern latitudes and wind is unreliable. Nuclear plants take a long time to build because of the safety systems required. Gas is in short supply in NA which means there is a limit on the number of gas plants that can be built. That leaves us with nothing but coal which is rejected by some because of CO2 hysteria.

Where did hydro go? Considering Canada generates 58% of its electricity from hydro, and that Canada is a land of water and rivers, why aren't you focussing on this area? Hydro (and micro hydro in remote locations) is and always will be a valid option.

source: http://www.canren.gc.ca/tech_appl/index.as...d=4&PgId=26

There is still significant potential for additional hydroelectricity production in Canada. There is an estimated potential of 182,832 Megawatts. 34,371 MW of this potential is considered practical for future development by electric utilities after considering the technical, environmental and economic factors involved in developing a new electric utility.

Traditionally, the cost of generating hydroelectric energy in Canada has been one of the lowest in the world. This allows for low retail electricity prices, to the benefit of residential users and electricity-intensive industries in Canada, such as the aluminum industry.

source: http://www.centreforenergy.com/generator2....mp;template=1,0

Hydroelectricity, which accounts for approximately 60 per cent of the electricity generated in Canada, is the least costly method of generation and is generated in British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Northwest Territories, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Yukon Territory.

All of this adds up to rapidly increasing electricity prices and we have no reason to believe that those increases will be slower than oil price increases. This will lead to an economic disaster unless politicians learn to set their priorities properly and work to ensure a stable electricity supply during the transition away from an oil based society.

Well, first off, I have every reason to believe that electricity prices will grow at a slower rate than oil price increases, as most of Canada's power is not currently based on oil, its based on hydro.

But lets base that on real evidence. Looking at my electricity bills over the last few years. In January of 2005 I paid $0.06050/kW.h. My last bill (May 2008) charged me $0.06550/kW/h. So, that represents an increase of almost 8% over just under 2 and a half years.

In January 2005 oil was just over $40dollars a barrel. Its now hovering around the $125 mark. That represents an increase of just over 300%.

Even when I compare month by month, in the end, oil prices have been climbing at a much greater rate than my electric bill.

Frankly, I don't see a correlation. Certainly nowhere near an equivalent growth rate. It looks like the real scaremonger in this debate has been revealed.