Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

Wilber · July 12, 2008

Nice of Boshcoff to admit this policy is nothing more than the NEP all over again. Too bad his boss doesn't display the same kind of honesty even if the concept is loony. According to him, anyone who buys or uses anything that involves carbon is rich and business isn't going to pass increased costs to the average consumer. Karl Marx is alive and well.

jdobbin · July 12, 2008

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.

I'm not much for tariffs in general. It is why some say it is a flaw in the policy. One thing is clear though, taxation on products coming into the country is allowed as long as it is imposed on domestic companies as well. This comes under NAFTA as well as the WTO. The softwood lumber decision was to tax only Canadian lumber.

This part of the policy on taxing carbon coming into Canada can only be done if other countries do it as well.

Riverwind · July 12, 2008

One thing is clear though, taxation on products coming into the country is allowed as long as it is imposed on domestic companies as well.

Actually - it is not clear at all. Consider three companies that produce aluminium (which require a lot of input energy):

1) Based in Quebec uses hydro electricity

2) Based in US uses natural gas generated electricity

3) Based in China and uses coal generated electricity

There would be no tariff on the Quebec company's products

A small tariff on the US company's products

A large tariff on the Chinese company's products

As you can see the companies would not be treated equally so the tariffs would be illegal under WTO rules.

In fact, allowing the Quebec company to buy untaxed hydro power would likely be deemed a subsidy under existing trade rules since Quebec hydro should be selling the hydro power at market rates which include the tax.

jdobbin · July 12, 2008

There would be no tariff on the Quebec company's products
A small tariff on the US company's products

A large tariff on the Chinese company's products

As you can see the companies would not be treated equally so the tariffs would be illegal under WTO rules.

In fact, allowing the Quebec company to buy untaxed hydro power would likely be deemed a subsidy under existing trade rules since Quebec hydro should be selling the hydro power at market rates which include the tax.

If the tax is on the carbon used, it is still done equally.

You're last argument on market rates for hydro in Quebec is not covered in the present WTO which doesn't deal with provincial Crowns or provincial marketing boards.

Riverwind · July 12, 2008

If the tax is on the carbon used, it is still done equally.

Tariffs are placed on the end product - not things that may or may not be used in its production. There would no problem if a government imposed a X% tariff on all widgets sold in the country. There is a big problem if the government tries to impose different tariffs on the same widget depending on the origin of the widget. Hand waving about taxing unmeasureable things like CO2 produced during consumption means absolutely nothing as far as trade law is concerned. Edited July 12, 2008 by Riverwind

Argus · July 12, 2008

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

Not just from the west. Simply removing the present employment tax credit from those earning over $50,000 will cost every middle class earner $1000 a year right from the get go. Add in a 20% increase in the cost of electricity, and increases in the cost of heating your home, as well as the universal inflation factor at play - and you can bet the middle class will get zip back in tax cuts - and this scheme of the Liberals will suck thousands of dollars out of the pockets of every middle class wage earner and feed it to lower wage earners and those on welfare.

But it's all about the environment, right?

Edited July 12, 2008 by Argus

capricorn · July 13, 2008

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

Thanks for the link Savant.

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?

The more I learn about the Liberal green shift plan, the more I find it is communistic at its core.

1. Canada's GHG emissions have been decreasing. Not bad considering we only produce about 2% of the world's total emissions. Interesting how green shift pushers ignore our reduced emissions.

2. Linking environmental initiatives and reducing poverty are essentially incompatible objectives. It is dishonest to claim that the green shift plan addresses environmental concerns while increasing the wealth of Canadians. The plan glosses over the fact that Canadians would pay more for most consumables.

3. The end result of the green shift plan punishes success and rewards mediocre to nil personal efforts and accomplishments. It punishes Alberta for producing an alternative to oil from countries abroad.

4. The green shift plan does not recognize the personal sacrifices already made by environmentally conscious Canadians.

6. A major part of the plan is to take from wealthy regions to give to regions in economic downturn, especially Quebec that will pay little or no carbon tax. Isn't that a handy if not politically motivated machination.

In its purest form, communism is about common ownership of wealth and as a result everyone receives the same rewards regardless of input. The green shift plan takes us down that path. Broshcoff paints the picture:

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.

http://netnewsledger.com/index.php?option=...7&Itemid=28

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.

Many Canadians earn under $40,000, the magic threshold that will determine the amount of goodies they would receive from a Liberal government. Canadians have been beaten over the head so often about the global warming apocalypse that they're looking for someone to save them. They're ripe for the picking and the Liberals are playing on their fears and concerns. Not surprising as they want power and are up against a minority Conservative government that has done pretty well while in power.

I am not worried for the foreseeable future. As long as Dion is Liberal leader, the green shift plan will remain a Liberal dream. And while we chat about things that may not come to pass, the Conservatives continue to lead the country. In a nutshell, most of us will sleep well tonight.

jdobbin · July 13, 2008

Hand waving about taxing unmeasureable things like CO2 produced during consumption means absolutely nothing as far as trade law is concerned.

This is where there is debate. Many experts believe that the WTO does allow this type of tax.

jdobbin · July 13, 2008

But it's all about the environment, right?

According to Decima this week:

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...kM4euUFn_unfDbw

Respondents were given two options: Did they support a more cautious policy approach "so that we don't drive up the cost of fuel and the cost of living even further?" Or would they subscribe to the view that "the rising price of fossil fuels is a reason we must move even more aggressively to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. . . ."
Sixty-one per cent said an aggressive approach was more logical, while just 27 per cent said governments should move more slowly in light of the rising costs of oil and gasoline.

Wilber · July 13, 2008

If the tax is on the carbon used, it is still done equally.
You're last argument on market rates for hydro in Quebec is not covered in the present WTO which doesn't deal with provincial Crowns or provincial marketing boards.

Dobbin, do you honestly believe that China and the US are going voluntarily tax their aluminum industry into uncompetitiveness so that Quebec can capture the market? Considering that they are probably the two biggest markets for the stuff, this is getting weirder by the minute.

jdobbin · July 13, 2008

I am not worried for the foreseeable future. As long as Dion is Liberal leader, the green shift plan will remain a Liberal dream. And while we chat about things that may not come to pass, the Conservatives continue to lead the country. In a nutshell, most of us will sleep well tonight.

And yet the Tories remain tied with the Liberals in the latest polls. That must give some right wingers some wakey time at night.

Wilber · July 13, 2008

And yet the Tories remain tied with the Liberals in the latest polls. That must give some right wingers some wakey time at night.

Then bring on an election, you have had plenty of opportunities.

Riverwind · July 13, 2008

According to Decima this week:

There are lies, dammed lies and public opinion polls.

Here is actual poll: http://www.decima.com/en/pdf/news_releases/080708E.pdf

Here is the complete question:

Some people say that the high cost of oil and gasoline is a reason why we should take a
slower, more cautious approach to dealing with environmental issues such as climate

change, so that we don’t drive up the cost of fuel and the cost of living even further.

Others say that the rising price of fossil fuels is a reason we must move even more

aggressively to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and find alternative sources of

energy that are also less damaging to the environment

Asking someone whether we should 'aggressively to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels' is like asking someone whether they are in favour of lower taxes (i.e. they will always agree if they don't understand the implications or think it will affect someone else).

This survey was clearly a push-poll designed to produce a certain result. A poll that was interested in finding out what Canadians really thought would have provided specific scenarios (i.e. would you be in favour of doubling your annual electricity bill in order to combat climate change). A question that leaves it up to the listener to define what 'agressive' means does not provide any useful information.

Edited July 13, 2008 by Riverwind

capricorn · July 13, 2008

And yet the Tories remain tied with the Liberals in the latest polls.

Ah, yes, the polls. The Liberals are still behind in the polls. How come? The green shift is supposed to be the end all solution to all of Canada's ills. How come the Conservatives are still leading in the polls? What is wrong with Canadians? Don't they get it?<sarcasm off>

That must give some right wingers some wakey time at night.

Yeah, if you're in the PMO's office maybe. It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it!

noahbody · July 13, 2008

This survey was clearly a push-poll designed to produce a certain result. A poll that was interested in finding out what Canadians really thought would have provided specific scenarios (i.e. would you be in favour of doubling your annual electricity bill in order to combat climate change). A question that leaves it up to the listener to define what 'agressive' means does not provide any useful information.

A better poll question would be: How much more of your take home pay would you like to see go towards subsidizing low income Canadians?

noahbody · July 13, 2008

And yet the Tories remain tied with the Liberals in the latest polls.

Unfortunately, there is about 30 percent of the population that would drink poison if the Liberal Party said to do so. The Green Shift is just another example.

jdobbin · July 13, 2008

Unfortunately, there is about 30 percent of the population that would drink poison if the Liberal Party said to do so. The Green Shift is just another example.

Actually, it sounds like 60% of the population or more thinks that the environment is important enough to address seriously.

jdobbin · July 13, 2008

Then bring on an election, you have had plenty of opportunities.

Given that the Tories are now 5 points below what they received in the election, the wait might not be long now.

jdobbin · July 13, 2008

There are lies, dammed lies and public opinion polls.

I realize that the right wing is not going to find any poll to be acceptable except the ones they write themselves.

I know it comes as a bit of a shock for the Tories each time the electorate expresses dissatisfaction with their dismissal of the environment or their sleight of hand on the subject. Perhaps they should just embrace the issue as Mulroney did and maybe they can win a majority.

jdobbin · July 13, 2008

Ah, yes, the polls. The Liberals are still behind in the polls. How come? The green shift is supposed to be the end all solution to all of Canada's ills. How come the Conservatives are still leading in the polls? What is wrong with Canadians? Don't they get it?<sarcasm off>

Last I heard, the Liberals and Tories both have 31% in the polls. Inasmuch as that the Liberals have struggled through a leadership race, fundraising problems and disagreement on the direction of the party, 31% in the polls says more about the Tories than it does about the Liberals, don't you think?

Wilber · July 13, 2008

Given that the Tories are now 5 points below what they received in the election, the wait might not be long now.

You have been outed by Boshcoff. I think this a good issue to fight an election on. Time to clear the air and separate the shit from shineola. Unless of course you want to return national unity to the late seventies.

jdobbin · July 13, 2008

You have been outed by Boshcoff. I think this a good issue to fight an election on. Time to clear the air and separate the shit from shineola. Unless of course you want to return national unity to the late seventies.

I doubt that all Liberals think in the same terms as that one MP.

Harper outed himself very early on in this as a non-believer in climate change. Perhaps he should fight on the next election on that.

jbg · July 13, 2008

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.

Someone had better point out the "boy who cried wolf" aspect of this kind of "environmentalism". Anyone who knows the story remembers that the boy was given help a few times to hunt down the non-existant "wolves" and then the townspeople decided that his reports should be ignored because resources are better spent on other things than false alarms. This "global warming" tripe is similar to that boy's wolves.

Wilber · July 13, 2008

I doubt that all Liberals think in the same terms as that one MP.
Harper outed himself very early on in this as a non-believer in climate change. Perhaps he should fight on the next election on that.

No doubt not all Liberals do but what does Dion believe, it is his policy after all. The election will be fought largely on whatever defeats the government, unless it runs full term.

Argus · July 13, 2008

According to Decima this week:
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...kM4euUFn_unfDbw

Polls like that mean nothing. They're theoretical, not personal. When people learn that this plan will - personally - cost them thousands of dollars, and that the money won't go to the environment but to lower income Canadians an awful lot of them will turn against this plan.

I'll tell you what. I know a couple of environmentally conscious young liberals who no-doubt support the plan initially. When they get back to town I'll ask them about it, and then point out what it will cost them personally. They both earn more than $50k a year but are struggling with bills. We'll see what they think of your "environmental" plan to take a few thousand more out of their pay cheques each year to redistribute to others.