Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

[madmax]

So what you are saying is that no matter how high prices get, it is official Liberal policy that they will never be high enough.

Touche

[madmax]

I seen that, the CEO and the guy from NBC (forget name) made Robert Kennedy Jr. look like a dumb ass. The market is doing more for curbing pollution through high energy prices more quickly and efficiently than any gov't policy ever will.

That all depends upon which country you live in. China is about to surpass the US as the Largest CHG emmitter and may well be the largest polluter, and this is both the market and government policy aiding the increasing in environmentally unfriendly activities.

[jdobbin]

Yep. That's what you said.

At least with the Liberal plan the costs are fixed. The Tory and NDP plan lets the costs to consumers rise even higher. That's crazy economics.

[madmax]

At least with the Liberal plan the costs are fixed. The Tory and NDP plan lets the costs to consumers rise even higher. That's crazy economics.

HUH? Care to explain these other plans?

[segnosaur]

I also notice its not going to cause Liberals to either explain or recognize the flaws in their 'plans'.

Seems to me that Dion will be talking about this policy all summer including areas that might have some flaws. Or did you not read that?

First of all, I was referring specifically to the Liberals (or their supporters) on this board, those that support the Liberal plan (for example, YOU). I don't have the ability to talk to Dion or any of the top liberals directly... I do have the ability to question you directly though.

Secondly, let me get this straight... is Dion himself acknowleging that there may be flaws in the plan? Guess I missed that when I actually read the green plan itself (and yes, I did actually read it right from the Liberal web site, not some right-wing interpretation of it). But if the Liberal party itself is saying its flawed, then why do you seem to be so eager to praise their plan when these flaws are presented? After all, Dion himself may say "You know, this was a bad idea".

Talking about sellers here is irrelevant... it is the consumers that have the responsibility for reducing their energy usage.

And I'm talking about seller (ie: the producers) reducing their emissions during production.

Emissions during the production of fossil fuels makes up a very small part of our emissions (as of 2006, only about 9%.) Its only about 1/3 of that of emissions from transportation (cars/trucks/etc.) And while emissions from the production process have risen in the past 2 decades, so has production (simply we're selling more of the material). In the same time frame, our exports of crude oil and other products have risen over 100%. You create/sell more of a product, you may end up emitting more, even if your overall efficiency is improved. Ultimately, worrying about emissions during production is a very tiny part of the problem.

It was explained to you that a carbon tax is not necessary because industries already have an incentive to cut energy consumption to avoid naturally high energy bills, even without such a carbon tax. If you really think that there is some energy consuming company who doesn't like increasing its profits, please point them out.

I know exactly what you are trying to do... by trying to talk about 'sellers liking high prices', you're trying to divert attention so you won't have to acknowledge that particular flaw in the Liberal program... that its unnecessary.

And Royal Dutch Shell concluded that for emissions to be reduced, a price on carbon was necessary.

First of all, you haven't provided a reference. Some people actually like to back up their claims with, you know, evidence.

Secondly, if that's what Shell is claiming, they've already been proven wrong. As I've already stated, carbon emissions have been going down for a couple of years. Yet there is no carbon tax. (And, our GDP has increased in that time, so you can't blame the emission cuts on economic downturns). So,, Shell's predictions are already proven wrong by actual facts.

Sequestration is, as far as I know, only in the early pilot stages. In addition, it actually increases energy requirements, and may actually cause increases in other pollutants.

And yet that is the policy that is being promoted.

Promoted by who?

You were the one that brought up sequestration when I pointed out that cutting energy costs will both improve profits and reduce emissions. Is bringing up Sequestration just another in your long line of ways of avoiding that fact that reducing energy usage BOTH reduces profits AND reduces emissions?

Yup... emissions continue to rise... fueled mostly by the transportation sector (in particular SUVs). Yet the Liberal plan would not actually do anything to change those dynamics.

I disagree.

The difference is, my claims are actually based on actual facts and evidence... you know, like all the links I've posted in this thread since the start. Yours seem to be based on... what, partisanship and wishful thinking?

Does rather confuse me how you can disagree, since the Liberal plan doesn't change the price of gas... how exactly can not changing the price of gas actually change the dynamics?

Actually, no... they've taken a position which is actually easy to sell... tinker with the tax system, but avoid doing anything really diffucult... makes you look like you want to help, but avoid any of the hard decisions or political backlash.

Not difficult? I think that has to be an understatement. It will not be an easy policy to sell at all.

Really? You're the one that seems to be playing up all the Liberal friendly polls that deal with the environment.

Harper calls it crazy without defining why his own program is superior.

First of all, why is it necessary to have a 'superior' program in order to point out the worthless flaws in the Liberal plan?

Secondly, the fact that parties don't reveal all the details of their intentions is nothing new. I could point out how Dion has criticized the Conservatives for their GST cuts, but last time I heard he hasn't said whether he'd go back and increase the GST.

I'm sorry you seem to get really upset and personalize.

I disagree with what you say and that appears to make you angry.

What makes you think I'm personalizing? I simply don't respect you. And this has nothing to do with your viewpoint.

My lack of respect has more to do with your inability to deal with actual points raised in a clear and honest fashion, without resorting to "Tories are bad", or making claims with no evidence, or doing whatever you need to avoid the issue.

In the past I've had very good, long debates with people I've disagreed with... I'd present my evidence, they'd present theirs. But in many of those cases, I've ended up respecting the people; they acknowledge my points, present real evidence countering my claims, etc. In the end I may disagree with them, but I can at least see where their opinions come from (and hey, I may have ended up learning something.)

With you, not so much... how often have you simply resorted to talking about Harper (even though its specifically the Liberal plan)? How often have you avoided dealing with the fact that companies are reducing their carbon emissions already (as shown both in evidence and in theory), by coming up with some bogus claim without providing evidence?

Yet, for some strange reason I keep continuing...

[jdobbin]

HUH? Care to explain these other plans?

Don Drummond in his Globe commentary said that the carbon tax fixes cost. It has a set number.

The difference is that the cap, trade and regulation is predicted to increase costs to consumers at a higher rate than the carbon tax on items such as gas. No one is sure how much and the NDP and Tories have been rather coy on the subject. You have evidence to suggest that both NDP and Tory plans won't do that?

[jdobbin]

First of all, I was referring specifically to the Liberals (or their supporters) on this board, those that support the Liberal plan (for example, YOU). I don't have the ability to talk to Dion or any of the top liberals directly... I do have the ability to question you directly though.

Secondly, let me get this straight... is Dion himself acknowleging that there may be flaws in the plan? Guess I missed that when I actually read the green plan itself (and yes, I did actually read it right from the Liberal web site, not some right-wing interpretation of it). But if the Liberal party itself is saying its flawed, then why do you seem to be so eager to praise their plan when these flaws are presented? After all, Dion himself may say "You know, this was a bad idea".

And I'm talking about seller (ie: the producers) reducing their emissions during production.

The area that Dion himself that might need to be looked at is carbon tax on products coming from foreign countries. This was in interviews after the plan was announced. He said the details would have to be knocked out as they could have flaws in practical application. Business liked that aspect of Dion's announcement but it requires more analysis.

Dion didn't say the carbon tax itself was flawed. It was a way to fix costs associated with carbon rather than let those costs be passed on to the consumer in an unpredictable and bigger way under the Tory and NDP plans.

Emissions during the production of fossil fuels makes up a very small part of our emissions (as of 2006, only about 9%.) Its only about 1/3 of that of emissions from transportation (cars/trucks/etc.) And while emissions from the production process have risen in the past 2 decades, so has production (simply we're selling more of the material). In the same time frame, our exports of crude oil and other products have risen over 100%. You create/sell more of a product, you may end up emitting more, even if your overall efficiency is improved. Ultimately, worrying about emissions during production is a very tiny part of the problem.

Intensity based emissions seems to be the Tory fallback on not meeting emissions caps.

It was explained to you that a carbon tax is not necessary because industries already have an incentive to cut energy consumption to avoid naturally high energy bills, even without such a carbon tax. If you really think that there is some energy consuming company who doesn't like increasing its profits, please point them out.

I know exactly what you are trying to do... by trying to talk about 'sellers liking high prices', you're trying to divert attention so you won't have to acknowledge that particular flaw in the Liberal program... that its unnecessary.

Don Drummond, a TD economist disagree with you.

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

A prominent Canadian economist says Stephane Dion's "Green Shift" carbon tax plan is "a good start" that will leave the general Canadian taxpayer "better off."

"The idea itself is very sensible," Don Drummond, the chief economist at TD Bank, told CTV's Canada AM on Friday.

"There's a growing consensus to do something about emissions. We need to put a price on carbons. This proposes it."

First of all, you haven't provided a reference. Some people actually like to back up their claims with, you know, evidence.

I read it in the National Post and saw it on CTV.

Here is a reference to it in the Edmonton Journal.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...737bad9&p=2

"What you need to do is to do what all the economists are asking for. It's to put a price on carbon," he says. "It's what B.C. is doing. It's what Sweden has done with a lot of success and other countries have done, including the U.K. It's what Canada should do," he argues.

"You need to have carbon pricing. That's what Shell says. They want world carbon pricing. And I'm saying Canada should show the example. And if we do that, we'll not be boycotted by the Americans or the Europeans. We'll be doing the best we can, and we'll be in a good situation to pressure China, India, Brazil and all the other countries to do more as well."

Secondly, if that's what Shell is claiming, they've already been proven wrong. As I've already stated, carbon emissions have been going down for a couple of years. Yet there is no carbon tax. (And, our GDP has increased in that time, so you can't blame the emission cuts on economic downturns). So,, Shell's predictions are already proven wrong by actual facts.

Guess you'll have to talk to Shell about that. The Chief Exec there has been advocating a price on carbon for a while.

Promoted by who?

Jason Kenney talks about it all the time.

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/26/realign...nued/#more-2478

By contrast, the Tory plan “will effectively prohibit dirty coal fire plants from operating in the future, and we will require them to use carbon sequestration technology…. Mr. Dion’s plan doesn’t prohibit people from using dirty coal. It just puts a charge on it.”

You were the one that brought up sequestration when I pointed out that cutting energy costs will both improve profits and reduce emissions. Is bringing up Sequestration just another in your long line of ways of avoiding that fact that reducing energy usage BOTH reduces profits AND reduces emissions?

It was Jason Kenney who said this was the Tory policy.

The difference is, my claims are actually based on actual facts and evidence... you know, like all the links I've posted in this thread since the start. Yours seem to be based on... what, partisanship and wishful thinking?

Does rather confuse me how you can disagree, since the Liberal plan doesn't change the price of gas... how exactly can not changing the price of gas actually change the dynamics?

The present excise tax on gas becomes a carbon tax instead. Gas was already taxed more heavily than other carbon products.

Really? You're the one that seems to be playing up all the Liberal friendly polls that deal with the environment.

I don't consider the polls friendly or unfriendly.

The policy will be difficult to sell because it encompasses a lot more than the average policy. My preference would have been for a straight income tax cut to counter the carbon tax. That is probably the major weakness since I favour large income tax cuts versus tax credits.

First of all, why is it necessary to have a 'superior' program in order to point out the worthless flaws in the Liberal plan?

He is free to do what he wants but people will still ask what he would do differently.

Secondly, the fact that parties don't reveal all the details of their intentions is nothing new. I could point out how Dion has criticized the Conservatives for their GST cuts, but last time I heard he hasn't said whether he'd go back and increase the GST.

That may be true. However, what has happened is that since Dion has announced the Liberal plan, John Baird has been conspicuously absent since criticism of Dion's policy begs the question of how Harper's plan would be better.

What makes you think I'm personalizing? I simply don't respect you. And this has nothing to do with your viewpoint.

That's is certainly obvious from your replies.

My lack of respect has more to do with your inability to deal with actual points raised in a clear and honest fashion, without resorting to "Tories are bad", or making claims with no evidence, or doing whatever you need to avoid the issue.

In the past I've had very good, long debates with people I've disagreed with... I'd present my evidence, they'd present theirs. But in many of those cases, I've ended up respecting the people; they acknowledge my points, present real evidence countering my claims, etc. In the end I may disagree with them, but I can at least see where their opinions come from (and hey, I may have ended up learning something.)

With you, not so much... how often have you simply resorted to talking about Harper (even though its specifically the Liberal plan)? How often have you avoided dealing with the fact that companies are reducing their carbon emissions already (as shown both in evidence and in theory), by coming up with some bogus claim without providing evidence?

Yet, for some strange reason I keep continuing...

I know the right wing only wants to talk about the Liberal plan but I don't have to follow that program.

Jack Mintz and Don Drummond have indicated that a carbon tax is a way to address carbon emissions while keeping the program more cost effective. I happen to agree with that. I think the cap and trade plan can work as well but not if there is huge intensity loopholes. The big concern of capping is how much and how fast the cost will be passed on to consumers.

Companies might be trying to reduce their emissions but they go up all the same. I'm not alone in thinking that a carbon tax is a preferable choice in putting a price on emissions. The only way such a tax can be sold in Canada is if it was coupled with large tax cuts.

As far as continuing, it is up to you.

[segnosaur]

The area that Dion himself that might need to be looked at is carbon tax on products coming from foreign countries.

...

Dion didn't say the carbon tax itself was flawed.

Wait a second here....

When I originally claimed that 'Liberals' here were not interested in acknowledging or addressing flaws, you claimed that (and I quote) "Seems to me that Dion will be talking about this policy all summer including areas that might have some flaws." Now you say that Dion didn't say the tax itself was flawed.

Guess what? It was the carbon tax itself I was pointing out the flaws with!!! Why in satan's green earth would you waste time suggesting that he would be talking about the policy but with no possibility he'd be dealing with flaws? (Is it just another way for you to avoid dealing with the serious inadequacies in his plan, by trying to divert attention)

Emissions during the production of fossil fuels makes up a very small part of our emissions

Intensity based emissions seems to be the Tory fallback on not meeting emissions caps.

Ah, there we go... once again, rather than deal with serious flaws in your understanding of reality, you decide to simply play "attack the conservatives"...

By your argument, we should worship Dion if he ever comes up with a policy for eating kittens, just in case Harper strangles puppies... without ever considering the thought that perhaps both policies might just be wrong.

Don Drummond, a TD economist disagree with you.

Well, good for him. Do you want a cookie?

Except for 2 possible little details:

Drummond does not post here, YOU do. It may be his opinion that its a good idea, but I cannot challenge him. I can however, challenge you. Are you so intellectually lazy that you cannot actually do your own research without having opinions spoon fed to you?

And you've already mentioned Drummond, and I've already dealt with him in a previous post. Go back and read the previous posts. You'll see where I've at least partially debunked his claims in this area.

Guess you'll have to talk to Shell about that. The Chief Exec there has been advocating a price on carbon for a while.

Once again, Shell executives do not post here, you do. I cannot debate people who don't post here. Why are you bothering to post at all if you can't actually look at the base facts without resorting to "My favorite expert said...."

(on Carbon Sequestration )

Jason Kenney talks about it all the time.

Well, once again, I am not responsible, nor do I care what the Tory plan is at this point.

Secondly, remember it was YOU who mentioned the issue the first time in this thread, where you were talking about sequestration, and how it wasn't going to increase profits. If you didn't think it was part of the Liberal plan, why did you even bring it up?

Does rather confuse me how you can disagree, since the Liberal plan doesn't change the price of gas... how exactly can not changing the price of gas actually change the dynamics?

The present excise tax on gas becomes a carbon tax instead. Gas was already taxed more heavily than other carbon products.

Once again, more irrelevancies.

Yes, the excise tax becomes a carbon tax... but it doesn't change. Total tax does not go up, nor does it go down. To the consumer, the status quo will be maintained. Therefore the dynamics do not change. People will not be buying more or less gas because of changes in the tax rate. .

What makes you think I'm personalizing? I simply don't respect you. And this has nothing to do with your viewpoint.

That's is certainly obvious from your replies.

My lack of respect has more to do with your inability to deal with actual points raised in a clear and honest fashion, without resorting to "Tories are bad", or making claims with no evidence, or doing whatever you need to avoid the issue.

You want my respect? You want the chance to change my opinion? (Hey, it does happen). Then actually deal with the actual criticisms I pointed out. Not once in your last post have you done that... instead, you have A: repeating stuff that's already been debunked, B: resorted to "Tories are bad", C: resorted misleading or irrelevanted statements in an attempt to hide the fact that your opinions are based on partisanship rather than facts.

Lets go back to square one... without talking about how evil the tory policies are, and without trying to get your favorite economist elected pope, explain why, while we don't have a carbon tax, that carbon emissions have been decreasing in Canada for the past few years (despite the fact that GDP has increased).

And after you're done with that, please explain why a company would choose to use more energy than it needs to, when cutting fossil fuel usage would help both increase profits AND cut down carbon emissions.

And please do so without resorting to "Tories are bad", or "My favorite economist said...".

I know the right wing only wants to talk about the Liberal plan but I don't have to follow that program.

Read the title of the thread... its "Dion's Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax plan. Nothing in there about "Tory carbon plan" or even "NDP carbon plan". Thus, you'd expect people to talk about the Liberal plan here. If someone starts a "Tory's carbon plan" thread, I might post there. Might even have some of my own criticisms.

Jack Mintz and Don Drummond have indicated that a carbon tax is a way to address carbon emissions while keeping the program more cost effective.

...

Companies might be trying to reduce their emissions but they go up all the same.

Reality speaking here....

They haven't been going up. At least not in the past couple of years. I've posted a link to Statscan that shows just that happening.

Here's a suggestion... stop trying to suck up to Drummond et al, and actually look at the data. Believe it or not, there are people who actually manage to think on their own.

Of course, seeing as how you seem to worship experts, consider this: Yale University economist William Nordhaus (who, by the way does believe in global warming, and considers it a serious threat) has written a paper pointing out significant flaws in all the carbon emission plans in western economies (including the Liberal carbon tax)... namely, while they may cause short term reductions, ultimately we end up with the same total emissions at the end of the century. Now, keep in mind that that's an economist from Yale university, not some oil industry executive. You'd figure people from Yale have a pretty good handle on what they're doing.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/Business

[Argus]

At least with the Liberal plan the costs are fixed. The Tory and NDP plan lets the costs to consumers rise even higher. That's crazy economics.

Utter nonsense. Fixed costs? Do they include the approximately 20% increase in electric costs? Do they include all the increases brought about due to higher costs to manufacturers and service providers because of higher transportation, heating and electricity costs?

I'm guessing uh no.

[jdobbin]

Utter nonsense. Fixed costs? Do they include the approximately 20% increase in electric costs? Do they include all the increases brought about due to higher costs to manufacturers and service providers because of higher transportation, heating and electricity costs?

I'm guessing uh no.

The economists who were asked about the program said that costs were predictable whereas the cap and trade was not.

Some American conservatives support carbon tax because it taxes at a fixed rate. Former Federal Reserve Chairman supported the idea based on it being at a fixed rate.

[jdobbin]

When I originally claimed that 'Liberals' here were not interested in acknowledging or addressing flaws, you claimed that (and I quote) "Seems to me that Dion will be talking about this policy all summer including areas that might have some flaws." Now you say that Dion didn't say the tax itself was flawed.

He didn't say that. He said that he recognized that how the application of the tax on products coming into Canada still needed to be worked out. He didn't say the policy itself was flawed.

Guess what? It was the carbon tax itself I was pointing out the flaws with!!! Why in satan's green earth would you waste time suggesting that he would be talking about the policy but with no possibility he'd be dealing with flaws? (Is it just another way for you to avoid dealing with the serious inadequacies in his plan, by trying to divert attention)

So far I see less of the inadequacies than you do.

Ah, there we go... once again, rather than deal with serious flaws in your understanding of reality, you decide to simply play "attack the conservatives"...

By your argument, we should worship Dion if he ever comes up with a policy for eating kittens, just in case Harper strangles puppies... without ever considering the thought that perhaps both policies might just be wrong.

Don't think I said anything like that. I simply said that intensity based targets allow emissions to rise. This is the Tory policy and as it was explained, it was to keep the economy going. The problem is that it keeps moving the goalposts for actually reducing emissions to 1990 levels.

Well, good for him. Do you want a cookie?

There's that right wing penchant for insults and nastiness.

Drummond does not post here, YOU do. It may be his opinion that its a good idea, but I cannot challenge him. I can however, challenge you. Are you so intellectually lazy that you cannot actually do your own research without having opinions spoon fed to you?

And you've already mentioned Drummond, and I've already dealt with him in a previous post. Go back and read the previous posts. You'll see where I've at least partially debunked his claims in this area.

And I disagree that you debunked his support for the principle of carbon tax.

Once again, Shell executives do not post here, you do. I cannot debate people who don't post here. Why are you bothering to post at all if you can't actually look at the base facts without resorting to "My favorite expert said...."

Well, once again, I am not responsible, nor do I care what the Tory plan is at this point.

I think you asked for the Shell reference.

Secondly, remember it was YOU who mentioned the issue the first time in this thread, where you were talking about sequestration, and how it wasn't going to increase profits. If you didn't think it was part of the Liberal plan, why did you even bring it up?

I think you indicated that companies who decreased their emissions by reducing their energy costs would see profits rise.

I thought this was a difficult prospect for energy intensive businesses such as tar sands and smelters. I also think it is difficult when intensities rise in production.

Once again, more irrelevancies.

According to you. Probably not to the taxpayer.

Yes, the excise tax becomes a carbon tax... but it doesn't change. Total tax does not go up, nor does it go down. To the consumer, the status quo will be maintained. Therefore the dynamics do not change. People will not be buying more or less gas because of changes in the tax rate. .

For that one fuel only.

The Liberals support the bill that was passed on fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. I happen to think that along with the carbon tax changes the consumer dynamic.

You want my respect? You want the chance to change my opinion? (Hey, it does happen). Then actually deal with the actual criticisms I pointed out. Not once in your last post have you done that... instead, you have A: repeating stuff that's already been debunked, B: resorted to "Tories are bad", C: resorted misleading or irrelevanted statements in an attempt to hide the fact that your opinions are based on partisanship rather than facts.

You tendency to insults aside, I have disagreed with your opinion.

Lets go back to square one... without talking about how evil the tory policies are, and without trying to get your favorite economist elected pope, explain why, while we don't have a carbon tax, that carbon emissions have been decreasing in Canada for the past few years (despite the fact that GDP has increased).

Because the website you show also indicates that Canada's carbon emissions have risen 27% over our 1990 levels and 33% over Kyoto targets in the year 2005. There were decreases in the Canadian aggregate but they are threatened with the increase intensity in certain industries.

The single digit decreases are far off of what the 1990 target is and the small gains in emission reductions are in danger of being lost to intensity levels that increased production brings.

And after you're done with that, please explain why a company would choose to use more energy than it needs to, when cutting fossil fuel usage would help both increase profits AND cut down carbon emissions.

In terms of the oil industry, the price of oil means that a lot of energy can be used to develop sources such as tar sands. The choice of using that much energy is not really there. It is a fact. It is an extremely energy intensive business and it only rises as production increases.

And since the price oil is so high, it is a cost of doing business but it pays off nevertheless in profits.

Read the title of the thread... its "Dion's Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax plan. Nothing in there about "Tory carbon plan" or even "NDP carbon plan". Thus, you'd expect people to talk about the Liberal plan here. If someone starts a "Tory's carbon plan" thread, I might post there. Might even have some of my own criticisms.

There are a few threads discussing the Tory plan. I look forward to seeing your critique.

They haven't been going up. At least not in the past couple of years. I've posted a link to Statscan that shows just that happening.

The aggregate is down but even the most optimistic commentator notes that intensity levels of some emissions are going up and look to sweep aside the gains. The emissions are also 27% higher than the 1990 numbers.

Here's a suggestion... stop trying to suck up to Drummond et al, and actually look at the data. Believe it or not, there are people who actually manage to think on their own.

I happen to respect the opinions of those economists even if you don't.

Of course, seeing as how you seem to worship experts, consider this: Yale University economist William Nordhaus (who, by the way does believe in global warming, and considers it a serious threat) has written a paper pointing out significant flaws in all the carbon emission plans in western economies (including the Liberal carbon tax)... namely, while they may cause short term reductions, ultimately we end up with the same total emissions at the end of the century. Now, keep in mind that that's an economist from Yale university, not some oil industry executive. You'd figure people from Yale have a pretty good handle on what they're doing.

I respect Nordhaus but I've been concerned that his thoughts depend too heavily on complete world agreement on the plan. That didn't work when the world eliminated ozone depleting substances. It was a two step process promoted by Mulroney. I happen to have liked that approach and it seemed to work well and the costs were manageable.

Nordhaus also thinks a technological advance 50 or 100 years from now might do the trick in terms of reducing emissions. That is a bit of a coin toss, in my opinion.

I still believe that setting a cost for carbon is one of the best ways to reduce usage.

[segnosaur]

Well, since none of the Liberal fan boys on this thread seem to actually be able to think logically, I thought I'd summarize all the problems with the Liberal plan. Granted, its stuff we've seen before, and I'm sure people like jdobbin will stick their fingers in their ears and go "La la la...", but the flaws in the Liberal plan should be repeated...

Flaw 1: Its unnecessary

Companies (and people) already have have an incentive to reduce costs. Its called greed. Companies LIKE to earn profits. Gives their shareholders dividends, and executives nice big fat bonuses. Even without a carbon tax, companies will still try to reduce their energy usage as a way to cut costs. (Individual consumers tend to do the same).

Here's the thing: Not one stinking liberal has ever managed to give one tiny little reason why that isn't a flaw. All they do is say "Oh, but someone else said..." Pretty pathetic "proof" if you ask me, especially when actual numbers show otherwise.

Flaw 2: It ignores the concept of "fungible"

According to the plan, only fossil fuel usage will be taxed. (Quebec, in large part, gets a free ride over its massive hydroelectric resources.)

But here's the thing... electricity is a fungible commodity... your coffee maker is just as happy using a kw/h from a coal-fired plant as it is from a hydroelectric plant. Because hydro usage won't be taxed, your average Quebec can waste as much power as they want without being affected by the 'penalty'. But here's the problem... if a unit of power is wasted in Quebec (even if its from a 'clean' source), that means power must be generated elsewhere via fossil fuels (in areas of the country that aren't as blessed with hydroelectric resources).

If you think that taxing energy consumption is beneficial (its not, but if you support the Liberal plan you probably do), then you should support taxing all electrical consumption, as long as any power is generated anywhere in the North American grid system via fossil fuels.

Flaw 3: The claims of revenue neutrality are suspect

Of course, with this flaw, you always have the basic argument "politicians are liars". The Liberals suggest that perhaps the auditor general could monitor things. But the auditor general would have no real authority to change tax rates should the plan not really be revenue neutral. So what is the point? Furthermore, if this plan does end up bringing in more money than planned, the Liberals could always increase spending, and claim "its revenue neutral... we're just giving the money back to Canadians by building a new Canoe Museum and setting up a new sponsorship program in Quebec".

But here's the bigger problem.... even if it is neutral for the government, it does not mean that it will be neutral for each and every taxpayer. Some taxpayers will end up paying more, even if they do their best to cut energy usage, while other taxpayers will benefit even if their energy usage goes up.

For example, in my case, I live in Ontario... I will end up paying more for my electricity, for my heat, and for products that use energy in their production. I have already taken steps to reduce my costs... I use a timed thermostat, keep the temperature low in the winter, use cf bulbs... but because of my income I'm not going to see much benefit from personal tax cuts. Now, consider someone from Quebec... because they get their electricity from hydroelectric projects, they won't be as effected by the carbon tax; however, they will still benefit from income tax cuts (even if they do nothing to cut their energy usage). They can take their tax savings and use it to keep their El Camino idling in their driveway 24/7.

So, why should I support a tax plan that will benefit people who do nothing to help the environment, yet punish people who've already done all they can?

If you want me to support the carbon tax plan, get them to target income tax cuts based on people's current usage, so that those people who are already doing all they can to reduce energy will at least see some benefit.

Flaw 4: It ignores discretionary vs. compulsory usage

There are people who do things that are wasteful... they drive big cars when they could walk, they live a lifestyle (e.g. out of the city, when they have to unnecessarily commute) that contributes to unnecessary carbon emissions. People could (in theory) cut back on such expenditures. On the other hand, there are also energy usage which is inflexible... you need to keep your house heated to a certain minimum temperature, you need to have lights on in the evening.

If you're going to impose a tax to discourage usage, you should be targeting such taxes at people who are using energy unnecessarily, as opposed to those consuming only energy that would truly be deemed necessary. Why should a single mom have to pay the same carbon tax rate to heat up a body of baby formula that some rich guy pays to drive his SUV to work?

The Liberal plan makes no such distinction... people who have already use the minimum they could possibly use will still end up paying a carbon tax, while people who do truly waist gas don't pay any sort of extra penalty for their excesses.

[segnosaur]

When I originally claimed that 'Liberals' here were not interested in acknowledging or addressing flaws, you claimed that (and I quote) "Seems to me that Dion will be talking about this policy all summer including areas that might have some flaws." Now you say that Dion didn't say the tax itself was flawed.

He didn't say that.

I never claimed he did.

Try to follow this while I try to explain it once again.....

I pointed out how Liberals here aren't actually able or competent enough to address the obvious flaws in the proposed Carbon tax scheme. (Kind of like the way you seem to be avoiding addressing the flaws). YOU were the one who made the claim that this would be talked about this this summer. YOU. Not Dion. YOU made the claim. I took the quote from one of YOUR posts.

If you're pointing out that Dion and the rest of the Liberals don't think there are flaws, then your suggestion that such flaws would have been discussed is, well, deceptive, a cop out.

Please.... do me a favour... Just admit, you have no willingness or ability to actually address the actual flaws in the Liberal plan. That will save me a bunch of time, m'kay?

So far I see less of the inadequacies than you do.

That's probably a product of partisanship.

Ah, there we go... once again, rather than deal with serious flaws in your understanding of reality, you decide to simply play "attack the conservatives"...

By your argument, we should worship Dion if he ever comes up with a policy for eating kittens, just in case Harper strangles puppies... without ever considering the thought that perhaps both policies might just be wrong

Don't think I said anything like that.

Actually, that is pretty much what you said. You keep bringing up the tory plan (or at least what you THINK the tory plan is), instead of talking about the Liberal plan.

Here's a question... can you actually go one post in this thread without either a: complaining about the tories, or B: relying on an expert?

Well, good for him. Do you want a cookie?

There's that right wing penchant for insults and nastiness.

Once again, I'm not right wing. May be nasty though.

But here's the thing... do you think someone who is as evasive as you have been, who has shown no interest in doing anything other than saying "tories are bad... my expert is a god, etc." deserves any better?

You want me to treat you with respect? Try actually debating.

On some TD economist's statements

And I disagree that you debunked his support for the principle of carbon tax.

At the time when I debunked him, you made no effort to put in any sort of counter claim. You rely on "experts", you ignore any and all counter evidence when presented. You may disagree that he's been debunked, but I've seen nothing to suggest my analysis is wrong.

Really poor debating on your part, wouldn't you say?

Once again... Drummond is not posting here. You are. Please try using your own logical an analytical abilities. Simply saying "Drummond said..." is of no use, because we do not have the ability to question him.

And if you're not able to actually use your own analysis abilities, then please let me know.

Once again, Shell executives do not post here, you do. I cannot debate people who don't post here. Why are you bothering to post at all if you can't actually look at the base facts without resorting to "My favorite expert said...."

I think you asked for the Shell reference.

Yes I did. That's because I know people often take quotes out of context.

But you forget the other issue.... shell said that a carbon tax is necessary in order to reduce emissions. Emissions have gone down over the past several years without a carbon tax. Their 'claim' is debunked by the facts. Please explain why.

Secondly, remember it was YOU who mentioned the issue the first time in this thread, where you were talking about sequestration, and how it wasn't going to increase profits. If you didn't think it was part of the Liberal plan, why did you even bring it up?

I think you indicated that companies who decreased their emissions by reducing their energy costs would see profits rise.

Yes, I was referring to energy usage. sequestrian was an issue which is irrelevant to this discussion.

I thought this was a difficult prospect for energy intensive businesses such as tar sands and smelters. I also think it is difficult when intensities rise in production.

Yes, carbon emissions could rise when production rises. It might also rise as populations increase, as GDP increases, etc. Companies will be as efficient as possible, with or without the carbon tax.

The Liberals support the bill that was passed on fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. I happen to think that along with the carbon tax changes the consumer dynamic.

The title of the thread contains "carbon tax plan". Therefore, its reasonable to assume that this thread is going to discuss the carbon tax plan. If you are referring to some other bill or legislation that was passed, then you should state that. I'm not a mind reader.

You want my respect? You want the chance to change my opinion? (Hey, it does happen). Then actually deal with the actual criticisms I pointed out. Not once in your last post have you done that... instead, you have A: repeating stuff that's already been debunked, B: resorted to "Tories are bad", C: resorted misleading or irrelevanted statements in an attempt to hide the fact that your opinions are based on partisanship rather than facts.

You tendency to insults aside,

I tend not to insult people I respect, even if I disagree with them.

Your lack of ability to deal with flaws without resorting to "tories are bad, my economist is a god..." gives me no reason to respect you.

I have disagreed with your opinion.

Yet you've given pretty much no actual reason for this disagreement.

This is supposedly a forum for debate. If you are unwilling to actually state real logical reasons for your disagreement please let me know.

Because the website you show also indicates that Canada's carbon emissions have risen 27% over our 1990 levels and 33% over Kyoto targets in the year 2005. There were decreases in the Canadian aggregate but they are threatened with the increase intensity in certain industries.

What is that? Amazing. Its a real logical argument on your side. Hurray! Let me mark that down on my calendar. Think you can keep doing that?

Ok, now that that's out of the way... let me point out a few things...

- Yes, emissions are way over 1990 levels... however, in that time, we have also seen: A: growth in our economy, B: growth in our population, and C: relatively cheap energy prices for much of that time.

Now, we won't be seeing cheap energy again for a long long time... As for factor A and B, the only way you could reduce the impact of those factors is to get rid of people, or cut back on our economy.

I could also point out certain technical improvements that didn't come into play until recently: cf bulbs, improved efficiency of certain motors/generators, new industrial processes, etc.

In terms of the oil industry, the price of oil means that a lot of energy can be used to develop sources such as tar sands. The choice of using that much energy is not really there. It is a fact. It is an extremely energy intensive business and it only rises as production increases.

There is only a finite supply of oil. Things like tarsands are likely to be used anyways, so the energy used in its extraction is going to be used anyways.

There are a few threads discussing the Tory plan. I look forward to seeing your critique.

Really? The only thread I remember seeing was the one about their ads against the Liberal plan. But that thread seemed to start more of a "bash the tories" thread, and seemed rather uninteresting. Perhaps you can point me to where one such thread is.

I happen to respect the opinions of those economists even if you don't.

Again, that's called Proof by Authority. For those of us who are skeptics, we don't exactly consider those as "evidence".

Hey, maybe you can get him to start posting here and I can ask him all these questions directly.

I respect Nordhaus but I've been concerned that his thoughts depend too heavily on complete world agreement on the plan.

First of all... keep in mind that part of his paper points out how if they don't get agreement, it will substantially drive up the costs.

Secondly, I'm not claiming I support or believe him... I was simply using that to show how, if you're going to rely on "experts", you should be aware that not all "experts" are going to support your opinion. And ending up simply repeating "my expert said this... " "mine said that..." does nobody any good.

I still believe that setting a cost for carbon is one of the best ways to reduce usage.

And once again, we have it. Its called the gas bill. And the electricity bill.

Still waiting to hear why a company wouldn't already have cut down all possible power expenditures without the carbon tax, but will once a carbon tax is implemented.

[capricorn]

Flaw 1: Its unnecessary

Flaw 2: It ignores the concept of "fungible"

Flaw 3: The claims of revenue neutrality are suspect

Flaw 4: It ignores discretionary vs. compulsory usage

Thank you segnosaur for that succinct overview. I would add:

Flaw 5: The administrative expenses to put the Green Shift into effect and managed have not been costed, and it will further bloat the bureaucracy.

With the Liberals' gun registry, they demonstrated how these expenses can take on a life of their own especially when mismanagement is at play.

[jdobbin]

Flaw 5: The administrative expenses to put the Green Shift into effect and managed have not been costed, and it will further bloat the bureaucracy.

That's a bogus claim. What's your source?

[capricorn]

That's a bogus claim. What's your source?

The source is the plan itself which I read in its entirety.

[jdobbin]

Please.... do me a favour... Just admit, you have no willingness or ability to actually address the actual flaws in the Liberal plan. That will save me a bunch of time, m'kay?

Done. Since I haven't heard any from that you that I accept.

That's probably a product of partisanship.

You're welcome to think that.

Don't think I said anything like that.

Here's a question... can you actually go one post in this thread without either a: complaining about the tories, or B: relying on an expert?

Probably not. But then why should I?

Once again, I'm not right wing. May be nasty though.

I think that is being quite evident.

But here's the thing... do you think someone who is as evasive as you have been, who has shown no interest in doing anything other than saying "tories are bad... my expert is a god, etc." deserves any better?

You want me to treat you with respect? Try actually debating.

I think all I've asked if for civility. Respect the forum if nothing else.

I tend not to insult people I respect, even if I disagree with them.

Your lack of ability to deal with flaws without resorting to "tories are bad, my economist is a god..." gives me no reason to respect you.

So you resort to insults.

What is that? Amazing. Its a real logical argument on your side. Hurray! Let me mark that down on my calendar. Think you can keep doing that?

Continued personalizing. Why do you do it?

Ok, now that that's out of the way... let me point out a few things...

- Yes, emissions are way over 1990 levels... however, in that time, we have also seen: A: growth in our economy, B: growth in our population, and C: relatively cheap energy prices for much of that time.

Now, we won't be seeing cheap energy again for a long long time... As for factor A and B, the only way you could reduce the impact of those factors is to get rid of people, or cut back on our economy.

The intensity is not likely to drop soon. CIBC's Jefrrey Rubin says that even if people come off the roads in North America, they will be getting on the roads elsewhere. Production in Canada in high emission industries like the tarsands is accelerating to meet that demand. We might see a drop in transportation emissions as people downsize to smaller vehicles like they did in the 1970s but we have also seen an increase in suburbia that will increase transit times on the roads. The drop in emissions is not expected to be as great in this one area and will probably be countered by increases in development of things like the tarsands.

I could also point out certain technical improvements that didn't come into play until recently: cf bulbs, improved efficiency of certain motors/generators, new industrial processes, etc.

Incremental changes at the moment. Helpful yes, but not the major advancement to lend itself to a solution.

There is only a finite supply of oil. Things like tarsands are likely to be used anyways, so the energy used in its extraction is going to be used anyways.

Some are starting to wonder if the energy expended and the emissions produced to get this oil are worth it.

I'd prefer if the carbon emissions from this energy were taxed instead.

Really? The only thread I remember seeing was the one about their ads against the Liberal plan. But that thread seemed to start more of a "bash the tories" thread, and seemed rather uninteresting. Perhaps you can point me to where one such thread is.

There are several threads out there. Some started on the topic of climate change and like a lot of threads meandered into what the Greens were suggesting as a policy as well as the Tories and the NDP.

At this point, anyone looking for them would have to dig.

Again, that's called Proof by Authority. For those of us who are skeptics, we don't exactly consider those as "evidence".

And yet one someone presents their thoughts here, people often ask for citation to back their claim.

First of all... keep in mind that part of his paper points out how if they don't get agreement, it will substantially drive up the costs.

Secondly, I'm not claiming I support or believe him... I was simply using that to show how, if you're going to rely on "experts", you should be aware that not all "experts" are going to support your opinion. And ending up simply repeating "my expert said this... " "mine said that..." does nobody any good.

I have read his report. I can't say I disagree that it is better to get everyone to agree and come up with a plan. But past experience has shown that certain nations lead and others follow. The CFC debate was evidence of that.

And once again, we have it. Its called the gas bill. And the electricity bill.

And that tax would just add to the bill thereby increasing the incentive for industry and consumers to reduce crabon use further.

Still waiting to hear why a company wouldn't already have cut down all possible power expenditures without the carbon tax, but will once a carbon tax is implemented.

I'm sure many will look to cut expenditures even without the carbon tax. The carbon tax itself would give a price to further act as an incentive to cutting back.

[jdobbin]

The source is the plan itself which I read in its entirety.

Really. And my impression was that there would not be a separate administrative body since the plan would use the present tax code.

This is unlike the gun registry which from its inception indicated they would need an administrative body to collect the tax. I never supported the gun registry for the plain reason that it didn't seem cost effective in the least. I supported adding firearm serial numbers to the Firearms certificate which the gun owner would only have to produce to law enforcement when asked.

[capricorn]

Really. And my impression was that there would not be a separate administrative body since the plan would use the present tax code.

Dream on!

[jdobbin]

Dream on!

I think that is what we are seeing with your speculative musings.

[myata]

OK,

Flaw 1: Its unnecessary

Companies (and people) already have have an incentive to reduce costs. Its called greed.

This is as clueless as it gets. Companies will dump poisonous waste into public environment till they are tasked (by the society, via regulation or legislation) not too. Carbon emissions are now recognized as unwanted commodity by the the society. Somebody has to pay.

.., companies will still try to reduce their energy usage as a way to cut costs. (Individual consumers tend to do the same).

Even further demonstrates the lack of slightest clue. There's energy usage and energy usage. If oil (or coal) happens to be cheap today, the complanies will continue to burn at hearts desire and focus their efforts on adding bells and whistles to their gadgets instead. The goals is to reduce GHG emissions and the plan addresses the goal via setting a price on GHG. Companies that are interested to improve their efficiency will save. Those who run "business as usual" will pay.

Flaw 2: It ignores the concept of "fungible"

According to the plan, only fossil fuel usage will be taxed. (Quebec, in large part, gets a free ride over its massive hydroelectric resources.)

Of course, it's way above our heads to grasp that there won't be a single fix for all problems in the world. The plan addresses the problem of raising carbon emissions. Energy efficiency is another, probably as important, but different part of the successful strategy to combat climat change.

Flaw 3: The claims of revenue neutrality are suspect

But here's the bigger problem.... even if it is neutral for the government, it does not mean that it will be neutral for each and every taxpayer. Some taxpayers will end up paying more, even if they do their best to cut energy usage, while other taxpayers will benefit even if their energy usage goes up.

I'm not going to address your phobias, for that there's medical help. But most certainly, it won't be neutral for every taxpayer. Taxpayers what use a lot of carbon heavy services will have to pay for it. It's very easy: carbon emissions aren't wanted. There must be a clue to every that it isn't wanted. And the clue is the price.

For example, in my case, I live in Ontario... I will end up paying more for my electricity, for my heat, and for products that use energy in their production. I have already taken steps to reduce my costs...

Sure, regional differences could be an issue. No plan is perfect. It's not the reason to sit back and do nothing. BTW there're special allowances for those on low income, please read the plan. In the longer run, it'll create a positive (for the environment, specifically CO2 emissions) differentiator for consumption: ie. energy derived from clean sources would hopefully cost less. Giving us in Ontario the incentive to use more clean energy. Given the businesses that create clean energy the incentive and resources to expand. And driving those who won't adapt out of business. It's simple and it'll work because of that.

If you want me to support the carbon tax plan, get them to target income tax cuts based on people's current usage, so that those people who are already doing all they can to reduce energy will at least see some benefit.

That would be a nice solution, only practically unworkable due to its complexity (e.g. auditing actual energy use for each individual consumer - how'd that happen? Or would I just write whatever gives me greatest tax break?).

Flaw 4: It ignores discretionary vs. compulsory usage

If you're going to impose a tax to discourage usage, you should be targeting such taxes at people who are using energy unnecessarily, as opposed to those consuming only energy that would truly be deemed necessary. Why should a single mom have to pay the same carbon tax rate to heat up a body of baby formula that some rich guy pays to drive his SUV to work?

Those who use more (including waste more) will be paying more. Don't bring this "single mom" gumbubble again it's dumb because the plan says very clearly that there will be special allowances for those on low income. For the rest, the statement is very clear, we can't continue to dump GHG as if it costs nothing and means nothing. And the only way to make it clear to evrybody is to put a price on it.

[Topaz]

How much is going to cost Canada when we don't made our deadline in Koyto? Canadians don't like paying GST tax but we still do! I don't like the fact that city dwellers get 15% off their income tax if they take public transit, some Canadians can't when there is no public transit, so why doesn't the gov't give up 15% off our gasoline bills?? No government is going to please all people but this environment problem has to be corrected and yes its going to hurt before it gets better. Both HArper and Bush says that China and India have to come online, how many North America companies are over in India polluting the air? How about China?

[blueblood]

How much is going to cost Canada when we don't made our deadline in Koyto? Canadians don't like paying GST tax but we still do! I don't like the fact that city dwellers get 15% off their income tax if they take public transit, some Canadians can't when there is no public transit, so why doesn't the gov't give up 15% off our gasoline bills?? No government is going to please all people but this environment problem has to be corrected and yes its going to hurt before it gets better. Both HArper and Bush says that China and India have to come online, how many North America companies are over in India polluting the air? How about China?

It's probably going to cost us bugger all, who is going to enforce Kyoto when we don't meet the requirements? The mystical world police???

How many Chinese and Indians have a better lifestyle with the North American companies operating there?

How come our economy isn't in the toilet while the U.S. is having problems?

[madmax]

It's probably going to cost us bugger all, who is going to enforce Kyoto when we don't meet the requirements? The mystical world police???

Our NAFTA mechanism isn't worth shit, so you may have valid point.

How many Chinese and Indians have a better lifestyle with the North American companies operating there?

Apparently their improved lifestyle is at the expense of ours. Good for them, bad for us. Good for those Corporations, bigger profits and lower environmental standards. The Latter being bad for the Chinese and us.

I happen to be a Canadian, and watching all the screwups that occur in China while we close our functioning operations is disturbing. However some people take glee in this, and then suggest that it will lower GHG.

How come our economy isn't in the toilet while the U.S. is having problems?

We have been surprising resiliant. Most offset by the fact that we have large oil resources, and other natural resources that is being exported. If Alberta didn't have oil we'd be F**K##. Take Albertas oil resource sector and support out of the equation, and the Country doesn't look all that healthy.

Essentially, Alberta is in the clear for the next while, while Sask has benefited from the stability and direction of the previous government, even increasing its manufacturing base, and now is in the hands of a government that is smart enough not to pull off another Devine Act. BC could hold out, but may be on the brink, as well as Ontario, Quebec, which are forest and other natural resource economies along with Manufacturing.

The US is in the toilet because............ the list is too damn long.... but the sooner that clown Bush is gone the better. But that unfortuneately isn't going to be enough.

[segnosaur]

Flaw 1: Its unnecessary

Companies (and people) already have have an incentive to reduce costs. Its called greed.

This is as clueless as it gets.

You know, you might want to talk to jdobbin about how being insulting is bad. (Sarcasm intended).

Companies will dump poisonous waste into public environment till they are tasked (by the society, via regulation or legislation) not too.

I am not denying that many companies would be happy to pollute in order to improve profits. But here's the problem with your argument...

When you are dealing with toxic chemicals and other pollutants, there usually are technology methods that can capture the unwanted chemicals.... scrubbers can capture sulfur dioxide, heavy metal trace elements can be removed chemically, etc. (These often require 'extra' steps during processing, and companies are often forced to do these steps, because of the extra costs.)

However, when you are dealing with CO2, there are currently no such steps capable of doing excess carbon removal. (Perhaps in the future carbon sequestration might be an option, but that's not viable right now, and may never be.) So, basically, there's a much more direct link between energy input->carbon emissions. Double the amount of oil used, you usually double green house gases.

So to summarize:

- Cutting fossil fuel usage helps both reduce costs (the goal of the company), and reduces emissions (the side benefit)

- Cutting the release of other chemicals increases costs, and thus may require extra incentives for companies to comply.

There's energy usage and energy usage. If oil (or coal) happens to be cheap today, the complanies will continue to burn at hearts desire and focus their efforts on adding bells and whistles to their gadgets instead.

.... Companies that are interested to improve their efficiency will save. Those who run "business as usual" will pay.

Problems with your argument...

Oil is not cheap, nor will it ever really be cheap again. Coal may be temporarily cheaper, but it too will eventually rise in price. Fossil fuels are a limited resource. If you take your standard microeconomic supply and demand curve, and fix the supply, as demand increases (as it is, even if its just due to simple economic and population growth). We've long past hit the price point where alternatives (such as biogenetic solutions) will be given serious considerations.

As for your claim that "Companies interested in improving efficiency will save."... what makes you think they aren't already efficient? Why exactly do you think a company would burn 10 gallons of gas to make a product when they could do so with 5 gallons? Do you really think there are CEOs who, when they get told "We can use less energy and increase profits" actually respond by saying "No, I think we earn enough as it is. We don't need any more profits".

Flaw 2: It ignores the concept of "fungible"

According to the plan, only fossil fuel usage will be taxed. (Quebec, in large part, gets a free ride over its massive hydroelectric resources.)

Of course, it's way above our heads to grasp that there won't be a single fix for all problems in the world. The plan addresses the problem of raising carbon emissions. Energy efficiency is another, probably as important, but different part of the successful strategy to combat climat change.

I never said there would be a single fix to the problem.

You made the claim that 'addresses the problem of carbon emissions'... but by ignoring fungibility it doesn't completely address the problem. Instead, it creates a disparity based only on geographic location, something that should be ignored. (Basically, its saying "We'll encourage efficiency in factory A, but factory B can pollute as much as it wants.)

Addressing the problem would have been easy enough as adding a cost per kw/h to all electrical consumption or generation.

Flaw 3: The claims of revenue neutrality are suspect

But here's the bigger problem.... even if it is neutral for the government, it does not mean that it will be neutral for each and every taxpayer. Some taxpayers will end up paying more, even if they do their best to cut energy usage, while other taxpayers will benefit even if their energy usage goes up.

I'm not going to address your phobias, for that there's medical help. But most certainly, it won't be neutral for every taxpayer. Taxpayers what use a lot of carbon heavy services will have to pay for it.

...

Sure, regional differences could be an issue.

Wait a second... first of all, you accuse me of having a 'phobia' over unfair distribution of tax relief... Then, you turn around and admit "regional differences could be an issue".

Don't you think that's a bit, well, hypocritical? By admitting that regional differences could be an issue, you're admitting that my concerns are valid.

Or are you of the opinion that even though some people are going to get unfairly screwed simply because of where they live or their social standing, they should just accept it?

No plan is perfect. It's not the reason to sit back and do nothing.

False dichotomy. Just because someone doesn't support the Liberal plan does not necessarily mean that they are in favor of doing nothing.

In previous posts, I've given some things that the government should be doing... encouraging more nuclear plants, stricter regulations on fleet mileage, more investment in basic R&D into biotech, fusion, changes in zoning laws for municipalities, etc.

BTW there're special allowances for those on low income, please read the plan.

Yes I've read the plan already. Yes, there are allowances for those on low income... if I remember, there are even child tax credits in there too...

But this is not supposed to be a policy on "transfer of wealth from rich&middle class to poor". Its supposed to be an environmental policy. If you think such a transfer is a laudable goal, fine... we can debate it on that basis. But it should not be presented as an 'environmental' policy.

In the longer run, it'll create a positive (for the environment, specifically CO2 emissions) differentiator for consumption: ie. energy derived from clean sources would hopefully cost less.

Fungible.

If you want me to support the carbon tax plan, get them to target income tax cuts based on people's current usage, so that those people who are already doing all they can to reduce energy will at least see some benefit.

That would be a nice solution, only practically unworkable due to its complexity (e.g. auditing actual energy use for each individual consumer - how'd that happen?

Wouldn't have to be that complex.

For starters, target higher tax cuts at provinces like Ontario/Alberta who, because of their geography, have to use fossil fuels, give lower tax cuts to Quebec. If you want to be more radical, offer rebates (similar to the bus pass tax rebates of the Tories) based on utility bills, but with a cap...

It wouldn't be a perfect solution, but we'd at least see fewer people benefiting not because of their energy efficiency but because of where they live.