Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

[blueblood]

If my logic serves me, what I get out of this tax is a fast track to inflation.

Goods will cost a lot more money due to significantly higher transport costs as most goods are transported with diesel fuel. The governments also benefit again with higher sales taxes earned on the higher priced goods.

I'm curious as to see how this will apply to the biofuel program. Getting taxed to make something that helps the environment and reduces oil consumption reeks of hypocrisy.

[jdobbin]

Goods will cost a lot more money due to significantly higher transport costs as most goods are transported with diesel fuel. The governments also benefit again with higher sales taxes earned on the higher priced goods.

There is no additional fuel tax. Under the Tory plan, fuel goes up.

The Conservatives promised to get rid of the excise tax in 2005. That promise went up in smoke.

[blueblood]

There is no additional fuel tax. Under the Tory plan, fuel goes up.

The Conservatives promised to get rid of the excise tax in 2005. That promise went up in smoke.

So I take it diesel isn't included then, I see.

A lot of promises go up in smoke, The GST cut in 93 and income trusts in 06.

[jdobbin]

So I take it diesel isn't included then, I see.

A lot of promises go up in smoke, The GST cut in 93 and income trusts in 06.

And the excise tax by the Tories in 2005.

[Wilber]

And Harper and is ilk are okay with their cap and passing on a 40 cent increase in gas via companies passing on their cost? Where is the outrage?

So you agree that politicians who don't know what they are doing do things because they have to be seen doing something even if they don't understand the ramifications of their actions.

[Visionseeker]

When the PM starts using language like “this will actually screw everybody across the country” and stands alone in that assessment, well, it looks like Dion reclaims the mantle of environmental steward. I have to look into this much further, but it would seem on the surface that the Liberals have a potential winner policy – one that has even recessionary appeal.

[jdobbin]

So you agree that politicians who don't know what they are doing do things because they have to be seen doing something even if they don't understand the ramifications of their actions.

The Dion plan does explain the ramifications of the tax. It will increase the price of carbon. To compensate, taxes will be reduced.

The Harper plans lets business pass on the cost but does nothing to compensate for this.

[August1991]

The difference between a carbon tax and a tobacco tax is the same as the difference between a fiat currency and a gold-based currency. The former is only useful when very very strict limits are placed on the entities responsible for issuing the currency and economic diasaster occurs when politicians are allowed to control the supply of money. There is no reason to believe that the economic problems would be any less if politicians are allowed to issue and control the supply of a fiat commodity like CO2.

At present, governments tax effort through the income tax system. Dion is proposing that we shift (in a very minor way) the tax system from effort to CO2 emissions.

Frankly, I think it is far easier to measure CO2 emissions than it is to measure effort and hence, CO2 (or environmental use) is a better tax base.

As to Wilber's comment about transfer-pricing in the use of jet fuel, corporations (and individuals) do all of this now. There is good reason to believe that Dion's proposal may actually diminish the costly (wasteful) efforts to avoid taxes.

Edited June 23, 2008 by August1991

[August1991]

Some of the middle class will have much more ability than others depending on where they live and what options are available to them. . As I said before, merely imposing a tax requires little effort or imagination. The real imagination must be shown by those who have to live with that tax.

The market itself is doing something about it. Look at the auto industry, they can't build efficient cars fast enough and can't give gas guzzlers away. Saw an add by an Okanagan Ford dealer last week. Up to 14 grand in incentives on new HD pickups. Already own a truck? they will give you another 4 grand off if you keep it. They don't want it. It didn't take a carbon tax to do that.

I fail to see why someone should get a free ride at the expense of the environment, and that's the basis of your argument. Why should someone who abuses the environment not pay for this? Can someone pump oil out of the ground in BC, Alta or Saskatchewan without paying a royalty to the provincial government? In effect, Dion is asking us all to pay a royalty for the use of the environment (while drawing attention to the fact that at present, we pay no royalty at all.)

I find it somewhat amusing Wilber that you then go on to say that the market is doing what Dion proposes to do - as if that makes it all OK.

[Riverwind]

Frankly, I think it is far easier to measure CO2 emissions than it is to measure effort and hence, CO2 (or environmental use) is a better tax base.

1) We already have a hard time ensuring that goods imported from China don't have toxic substances in them. Calculating the amount of CO2 emitted to produce goods imported from China will be a virtual impossibility. I realize that carbon tariffs are not in Dion's current plan but it is only a matter of time because any carbon taxes set high enough to change behavoir will simply move production outside of the country.

2) Even if one accepts that CO2 is actually a "pollutant" the single minded obsession with CO2 is extremely misguided since humans pollute the environment in many ways and singling out CO2 will lead to increases in other types of pollution. For example, nuclear waste is a very deadly pollutant but more of it would be produced if only CO2 is taxed. To be consistent you should be calling for a complex "pollution tax" which would require legions of bureaucrats evaluate different types of pollution and put a tax on them.

3) Using pollution as a "tax base" is inherently unstable since one would expect "pollution" to decrease as a result of the price incentives which would undermine the "tax base". Increasing the taxes to compensate for the taxes lost would impose an ever increasing burden on those who have no choice but to pollute in order to produce essential goods.

4) A carbon tax will make it more economical to export energy rather than selling it in Canada. For example, the natural gas consumed by the tar sands development will still likely be shipped to the US and burned at lower prices. This will have no net effect on the environment but it will hurt the Canadian economy. In other cases, the resources will be left undeveloped

Edited June 23, 2008 by Riverwind

[YEGmann]

So I take it diesel isn't included then, I see.

A lot of promises go up in smoke, The GST cut in 93 and income trusts in 06.

You both guys are funny. Lots of blind faith in liberals but little of knowledge of the true liberal policy.

Please read:

http://thegreenshift.ca/pdfs/green_shift_book_en.pdf

page 26:

"A carbon tax will apply at the wholesale level, across the country, to the full range of fossil fuels including coal, propane, natural gas, oil and diesel – based on their level of carbon emissions."

Diesel will be exempt for the the first year of the plan.

[Wilber]

I find it somewhat amusing Wilber that you then go on to say that the market is doing what Dion proposes to do - as if that makes it all OK.

The market is doing it regardless of what governments may or may not do. That's not OK with you? Is this about results or dogma for you, because when governments interfere they generally screw it up?

I just got my equal payment adjustment from the gas company. Even though I used a bit less than forecast over the past year, it is up $21 a month or $252 a year without Dion's social engineering tax. If he and his buddies want to freeze and completely de index their incomes for the rest of their lives, maybe we can talk, until then he can bugger off.

By the way, China has just jacked up fuel prices because they can no longer afford the subsidies to keep them at current levels because of high world prices. The market is dictating again.

As to Wilber's comment about transfer-pricing in the use of jet fuel, corporations (and individuals) do all of this now. There is good reason to believe that Dion's proposal may actually diminish the costly (wasteful) efforts to avoid taxes.

Really, how so? How is Dion going to control taxation and pricing in other countries?

[jdobbin]

"A carbon tax will apply at the wholesale level, across the country, to the full range of fossil fuels including coal, propane, natural gas, oil and diesel – based on their level of carbon emissions."

Diesel will be exempt for the the first year of the plan.

I did read. No tax on the retail level which applies at the pump.

The production and use of diesel has 25 to 35% less emissions than gas and will receive a smaller hit from the carbon tax at the wholesale level. It is calculated that at the wholesale level, the tax will be up 7 cents a litre which is a 5% increase in the fourth year. There will be no increase of diesel in terms of excise tax at the retail level.

By comparison, oil companies have raised their retail rates on diesel 51% from 2006.

Many provincial government rebate the cost of diesel for farmers with marked fuel. I think there is a case for farmers to receive an exemption.

[Wilber]

The production and use of diesel has 25 to 35% less emissions than gas and will receive a smaller hit from the carbon tax at the wholesale level.

If the use of diesel produces 25 to 35% less emissions you would think they would be promoting it, not taxing it. What kind of screwed up logic is that?

[jdobbin]

If the use of diesel produces 25 to 35% less emissions you would think they would be promoting it, not taxing it. What kind of screwed up logic is that?

The usage of diesel is where the bulk of the decrease comes from in emissions. It is the production and wholesale end that will receive the 5% carbon tax.

Edited June 23, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

The usage of diesel has 25-35% less emissions. The production does not. It is better than other fuels but not at the rate when used in an engine. It is the production end that will receive the 5% carbon tax.

Which will still be applied at the pumps. And the production of gasoline produces no CO2? So what you are saying is that even though the use of diesel will still produce 20 to 30% less emissions in the end allowing for the idea (which I don't buy) that it there are 5% more produced in it's production, it will be taxed. That logic is only 5% less screwed up.

[SamStranger]

Well...if we are going to attack Stephen Harper's "approach to any policy challenge", then let's look at the facts.

Fact: Liberals champion them selves as Environmentalists, and the ideal party to curb Global Warming.

Fact: Under the Liberals Green House Gas Emissions rose by nearly 33%

Fact: Stephane Dion has been "celebrated as a hero", or so he says

Fact: The Left-Wing Liberals have no policy to lower Green House Gas Emissions...what they do have is a NEW TAX. The Left has always been about raising taxes, or introducing new taxes. If Dion really cared about the high taxation of Canada then why doesn't he lower income taxes without bringing in a new tax. The truth is he doesn't care about Canadians. He is a "Peterson" style Tax-and-Spend doctrine follower. All the Liberals know is how to tax us. Here a tax. There a tax. My God, as John Lennon said they would even try to "tax our feet".

Liberals...is there anything they won't tax?

[YEGmann]

I did read. No tax on the retail level which applies at the pump.

It's amasing argument! All liberal taxes are applied on the wholesale level. This is sellers or providers who transfer the tax on their prices for consumers to pay. Including diesel at the pumps.

[jdobbin]

It's amasing argument! All liberal taxes are applied on the wholesale level. This is sellers or providers who transfer the tax on their prices for consumers to pay. Including diesel at the pumps.

The Tory plan will force consumers to pay even more. That is including diesel.

[jdobbin]

Which will still be applied at the pumps. And the production of gasoline produces no CO2? So what you are saying is that even though the use of diesel will still produce 20 to 30% less emissions in the end allowing for the idea (which I don't buy) that it there are 5% more produced in it's production, it will be taxed. That logic is only 5% less screwed up.

Gas already has the excise tax on it which will stay as is.

As for diesel, the emissions might be lower but the particulates are higher.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/02/jacobsonJGR1023.html

Although diesel cars obtain 25 to 35 percent better mileage and emit less carbon dioxide than similar gasoline cars, they can emit 25 to 400 times more mass of particulate black carbon and associated organic matter ("soot") per kilometer mile.

It is quite probable that diesel actual causes more warming than gas.

And yes it will be applied at the pumps as the costs are passed on from the wholesale level. However, they will be far lower than what is forecast from the Conservative, NDP and Green plans.

Edited June 23, 2008 by jdobbin

[Argus]

I fail to see why someone should get a free ride at the expense of the environment, and that's the basis of your argument.

So you think it's okay for old people to freeze in their old houses so that rich people in expensive condos can get income tax cuts?

Why should someone who abuses the environment not pay for this?

You consider heating your house to be abusing the environment?

[Wilber]

Gas already has the excise tax on it which will stay as is.

As for diesel, the emissions might be lower but the particulates are higher.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/02/jacobsonJGR1023.html

It is quite probable that diesel actual causes more warming than gas.

And yes it will be applied at the pumps as the costs are passed on from the wholesale level. However, they will be far lower than what is forecast from the Conservative, NDP and Green plans.

You should bone up on your latest diesel technology. The new clean diesels coming out from Merdedes, VW and Honda among others are some of the cleanest and efficient engines out there and meet 50 state emission standards including California. Honda has dropped the Hybrid Accord and will be offering a diesel version because of just that.

[jdobbin]

You should bone up on your latest diesel technology. The new clean diesels coming out from Merdedes, VW and Honda among others are some of the cleanest and efficient engines out there and meet 50 state emission standards including California. Honda has dropped the Hybrid Accord and will be offering a diesel version because of just that.

For cars, we are seeing good changes. Other vehicles such as trucks, buses and farm equipment are still in need of improvements.

[myata]

A discourse. I oftentimes tune in to CFRA's political panel on the drive home, and I do have a favourite! The sheer audicity, this unnocent braziness of the Conservative observer on the show (there's also a Liberal and an NDP) never ceases to amaze me. Wonder where's he taking his inspiration from?

This time around, the conversation went about miscellaneous environmental programs. After the mandatory (and generous) bucket(s) of mud toward the opponents programs, the spotlight fell on CPC's own proud achievements in the field. Only, this time around, it wasn't about Clean (rather than hot) Air Act, and Mr Powers didn't even stop by to mention the voluntary gradually becoming semi-mandatory by the end of the few quick decades targets on all major emitters (with a few minor exceptions). No, this time around the stakes were raised higher. Much higher. Hardly bearing to contain the excitement, he brought to the attention of till then unsuspecting audience Mr Harper's selfless efforts at bringing the two major polluters/emitters of our times: China and India, back into the environmental fold.

The silence broke. Nobody had anything to say. I for one did not know whether to cry, or to laugh (for sheer joy). Then, a picture emerged in my mind:

- in a half lighted buddhist (or UN) hall, with China's Mr Jintao on one side, and India's Mr (...), on the other, Mr Harper delivering educational lecture on the benefits of low emissions lifestyle. The atmosphere is the inspired awe, nothing (but occasional tear of gratitude) breaks high officials concentrated effort to not miss a single word from the delivered pool, puddle, and ocean of profound wisdom.

Flash, the lecture's over. Messrs Jintao and (...) stand up in ovation, then start talking (in their respective languages, but with one voice). Phrases like "Mr Harper, you opended our eyes!", "No, you showed us the way" are flying around, too abound to record, or even mention. Then China and India deliver their official statement. It goes something like this (apologies for any problems with translation):

"Mr Harper, we're deeply grateful, till the end of our days (and those of our children, and their children - and so on, as per tradition's) for opening our eyes to, and showing us the way out from, the errors of our way. Only due to your selfless efforts, and your heavenly, or very close to it, power of pursuasion, have we seen the depths of our fall, and found the new way to our salvation(s). Mr Harper, by no means should you now waste your great talents on the lowly things like nutpicking/accounting gigatonnes and percentages of actual reductions in GHG emissions. No, your call goes much higher. You need to go around this world and teach and inspire us, lowly and unworthy, how to go about changing our unclean ways and save ours (and yours as a side benefit) children's futures. Only after this high duty is done, in a few decades time, by our estimates, should you go back to your own country, tired by sefless travails for the benefit of the humankind. By which time, inspired by your glorious examples, the voluntary emissions are bound to go drop down , like a cannonball (in the atmosphere of Jupiter) anyways. Not that it matters, in any way, because, the value of yourself (and your revereed place of origin, which will be held sacred in the hearts of this humankind hereafter) is not, as already mentioned, in boring figures and symbols, but in showing everybody the glorious path of inspiration, salvation and the future. You have no choice now but to take this inspired path. The future of the entire humankind is bound to you, Mr Harper".

With which the vision subsided. Was it the true sign of the days to come, or a dream? Who can tell? At least I made it home, and the traffic didn't appear half as bad as usual. I'll keep tuning in for the next intake of inspiration.

[Riverwind]

the two major polluters/emitters of our times: China and India, back into the environmental fold.

If Chinese and Indian governments are not concerned enough about CO2 to justify acting without being bribed by the rich world then we can safely assume that the science is not nearly as compelling as some would like us to believe. Edited June 24, 2008 by Riverwind