Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

jdobbin · July 11, 2008

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).

Your higher taxes based on revenues dropping is speculative at best. This is assuming that spending isn't decreased. The Liberals have a proven track record at that whereas the Tories don't.

As for emissions dropping under Harper's plan, it is so full of loopholes and intensity levels that the cap is anything but a hard cap.

jdobbin · July 11, 2008

I've heard no mention from Dion and crew about how to handle imports from countries with no carbon taxes.

Actually, the Liberals are the only ones talking about that. The carbon tax would apply to those imports.

segnosaur · July 11, 2008

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.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to electricity.

Yes, it has the advantage that it can be generated using multiple methods, and electrical motors can be very efficient.

It does suffer from a few disadvantages:

- Current battery technology limits recharging time and maximum range; a car burning gas can get its tank refilled in minutes rather than hours.

- Batteries have their own environmental problems... containing some pretty bad heavy metals. Granted, there ARE programs to encourage people to return/recycle car batteries, but there's no guarantee that all batteries will end up being recycled

- For most people, it relies on a (possibly fragile) electrical grid, which seems to already be having troubles at peak loads

Of course, I could also point out that there is no way that electricity could replace fossil fuels in all areas, especially in certain industrial processes, air transportation, etc.

I have no real objections to greater use of electricity. Ultimately, it might be one of the keys to fixing our energy problems. But, I don't like making predictions... nobody really knows what the optimum solution is. There is a danger if the government tries to 'force' a solution... there is no guarantee that they've selected the optimum solution, and if they force us into one technology (e.g. electricity) it becomes very difficult to change directions after significant money has been spent on infrastructure.

What could compete with electricity?

How about hydrogen... granted you have that whole 'exploding blimp' thing to live down (and storage is currently a problem), but it has the advantage of offering faster "refilling" times. And no need to add capacity to an already overburdened electrical grid

What about biotech? Some companies claim they've managed to genetically engineer organisms to produce either ethanol, or even raw crude oil directly. Granted, it may not help the air quality in urban centers, but our infrastructure wouldn't have to change (i.e. we could continue using existing gas stations), and the bacteria or algae could be fed agricultural waste.

In theory, we could spend massive amounts of money developing electric cars, upgrading our hydro grid, building 'excess' nuclear plants, and setting up a network of electric 'filling' stations, only to find some egghead in a lab somewhere has found a way to turn farts into pure high octane gasoline, in which case all of our efforts were wasted.

Artificially inflating electricity costs is the dumbest thing we could be doing at this point in time.

But you're ignoring the fact that utilities are often forced to generate electricity from fossil fuels (because at this point they have no choice; not all provinces have adequate hydro resources, and people are irrationally fearful of nuclear). If we can get more people to conserve electricity, that means we can reduce the amount we need to generate from coal, oil or natural gas.

Riverwind · July 11, 2008

I have no real objections to greater use of electricity. Ultimately, it might be one of the keys to fixing our energy problems.

I guess it depends on your definition of the 'energy problems'. I see expensive oil as the most pressing energy problem today. For that reason we need to make sure that alternatives such as electricity are available even if that means emitting more CO2. Once the oil problem is dealt with we can start working on replacing the fossil fuel electricity sources with nuclear, wind or whatever technology evolves.

Carbon taxes that inflate the cost of electricity are counter productive and will likely prolong the transition from oil since the price differential will make switching to electricity less attractive and many will simply live with the higher cost of oil.

Conservation is not going to help much. As you pointed out before people already have an incentive to reduce wasteful energy use and higher prices are not likely to provide more than a few percent reduction in energy usage.

It is also worth nothing that most alternative technologies have a huge upfront cost which has to be amortized over the life of the asset (e.g. solar panels, new vehicles). In many cases, the CO2 emitted during production of the asset will exceed the potential savings over the lifetime of the asset. Increasing the cost of producing these assets with a carbon tax will also delay the conversion from oil based equipment.

IOW - I am not asking the government to pick winners. I am simply saying the government should let the market sort itself out and that the hypothetical CO2 issue should not be the primary driver of policy today.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Riverwind

segnosaur · July 11, 2008

(Perhaps in the future carbon sequestration might be an option, but that's not viable right now, and may never be.)

OK,

You must one of those people who think that the world was made yesterday. Or at least when you were born.

Uhhh... no... Actually, I'm pretty well versed in history, science, etc. Its because of such background knowledge that I've learned not to depend too much on particular technological developments.

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.

First of all, there is no guarantee that sequestration will ever be viable, regardless of costs. If I remember correctly, there are less than half a dozen pilot projects in the world, and there's no guarantee those pilot projects will actually show success, and even if they are successful, there's no guarantee that the technology will be applicable in all locations. Frankly, I think its a bit much to demand companies do things that are actually impossible. (This is not the same as scrubber technology, where we know the technology works.)

Secondly, as I've pointed out earlier in the thread, sequestion has additional problems... it increases energy consumption, and may lead to the release of other chemicals.

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...

I've already admitted oil prices may not remain as high as they are...

oil price isn't even at its all time high

Yes, oil prices (in relative terms) were higher in the past... and guess what? When they were high then, consumption decreased.

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?

Because regardless of the number and size of reserves available, and regardless of any improvements in efficiency in extracting oil, there will always be a fixed supply. Always. Even if the earth were hollow and its core fulled with crude, whatever is there, is there.

Even if, by some miracle, we all of a sudden double our resources, it doesn't help us much because oil demands tend to increase exponentially. (Not to mention that any oil discovered is not likely to be the nice light crude coming from Saudi Arabia, but more difficult and expensive to process Shale or oil sands.)

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.

Once again... why wouldn't they already have done everything they can to limit their consumption?

Same as a big buck has made industry to introduce asid emissions removal technologies couple decades back.

Difference is, even before we started mandating the removal of SO2 from we knew it was technically possible (even if it was expensive). With carbon emissions, we currently don't know.

(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).

I already explained the problem with your argument.

If factory A is in ontario, it may be powered (in part) by coal/gas generated electricty. (Ontario just does not have the hydro reserves to generate any more from hydro.) If factory B is in Quebec, it is powered by hydro.

When you slap on a carbon tax, you'll make Factory A cost more that Factory B, even if factory A is more efficient. What you should be doing, if you were truly interested in cutting carbon emissions, is forcing factory B to be just as efficient as factory A, and then having them ship the 'extra' electricity to Ontario so we can cut our fossil fuel consumption.

To NOT do so makes things unfair to Factory A... they've done all they can to cut back electrical usage, but suffer not because they're wasteful, but simply because of where they are.

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.

Developing new technology can take decades to actually see results. So, what you're saying is that companies should be willing to suffer and put up with all sorts of inequities for a decade or 2, just in case some sort of green tax actually pans out? So unfairness is OK as long as it might be temporary?

You know, I kind of find it ironic... you criticize me for trying to see the future by claiming that oil supplies are ultimately fixed, yet you yourself are basing your claims on the possibility of future technological advancement (something that is even more random and unpredictable than the discovery of oil fields.)

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

Why would anyone do that? We want more clean energy.

We also want more conservation of the energy that we have now.

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.

Given the number of promises broken at ALL levels of government, by ALL political parties when they gain power, why exactly do you think my concerns are unjustified?

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".

I never said the 'poor mother' didn't need help. I said that if the purpose of the bill was to help poor people, then it should be presented as such.

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.

It has a lot to do with wealth transfer... it contains all sorts of tax credits and cuts that will end up providing more money to the poor that originally comes from the wealthy, regardless of how much the poor person does to cut back on their energy usage.

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.

Your right, it wouldn't happen... I recognize that it would be politically disadvantageous to the Liberals (and probably any other political party that would try it).

But, you see, I'm kind of funny... I would actually see a policy that was unfair or promoted some sort of disparity eliminated, instead of simply accepted saying "its unfair, but it will help us get elected".

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?

Not sure why exactly it would be that difficult... we already have people submitting other receipts that in theory have the same potential for fraud. Whatever mechanisms we have for checking the validity of T4s, charitable receipts, etc. would be extended to checking utility bill receipts.

Hey, not that I think it will ever happen. (Frankly, I'd prefer that we skip the carbon tax all together). But as long as we are going to tinker with the tax system to deal with energy concerns, why not try to do it so that its as fair as possible? Wouldn't it be better to have something which is fairer (even if we have to hire a couple of more income tax auditors to do spot checks) than to do something which is unfair but cheap?

Wilber · July 11, 2008

A tax has no target, it is just a tax and allows the politicians promoting it to claim whatever they want without actually having to demonstrate anything. Campbell is trying to flog his by saying his carbon tax will save the emissions 800,000 vehicles per year. Following the logic that if a 2.5 cent per liter gas tax and and equivalent amount on other fossil fuels will save the emissions of 800 thousand, the 35 cent a liter rise in gas and a 50% rise in energy costs in general since the tax was first announced is 14 times his tax and should save the emissions of about 11 million vehicles. Do we have 11 million vehicles in BC and if so, why are they still on the road?

madmax · July 11, 2008

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

hmm. I think you have "issues" on this topic.

Regardless, Iunderstand your position on commodities. The other stuff is straying too far off topic and I would love to rebutt and address in positive manner some of your points. Some of which I agree with above and those which I do not. Too busy now, and I will create another thread later for that discussion.

So, I guess you don't want a "Carbon Tax"

segnosaur · July 11, 2008

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

Ummm.... why exactly are you calling it "Harper's" ethanol plan when:

- The increase in ethanol content was supported by the Federal Liberals. E.g. from: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...b6-1fb545222cf7

Last month, the Conservative government, with the help of Liberal Party support, was able to push through a

bill that forces retail gas pumps across the country to contain at least five per cent ethanol by 2010.)

(And yes, I do know that some Liberals have stated opposition to the use of Ethanol, but the Liberal party web site still lists the production of ethanol http://www.liberal.ca/rural_e.aspx)

- Similar policies on ethanol content (in fact some of them even stricter) are in place by many of the provinces (e.g. Sask, Manitoba, and Ontario

- Its a global market, and many other countries in the world have ethanol plans

Not that I necessarily agree with or disagree with plans to increase the use of Ethanol, but if you're going to blame any party, perhaps you should look at all the supporters instead of just picking and choosing.

If we were smart, we'd lower taxes on imported ethanol (After all, there is substantial ethanol produced in parts of the world where ethanol is produced from things like sugarcane, which are not staple foods) and encourage the development of ethanol from agricultural waste.

Wild Bill · July 11, 2008

Actually, the Liberals are the only ones talking about that. The carbon tax would apply to those imports.

OK, let's grant that for the purpose of argument. So how are they going to determine how much tax to apply on what products, for which countries?

If there's a dispute, will the government send inspectors to the foreign countries to do an audit? What if that country refuses?

How on earth could this be done with just the existing bureaucracy?

What if an offending country believes our carbon tax on one of their products is unfairly high. What happens? To whom do they appeal?

What if the international Appeal Board is corrupt, like the UN Human Rights body run by the worst offending countries?

Isn't this a bit more complicated than might have been first thought?

AngusThermopyle · July 11, 2008

Isn't this a bit more complicated than might have been first thought?

And therein lies the problem. Dion didn't think, at least not in a rational way. He was simply looking for something that would grant him some credibility and a little political leverage. Unfortunately the banner has been taken up by a certain segment of the population and now we have another holy grail for them to hold sacred, sorta like the gun registry, useless and stupid but held as sacred by many of the sheep.

So now this certain segment of the population can feel free to denounce anyone who raises legitimate concerns with this Willy Wonka idea as being "anti-environment". Its an old tune but some people never get tired of hearing it.

blueblood · July 12, 2008

Ummm.... why exactly are you calling it "Harper's" ethanol plan when:
- The increase in ethanol content was supported by the Federal Liberals. E.g. from: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...b6-1fb545222cf7

Last month, the Conservative government, with the help of Liberal Party support, was able to push through a

bill that forces retail gas pumps across the country to contain at least five per cent ethanol by 2010.)

(And yes, I do know that some Liberals have stated opposition to the use of Ethanol, but the Liberal party web site still lists the production of ethanol http://www.liberal.ca/rural_e.aspx)

- Similar policies on ethanol content (in fact some of them even stricter) are in place by many of the provinces (e.g. Sask, Manitoba, and Ontario

- Its a global market, and many other countries in the world have ethanol plans

Not that I necessarily agree with or disagree with plans to increase the use of Ethanol, but if you're going to blame any party, perhaps you should look at all the supporters instead of just picking and choosing.

If we were smart, we'd lower taxes on imported ethanol (After all, there is substantial ethanol produced in parts of the world where ethanol is produced from things like sugarcane, which are not staple foods) and encourage the development of ethanol from agricultural waste.

Umm, that's why the ethanol program was introduced in the first place. There was too much waste. Oh that's grain.

How about keeping with the status quo and not devaluing our exports. The status quo being researching the ag waste and using waste grain. We are doing the smart thing and are going to make a lot of money at it. Oil hit 147 today, there is a lot of oil that needs replacing. Grain and stem are both needed.

It's foolish to spend huge dollars to buy the imported ethanol, plus the huge dollars of ocean freight when we don't have to.

jdobbin · July 12, 2008

Ummm.... why exactly are you calling it "Harper's" ethanol plan when:

All the political parties have supported ethanol over the last years. The federal NDP only broke ranks this year.

I call it Harper's ethanol plan because it is his government that introduced the present legislation and he's the one that said yesterday that it doesn't cause much food inflation despite a study last week saying it causes at a $450 million increase in food.

I have stated repeatedly my opposition to the Liberal policy of support for the present ethanol policy and going beyond it.

Edited July 12, 2008 by jdobbin

jdobbin · July 12, 2008

OK, let's grant that for the purpose of argument. So how are they going to determine how much tax to apply on what products, for which countries?
Isn't this a bit more complicated than might have been first thought?

If the tax is applied at the rate as applies to Canadian products on the same range of products, it doesn't require an extra layer of administration.

Wilber · July 12, 2008

If the tax is applied at the rate as applies to Canadian products on the same range of products, it doesn't require an extra layer of administration.

Actually it would, you would have to evaluate the efficiency of each manufacturer otherwise you might end up penalizing a foreign manufacturer who emits less and rewarding a Canadian manufacturer who emits more.

jdobbin · July 12, 2008

Actually it would, you would have to evaluate the efficiency of each manufacturer otherwise you might end up penalizing a foreign manufacturer who emits less and rewarding a Canadian manufacturer who emits more.

Everything that is written about the import carbon tax says it is done at the same rate that Canadians are taxed.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...l-as-a-vat.aspx

To deal with the competitiveness problem, one proposal is to levy a carbon tariff on imports, set at the equivalent domestic rate. Such a tariff would “level the playing field” by eliminating foreign producers’ tax advantage.
But the idea raises a thorny question: Is it legal, under the rules and regulations of the World Trade Organization (WTO), to impose tariffs selectively on imports, on the basis of their believed upstream CO2 emissions?

As to the legality of it, the WTO Appellate Body has already indicated that it is probably legal since it treats foreign companies the same as domestic ones.

Wilber · July 12, 2008

Everything that is written about the import carbon tax says it is done at the same rate that Canadians are taxed

So you are saying that if a foreign manufacturer manages to produce the same product while emitting less than a Canadian manufacurer, their products will be taxed at the same rate.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Wilber

jdobbin · July 12, 2008

So you are saying that if a foreign manufacturer manages to produce the same product while emitting less than a Canadian manufacurer, their products will be taxed at the same rate.

They would be taxed at a lesser rate.

The rate charged would depend on carbon emissions.

X company in Canada would be charged Y amount for Z emissions. If customers of X company wanted to bypass the carbon tax by buying from A company in China, the Chinese company would be taxed at that same rate for its imports if it produced the same amount of emissions.

In other words, it would only be advantageous to buy from the Chinese if they actually had a product that had less carbon emissions than the Canadian one.

Wilber · July 12, 2008

They would be taxed at a lesser rate.
The rate charged would depend on carbon emissions.

X company in Canada would be charged Y amount for Z emissions. If customers of X company wanted to bypass the carbon tax by buying from A company in China, the Chinese company would be taxed at that same rate for its imports if it produced the same amount of emissions.

In other words, it would only be advantageous to buy from the Chinese if they actually had a product that had less carbon emissions than the Canadian one.

So the Canadian government would have agents in China and other countries evaluating these companies emissions, or would we just take their word. Like they would never lie right?

jdobbin · July 12, 2008

So the Canadian government would have agents in China and other countries evaluating these companies emissions, or would we just take their word. Like they would never lie right?

My guess is that they won't rely on China but on Canadian industry to help determine those costs just as they do with the present tariff system. The foreign company would then have the right to appeal that tariff to the WTO Appellate Court with numbers that would have to be scrutinized by an actual audit.

Since Canada would not be the only country applying the tariff, there would be a system to apply a charge as well as appeal it to an authority.

It is not much different than how present day trade deals and the WTO operates now.

Riverwind · July 12, 2008

My guess is that they won't rely on China but on Canadian industry to help determine those costs just as they do with the present tariff system. The foreign company would then have the right to appeal that tariff to the WTO Appellate Court with numbers that would have to be scrutinized by an actual audit.

Rediculous wishful thinking: http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/...=397658&p=1

A national carbon tariff or a carbon import tax [would be] levied on the carbon footprint of all imports from all countries (including on the carbon emissions components relating to the logistics compnent, especially shipping, throughout the supply chain). Consistency ... would require that it be applied to all domestically produced and consumed products.
Fitting these tariffs into the world trading system would be a piece of cake. "So long as the national environmental policies do not discriminate arbitrarily between foreign and domestic products, or between products imported from different trading partners, there should be no problem." Well, that was easy to say, but what it means in practice is another matter.

Tracking carbon inputs in any product is an impossible task, a nightmare of measurement and calculation that would require a massive bureaucracy at the World Carbon Trade Measurement Agency and tie up carbon trade negotiators for decades, assuming no trade war intervenes to crash the world trade system. An example is beer: Canadian beer would benefit if European beer faced a carbon tax on transport costs from Europe. But Canadian beer might use hops and other inputs that have to be transported across Canada. What kind of electricity and water sources are used in each location? Would carbon tariffs become a protectionist policy favouring Canadian beer?

Edited July 12, 2008 by Riverwind

Wilber · July 12, 2008

My guess is that they won't rely on China but on Canadian industry to help determine those costs just as they do with the present tariff system. The foreign company would then have the right to appeal that tariff to the WTO Appellate Court with numbers that would have to be scrutinized by an actual audit.
Since Canada would not be the only country applying the tariff, there would be a system to apply a charge as well as appeal it to an authority.

Really, so you say that Dion has come to some kind of private agreement that we don't know about with our NAFTA partners on this tariff.

How do you calculate carbon emissions from somewhere such as the North Eastern US where the electrical supply is a combination of imported hydro, gas, nukes, coal and oil generated? How do you account for energy reduction programs foreign companies may make that ours may not that have nothing to do with the source of the power they use? In such cases how do you calculate the unit cost of carbon emissions for a particular product when companies who are competing with that particular product have big differences in product ranges and scales of production?

This is great for Quebec and Bombardier, not so good for anyone who doesn't have access to cheap hydro power.

I see decades of big bucks for bureaucracies and lawyers in your future.

jdobbin · July 12, 2008

Rediculous wishful thinking: http:

As the article points out, Canada would not be doing this in isolation.

And as Dion has pointed out, it would not be done as a protectionist measure but as a parity measure.

Tariff regimes are already put in place for a variety of reasons. They are not the most desirable remedy to problems but are sometimes the only solution to dumping which comes under the WTO.

jdobbin · July 12, 2008

Really, so you say that Dion has come to some kind of private agreement that we don't know about with our NAFTA partners on this tariff.
How do you calculate carbon emissions from somewhere such as the North Eastern US where the electrical supply is a combination of imported hydro, gas, nukes, coal and oil generated? How do you account for energy reduction programs foreign companies may make that ours may not that have nothing to do with the source of the power they use? In such cases how do you calculate the unit cost of carbon emissions for a particular product when companies who are competing with that particular product have big differences in product ranges and scales of production?

Tariffs have been around for a long time and calculated over equally complicated formulas. The infrastructure is already in place as is the appeal process.

Some are arguing the best way to achieve world-wide coverage of this policy is to advocate for a Tobin tax which has supporters on both the right and left.

Savant · July 12, 2008

I came across this little gem written by a Liberal M.P. today...

"The ‘shift’ will transfer wealth from rich to poor, from the oil patch to the rest of the country"
Thursday, 10 July 2008

A Green Anti-Poverty Plan

Submitted by Ken Boshcoff M.P.

The Liberal Party’s Green Shift announced on June 19th marked the most aggressive anti-poverty program in 40 years. The ‘shift’ will transfer wealth from rich to poor, from the oil patch to the rest of the country, and from the coffers of big business to the pockets of low-income Canadians.

Roughly $9 billion of the $15.3 billion expected to be collected annually in carbon tax revenues would be returned to Canadians earning less than $40,000 annually. This would be done through a combination of income tax cuts and benefits targeted at children, low wage earners, rural residents, and individuals with disabilities.

In addition, this fiscal framework will work collaboratively with the Liberal 30-50 Plan to Combat Poverty. Together, I am excited by the prospect that this comprehensive strategy holds for both the environment and for the people of our riding.

As part of this plan, Liberals have committed to expanding and improving the Canada Child Tax Benefit. With the proposed ‘green shift’, Liberal have reaffirmed their pledge to introduce a $350 universal child tax benefit by backing it with $2.9 billion in carbon tax revenues.

The Green Shift will also increase support for low-income seniors. The Guaranteed Income Supplement would be increased by $600 a year over the course of a Liberal mandate. The cost would be met by $800 million in carbon tax proceeds.

Liberals have also committed to ensuring that work pays more than welfare. The Green Shift would enrich the Conservative government’s Working Income Tax Benefit and replace the employment tax credit with $1850 refund targeted at those earning less than $50,000.00. The $765 million cost would also be covered by carbon tax revenue.

I invite and encourage everyone to visit www.thegreenshift.ca to see how this comprehensive plan will benefit low-income Canadians. I will continue to work collaboratively with my Liberal colleagues towards a fairer, richer, greener Canada.

Anyone notice a distinct lack of talk about the environment and a significant amount of talk about sucking cash out of the west (oil patch) to redistribute to the rest of the country? And they wonder why people suggest that it is just a cash grab. This carbon tax is just a cash grab, and their own people are admitting as such. Reducing emissions is just a side effect, not the real design behind the plan.

Wilber · July 12, 2008

Tariffs have been around for a long time and calculated over equally complicated formulas. The infrastructure is already in place as is the appeal process.
Some are arguing the best way to achieve world-wide coverage of this policy is to advocate for a Tobin tax which has supporters on both the right and left.

A tariff is just a tariff, you can dress it up with any name you want. No one will care but you because it will be seen as protectionism, pure and simple which is exactly what it is. We belong to a trade treaty called NAFTA which prohibits us from imposing tariffs on most goods produced in the member countries. What you are proposing is softwood lumber in reverse. How long did it take to resolve that and did you like the result? This is mind bogglingly dangerous talk coming from a party wanting to run a net exporting country.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Wilber