Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

[myata]

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

You certainly meant something like this: "none of the Liberal fan boys on this thread seem to actually be able to think logically". Oh no, I forgot, the insults, attack ads and the like, they are all reserved for the exclusive use by the Harper fan boys.

I'll respond to the rest a more convenient time. Warning: because its using a lot of unsubstantiated outofmyownhead drool, and my time is limited, I won't be able to address that kind of argument with any level of detail, and will instead just use short reference of the following format: "drool".

[madmax]

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

Great Points.

No need for insults either.

[segnosaur]

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

You certainly meant something like this: "none of the Liberal fan boys on this thread seem to actually be able to think logically".

You're right, indeed I said that. Of course, keep in mind that until that point, there had been few responses (at least of any usable content) to any of my arguments. Pretty much all we've been seeing for the past few pages is jdobbin repeating the same tired "my favorite economist said...". Never addressed any of the issues that I brought up.

At least you got a good start... and if you're able to at least attempt to engage in debate (i.e. actually deal with issues I raise) I'll actually treat you with respect.

I'll respond to the rest a more convenient time. Warning: because its using a lot of unsubstantiated outofmyownhead drool, and my time is limited, I won't be able to address that kind of argument with any level of detail, and will instead just use short reference of the following format: "drool".

Hey, at least it will be based on your own thoughts and knowledge, and hopefully you'll be willing and able to actually defend those views yourself. As long as you do 2 things: acknowledge data that might be presented which contradict your views (assuming they come from a reputable source), and deal with actual issues raised or questions posed.

Like I said in an earlier posting... I can respect people who have different opinions than mine. What I can't respect is people who are unable or unwilling to put forward logical arguments.

[segnosaur]

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

I've read through the plan, and I don't recall seeing anything in there about how the carbon tax plan would be administered.

However, even if you don't have a separate administrative body, you will still need people working for the government to monitor compliance on an ongoing basis, update computer systems to account for the new tax, etc. And keep in mind that the Liberals suggested they would get the auditor general to oversee the program to ensure it is revenue neutral... those auditors won't be working for free; either we'll need more of them, or we'll end up with less oversight on other programs.

Granted, I don't think its going to be a major cost (and that's why I didn't bother putting it as one of the flaws... like it needs any more of those)... but it will likely add to the number of people who work for the government.

[segnosaur]

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?

Ummm.... because this is a forum for debate, not a forum for posting political ads?

Because doing so might actually convince people of the benefits of your opinion and get them to change their ideas?

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.

Dear Mr. Kettle.... I have to have a discussion about you concerning your current color.

Signed... The Pot.

This is a forum for debate.... your lack of willingness to actually do so shows you have little respect for the forum yourself.

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.

Well, explaining my points in a logical fashion, with supporting evidence, has gotten nothing useful from you now, has it? So why should it matter?

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?

Already explained... at this point in the 'debate', you deserve no respect. So I will give you none. If you are actually able demonstrate a willingness to debate, I will respect you.

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.

Ummmm... you DO realize that under the Liberal plan there is no guarantee that emissions will decrease either, don't you? Taxing something does not necessarily mean that demand is eliminated (especially when you are dealing with some inflexible basics like home heating). Even if the Liberal's carbon plan manages to make companies more efficient (probably won't, since they've probably eliminated all inefficiencies), carbon emissions will probably end up rising eventually simply because increases in GDP and population demand it.

If a company is already operating at peak efficiency, adding a tax won't make them more efficient. And if the company grows, they may even emit more carbon... unless of course you want to prevent them from growing.

Is that your plan? Keep carbon emissions down by keeping people from working?

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

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.

Well, excuse me if I don't have hours upon hours of free time on my hands to go digging through threads that have died months ago to find something that may or may not be worth commenting on.

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.

Citing someone else's opinion is not backing up your claim (unless of course that other person has actually gone through the effort to provide his original research.)

The only think that you could prove by pointing out references to Drummond is that Drummond himself held those opinions (something not in dispute). You're still lacking the evidence about why such opinions are valid (keeping in mind the fact that experts are not always right).

(on incentive to reduce emissions)

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.

Once again, they have the incentive already.... they are already likely at their optimum energy usage.

Trying to add a carbon tax is a little like trying to give someone consecutive life sentences, or giving someone the death penalty twice.... they already have the incentive to behave correctly with the first penalty.

So, please explain... do you honestly think there are companies out there who, given a choice, would willfully use 10 gallons of gas to build a product when they could build it with only 5 gallons? Do you really think businesses and people are that stupid?

[blueblood]

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

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.

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.

Western Candians, myself especially benefit largely from increased Chinese and Indian spending power.

With CAW employees getting paid huge salaries for menial work, it makes sense to outsource.

Why isn't the Atlantic booming like Sask and Alberta, they have piles of oil too?

Your oil point is why I think a Carbon Tax isn't necessary, why punish the main industry which is keeping our country afloat?

If the NDP were booted out of Sask earlier, Sask would be in the same position as Alberta. Sask has succeeded in spite of socialism. That's why the NDP were booted out and won't be back for a long time. Calvert was a fool and is now paying the price.

[Riverwind]

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).

Minor quibble. Companies only have an incentive to reduce energy consumption if the cost of the efficiency measures is less than the cost of energy wasted. For example, turning off all computers at night would save most companies money but they don't do that because the cost of doing so is greater than the savings. Increase the cost of electricity by a large enough increment and those economics would change.

However, this issue brings up a flaw that you did not mention: saving energy costs money which will ultimately reduce revenue for the government. For example, lets say a company can save $1000 in carbon tax by spending $900. If it actually spent the money the government would be out $1000 but the company would still be $900 poorer than it was before the tax. This will reduce profitability would likely lead to job cuts or outsourcing even though it was technically possible to reduce energy consumption.

[segnosaur]

Flaw 1: Its unnecessary

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

Minor quibble. Companies only have an incentive to reduce energy consumption if the cost of the efficiency measures is less than the cost of energy wasted. For example, turning off all computers at night would save most companies money but they don't do that because the cost of doing so is greater than the savings. Increase the cost of electricity by a large enough increment and those economics would change.

That is true... the energy savings would have to justify whatever costs when in to providing those savings.

Still, with oil sitting at over $100/barrel, we've pretty much reached a point when reducing energy consumption is a driving force. (Perhaps back in the 80s when demand wasn't as high and prices were lower such an incentive might have been more convincing.)

To be honest, I'm not sure why computers are left on... I've worked in several offices, and the only place where I've had to leave my computer on is where my computer was doubling as a server for other users.

[Riverwind]

Still, with oil sitting at over $100/barrel, we've pretty much reached a point when reducing energy consumption is a driving force. (Perhaps back in the 80s when demand wasn't as high and prices were lower such an incentive might have been more convincing.)

Our dependency on oil energy is troublesome equipment that uses oil/gas can't use anything else. Electricity is a much more versatile energy source because the equipment does not depend on the original source of energy. We need to encourage the transition from an oil based economy to a electricity based economy. Artificially inflating electricity costs is the dumbest thing we could be doing at this point in time. Edited July 10, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Ummm.... because this is a forum for debate, not a forum for posting political ads?

Because doing so might actually convince people of the benefits of your opinion and get them to change their ideas?

I doubt that is going to happen. If someone doesn't believe in human involvement climate change then there is no convincing to be done in terms of doing anything.

In any event, I don't agree with all of the Dion plan. I think the tax cuts should have been simple and without the credits for this and that. It should have been a reduction in personal and business tax.

Moreover, I support tax cuts even deeper than what was proposed just based on surpluses.

Dear Mr. Kettle.... I have to have a discussion about you concerning your current color.

Signed... The Pot.

This is a forum for debate.... your lack of willingness to actually do so shows you have little respect for the forum yourself.

Well, explaining my points in a logical fashion, with supporting evidence, has gotten nothing useful from you now, has it? So why should it matter?

Already explained... at this point in the 'debate', you deserve no respect. So I will give you none. If you are actually able demonstrate a willingness to debate, I will respect you.

I have not personally insulted you. As the moderator of this forum says.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...E=01&HID=17

Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them.

People have been banned for such.

Ummmm... you DO realize that under the Liberal plan there is no guarantee that emissions will decrease either, don't you? Taxing something does not necessarily mean that demand is eliminated (especially when you are dealing with some inflexible basics like home heating). Even if the Liberal's carbon plan manages to make companies more efficient (probably won't, since they've probably eliminated all inefficiencies), carbon emissions will probably end up rising eventually simply because increases in GDP and population demand it.

Cigarette taxes did more to reduce smoking than the regulation on labels did.

However, you are right. Others things have to be done. It is why the Liberals supported the Tories in getting older cars off the road as well as creating new fuel efficiency standards. I expect we'll see more of that.

If a company is already operating at peak efficiency, adding a tax won't make them more efficient. And if the company grows, they may even emit more carbon... unless of course you want to prevent them from growing.

Nothing prevents them from growing but a tax on carbon does make companies and consumers look to limit their exposure to the tax.

Is that your plan? Keep carbon emissions down by keeping people from working?

I certainly haven't argued that.

Once again, they have the incentive already.... they are already likely at their optimum energy usage.

So, please explain... do you honestly think there are companies out there who, given a choice, would willfully use 10 gallons of gas to build a product when they could build it with only 5 gallons? Do you really think businesses and people are that stupid?

Given how industry and consumers have built and bought things that require more carbon burning, you have to wonder if there was not enough incentive to change before now.

[scribblet]

Looks like the NCC is getting in on this - and rightly so - think I'll send them a donation

http://nationalcitizens.ca/blog/2008/07/09...n-tax/#comments

Much like the Kyoto Accord, Dion’s Green Shift is a burden to our economic future. And it is a plan that comes with many built-in problems:

1. Diesel fuel is more efficient than regular gasoline. Ironically, this plan would impose a tax that would increase diesel costs 4.9% over 4 years. This translates to an additional $1,700 increase to a freight trucker’s annual operating expenses;

2. Adding a new tax usually adds an additional cost of monitoring and enforcing the new tax. Companies have to be monitored to make sure they are complying with the new legislation; and

3. The Carbon Tax will have a multiplier effect. Not only will gas prices go up, the cost of transportation, flights, production, electricity, etc. will continue to rise.

And who do you think is going to bear the burden of these extra costs? – You, the consumer!

The last thing we need in this country is another tax! We need to join together and let Stephane Dion know that his Carbon Tax is not in the best interest of Canadians.

[jdobbin]

Looks like the NCC is getting in on this - and rightly so - think I'll send them a donation

I wonder what their response will be when the costs of the Harper plan are calculated.

[blueblood]

I wonder what their response will be when the costs of the Harper plan are calculated.

Harper's plan might be to do nothing. Cost Zero.

Harper did break his promise on income trusts.

[capricorn]

I wonder what their response will be when the costs of the Harper plan are calculated.

I see you're indulging in speculative musings.

[jdobbin]

I see you're indulging in speculative musings.

Really? Because I remember what the NCC said about the last budget from Flaherty and how it didn't put a lid on spending.

I can't imagine they would be happy with an increase in gas of 40 cents a litre as as been predicted in the Climate Change panel in the National Post.

[jdobbin]

Harper's plan might be to do nothing. Cost Zero.

We already know Harper's ethanol plan is costing an extra $450 million in food prices alone. Cost: Not zero.

Harper did break his promise on income trusts.

He did. And then income splitting for seniors which will probably end up costing more.

[Wild Bill]

We already know Harper's ethanol plan is costing an extra $450 million in food prices alone. Cost: Not zero.

He did. And then income splitting for seniors which will probably end up costing more.

It seems rather odd to me to make predictions about "$0.40 a litre" from a mythical Harper Plan. To my knowledge Harper has not introduced ANY "Plan" for parliamentary approval!

Meanwhile, the national situation has completely changed. Fuel costs have experienced a large and very rapid price escalation while Dion's backroom boys have been sequestered to draft a new eco-GST, totally ignorant of the new environment being experienced by the common man.

Politically, the chances are zilch that we will see a choice between an extra 40 cents on a litre of gas or voting for Dion's "Green Shift Tax". BOTH options would be political suicide when gasoline has ALREADY gone up by that amount! With no sign that the increase is going to stop!

Just wait until the winter heating bills start arriving.

Many, many voters are becoming stretched to their limit. If some Liberal "eco-warrior" candidate knocks on their door while they are deciding whether the last of their paycheque should go to diapers or heating fuel that candidate would be lucky to get even a chance to explain Dion's Plan, EVEN IF IT WOULD WORK!

That voter is not some fellow academic at Dion's alma mater, insulated by tenure from the pain of the tanking economy.

I think Harper is smart to wait until the writ is dropped before unveiling too much of any "green" plan that would affect the disposable income of the average canadian voter. He'd be a fool to develop a firm strategy for a situation that has already changed.

Dion's GST might actually been a campaign starter - six months ago!

Edited July 11, 2008 by Wild Bill

[madmax]

Western Candians, myself especially benefit largely from increased Chinese and Indian spending power.

I take it the Indian and Chinese are purchasing your product? Perhaps you didn't realize that Ontario Farmers also benefit from Chinese/Indian spending power. Perhaps you are unaware that Ontario Resources are purchased by Indian and CHinese firms. Just to inform you, that there is also Purchasing power involved.

For that matter you can add the Brazillians and just about every other country in the world.

All Canadians, Not just "Western" Canadians, benefit from trade.

With CAW employees getting paid huge salaries for menial work, it makes sense to outsource.

I see people working for $86 take home on a 12 hour night shift, and their operations pack up and "outsource" to a foreign location. I watch processing plants that pay low wages close, leaving profitable farmers with no option but to uproot their orchards.

They ain't CAW brothers and sisters. What I have seen is various unions fight large companies that have no intention of paying their employees while packing up shop and relocating in a foreign country. I have seen successes in these fights, as they are joined by the management staff, and sometimes these profitable companies are then sold to new purchasers with the committment to stay.

I also have been witness to many non union shops and their office staff get totally F(*#*# over.

2000 in a plastic injection molding facility to be the latest.

Regardless, to be fair to you.

44,000 full time jobs were lost in Ontario this month.

22,000 Part time jobs were created

and 10,000 Full time jobs were created in Alberta.

I am looking for 34,000 more full time jobs in the other provinces How many are you hiring?

Why isn't the Atlantic booming like Sask and Alberta, they have piles of oil too?

They have oil and hydro electric power. Ever looked at trade deals and Provincial Restrictions? Maybe you should talk to an East Coaster, and see what they think about Harper Shafting them in an about face on natural resources? Regardless, you will see that the East Coast shares the same concerns about the "tax shift" and Carbon Tax policies as do most other Canadians in every province, not just Western Canada.

Many companies that operate in Ontario, are registered in NS and NB for lower taxes, and to circumvent Ontario Laws. If you set up a holding company, that is where you go. Any American worth his salt knows this.

Your oil point is why I think a Carbon Tax isn't necessary, why punish the main industry which is keeping our country afloat?

All Countries require "energy" to be productive. Fair trade deals are also required. It's called a level playing field, and we know that it is not level.

If the NDP were booted out of Sask earlier, Sask would be in the same position as Alberta. Sask has succeeded in spite of socialism. That's why the NDP were booted out and won't be back for a long time. Calvert was a fool and is now paying the price.

Many of the same bunch of clowns in now are tied to the previous PC party that virtually bankrupted the Province. They have good reason not to be as incompetent as their last kick at the can. They were worse then Bob Rae, which is a difficult feat to achieve. Worse then any East Coast Government.

Regardless, you remove the oil resources, and the wealth of the Provinces changes dramatically.

Get ready for More Taxes on Oil. It's coming.

Would you like a tax shift with that?

[madmax]

We already know Harper's ethanol plan is costing an extra $450 million in food prices alone.

In Ontario, they use US and Canadian Cattle Corn. I have no idea how much this affects the individual farmers/industrial cattle farms who purchased Cattle corn.

[myata]

OK,

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.)

You must one of those people who think that the world was made yesterday. Or at least when you were born. Who and why would need those "scrubbers" if they weren't asked to? Who'd bother to spend money to install and run them, if there wasn't a legislation with heavy fines (ie $$) for non-compliance?

....

There you go, you know the word. Now, think of a big emitter with couple of hundred meg at $40/tonne. Perhaps, it would make sense after all to invest once into refining and installing the sequestration technology, then saving big dough on carbon tax forever after.

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.

A drool. Unless you can claim to be able to know the future. In which case you'd be in a permanent luxury cruise, too busy with upscale entertainment to be typing into internet forum. Spilkes in oil prices happened before (1973, 1979, when it trippled) and in real terms, oil price isn't even at its all time high: Wikipedia.

>>>>>>>>

Correction: it is at all time high. As it was in 1973 and 1979 (and in 18-something). The graph only shows info till 2006.

>>>>>>>>

The bottom line is that the only relation we know to exist between carbon in the ground and in that in the air, is that the former (ground) was "sequestred" by all the different lifeforms over the billions of years, from the latter (air). Now that we're working hard on releasing it back up, we may eventually make it happen. That would be (by the law of conservation) about same time when this planet (or at least its atmosphere) would look like it has never yet seen the life of the day.

If you take your standard microeconomic supply and demand curve, and fix the supply,

A drool. Why would one do that ("fix the supply")? Because that what they want to think? Or maybe because they can see through the ground, and times ahead? What if couple of huge reserves is discovered e.g in Arctic, or Siberia, or Antarctic, etc?

As for your claim that "Companies interested in improving efficiency will save."... what makes you think they aren't already efficient?

Because they now have the incentive to do even better. 100 Meg x $40 / tonne = $4 billion / year, annually.

I'm not sure about exact numbers, but obviously, there's now a big buck to be made by reducing carbon emissions. Same as a big buck has made industry to introduce asid emissions removal technologies couple decades back. It's plain and simple a question of incentive. No price on emissions - no incentive to improve. Period.

(Basically, its saying "We'll encourage efficiency in factory A, but factory B can pollute as much as it wants.)

No it doesn't pollute because it's using clear hydro energy (in your own example). The price is set on the unwanted commodity (GHG). Less commodity - less buck; more commodity - more buck. It's up to you to figure out how to pay less, if that's what you want of course. And most certainly, geographical variations can be looked into. E.g. by investing some of the green tax into developing clean energy sources where they aren't abundant.

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

Why would anyone do that? We want more clean energy. We want renewables to be paying less, to make them more attractive to more users. And to give the incentives to carbon based energy industry to improve their technology to stay in competion.

Wait a second... first of all, you accuse me of having a 'phobia'

That comment was about "suspicions". I can't help with your feelings, uncertainties and worries, sorry. On geographical differences, see above.

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.

All this is nice and well. But the time has come when it's very clear that a strong signal must be send, through the market, to all players, to start looking at their use of carbon. The measures you listed just aren't adequate for that.

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.

Wow. First you complain about poor mother, when pointed out that she may not be so bad after all, you turn around with this "wealth transfer". Hard to please you, go figure.

But of course, it's nothing to do with the "wealth transfer". It's mitigation of possible negative effects of policy on the most vulnerable.

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.

OK, good start. That won't ever happen in Canada, already.

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...

Yes. And who's gonna examine those super gazziolions of untility bills (including verification that they aren't phony)? How much would that cost? Did somebody complain about cost of bureaucracy here, a minute ago?

Edited July 11, 2008 by myata

[jdobbin]

It seems rather odd to me to make predictions about "$0.40 a litre" from a mythical Harper Plan. To my knowledge Harper has not introduced ANY "Plan" for parliamentary approval!

Meanwhile, the national situation has completely changed. Fuel costs have experienced a large and very rapid price escalation while Dion's backroom boys have been sequestered to draft a new eco-GST, totally ignorant of the new environment being experienced by the common man.

Politically, the chances are zilch that we will see a choice between an extra 40 cents on a litre of gas or voting for Dion's "Green Shift Tax". BOTH options would be political suicide when gasoline has ALREADY gone up by that amount! With no sign that the increase is going to stop!

Twice Harper has introduced legislation that would regulate and cap emissions based on intensity levels and twice it has struggled to gain support. In part this was because it allowed industry to pass on huge costs to the consumer, let emissions rise and offer no relief for Canadian citizens in terms of other things like tax.

This is still the policy the Tories are pushing and I've seen no indication that they've abandoned it.

[Riverwind]

In part this was because it allowed industry to pass on huge costs to the consumer, let emissions rise and offer no relief for Canadian citizens in terms of other things like tax.

This is perhaps the biggest problem with Dion's carbon tax. Under Harper's plan industries would regulated and forced to reduce emissions. However, reducing emissions comes with a cost that must be passed on to the consumer. Under Dion's tax industries would not be forced to reduce emissions but the assumption is the a high enough price on carbon will have the same effect as regulating emissions. However, this means that industry will incur costs over and above any carbon tax which must be passed on the the consumer. This means the real cost of Dion's plan will always be higher than Harper's because industry has to pay the carbon tax + cost of reducing emissions. If they are lucky enough to save money on the carbon tax when the reduce emissions then government revenues will drop (something that will lead to higher taxes in the long run).

Frankly, I am tired of numeric illiteracy which infests this debate. The basic equations are very simple: reducing energy consumption or using alternates source costs money, these costs will be passed on consumers no matter what the government does. The revenue neutrality only applies to the carbon tax vs. tax cuts. It does *not* compensate companies or individuals for the cost of reducing energy consumption or using alternate sources. These costs will leave people with less money.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Riverwind

[blueblood]

I take it the Indian and Chinese are purchasing your product? Perhaps you didn't realize that Ontario Farmers also benefit from Chinese/Indian spending power. Perhaps you are unaware that Ontario Resources are purchased by Indian and CHinese firms. Just to inform you, that there is also Purchasing power involved.

For that matter you can add the Brazillians and just about every other country in the world.

All Canadians, Not just "Western" Canadians, benefit from trade.

I see people working for $86 take home on a 12 hour night shift, and their operations pack up and "outsource" to a foreign location. I watch processing plants that pay low wages close, leaving profitable farmers with no option but to uproot their orchards.

They ain't CAW brothers and sisters. What I have seen is various unions fight large companies that have no intention of paying their employees while packing up shop and relocating in a foreign country. I have seen successes in these fights, as they are joined by the management staff, and sometimes these profitable companies are then sold to new purchasers with the committment to stay.

I also have been witness to many non union shops and their office staff get totally F(*#*# over.

2000 in a plastic injection molding facility to be the latest.

Regardless, to be fair to you.

44,000 full time jobs were lost in Ontario this month.

22,000 Part time jobs were created

and 10,000 Full time jobs were created in Alberta.

I am looking for 34,000 more full time jobs in the other provinces How many are you hiring?

They have oil and hydro electric power. Ever looked at trade deals and Provincial Restrictions? Maybe you should talk to an East Coaster, and see what they think about Harper Shafting them in an about face on natural resources? Regardless, you will see that the East Coast shares the same concerns about the "tax shift" and Carbon Tax policies as do most other Canadians in every province, not just Western Canada.

Many companies that operate in Ontario, are registered in NS and NB for lower taxes, and to circumvent Ontario Laws. If you set up a holding company, that is where you go. Any American worth his salt knows this.

All Countries require "energy" to be productive. Fair trade deals are also required. It's called a level playing field, and we know that it is not level.

Many of the same bunch of clowns in now are tied to the previous PC party that virtually bankrupted the Province. They have good reason not to be as incompetent as their last kick at the can. They were worse then Bob Rae, which is a difficult feat to achieve. Worse then any East Coast Government.

Regardless, you remove the oil resources, and the wealth of the Provinces changes dramatically.

Get ready for More Taxes on Oil. It's coming.

Would you like a tax shift with that?

Ontarians have elected officials that have created a very unfriendly business environment for manufacturing. When the buyers can't afford to buy the product, there is a problem and costs need to be cut. That is where outsourcing comes in. But according to the Canadian man. sector, people in third world countries aren't allowed to have manufacturing jobs. That is elitism at its finest. Yet with all those commodities Ontario is still in the fast track to the poor house.

You forgot to mention Sask, NFLD, and Nova Scotia employment numbers. Those provinces are starting to come on line. It's time to quit working in the factory and its off to the patch. There's no pissing and moaning from Atlantic Canda anymore, they're starting to get rich.

It's not just oil it's all commodities are rising. All commodities except labour.

If that gov't was so incompetant in Sask, why was much of it elected then. If a government is good in Western Canada it tends to stay around for a long long time. Tories in Alberta for 35 years is an example.

Western Canadian farmers have been told to go fly a kite by Ontario politicians. Now it's their turn to hold the string.

Taxes on commodities and the production of commodities is one of the most ridiculous policies there is. The Canadian economy is reliant on commodities and not manufacturing. Having higher commodity prices when we have a large surplus of commodities is a good thing for our country.

[blueblood]

We already know Harper's ethanol plan is costing an extra $450 million in food prices alone. Cost: Not zero.

He did. And then income splitting for seniors which will probably end up costing more.

So what? Canada is a net exporter of food, about 20% of world's grain supply according to the CWB. That's more money in Canada's pocket.

I have strong reason to believe that without the ethanol industry in the states, there would be gas rationing due to the huge volumes of fuel being made. Being as no one in the U.S. and Canada is in a famine situation, gas rationing when we could make fuel from leftover grain would be a huge problem had the industry not been introduced.

[Wild Bill]

This is perhaps the biggest problem with Dion's carbon tax. Under Harper's plan industries would regulated and forced to reduce emissions. However, reducing emissions comes with a cost that must be passed on to the consumer. Under Dion's tax industries would not be forced to reduce emissions but the assumption is the a high enough price on carbon will have the same effect as reducing emissions. Howvere, this means that industry will incur costs over and above any carbon tax which must be passed on the the consumer. This means the real cost of Dion's plan will always be higher than Harper's because industry has to pay the carbon tax + cost of reduding emissions. If they are lucky enough to save money on the carbon tax then government revenues will drop (something that will lead to higher taxes in the long run).

Quite right! Perhaps the biggest fallacy in any such schemes is the idea that you can prevent industries affected from passing on the increased costs. Industries HAVE to pass on increased costs! Their profits are not infinite so that they can swallow anything inposed on them by some government fiat. If some politician managed to impose a law worded in such a way as to absolutely prevent them from doing so then the industry would have to consider if it could still profitably participate in that market. If it could no longer be profitable then it would be forced to bow out entirely.

I've heard no mention from Dion and crew about how to handle imports from countries with no carbon taxes. China and others are driving many of our manufacturers out of business with the resulting loss of jobs right now. What happens when our manufacturers have the increased cost of a carbon tax to consider and the Chinese product does not?

Obviously, we can't have a "green" carbon customs and duties ministry. We've already been told that there's no need for any increased bureaucracy.

Well, we've never worried about such things affecting the competitiveness of our domestic industries ever before. Why should we start now?