Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

Bryan · July 13, 2008

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

Bingo. Push polls are designed to steer public opinion, not reveal it.

If the CPC was actually anywhere near as unpopular as the LPC claims, Dion would actually be standing up to Harper. He backs down continuously because he knows the LPC would lose.

Seriously, Harper has a minority govt that could be toppled at any time, but he governs stronger than most majorities. There is no more accurate indicator of the real fears of the opposition than that.

jdobbin · July 13, 2008

If the CPC was actually anywhere near as unpopular as the LPC claims, Dion would actually be standing up to Harper. He backs down continuously because he knows the LPC would lose.

Think I've been saying the Tories would win since 2006. The problem is that they are no where near getting a majority. The combination of Harper's go for the throat partisanship and a lack of trust in regards to how the Tories would really legislate with a majority keeps them from getting the majority.

A repeat minority probably brings questions about Harper's ability to lead the party to the next election.

As far as push polls, that is how the Tory poll on the Canadian Wheat Board was set up.

normanchateau · July 13, 2008

Think I've been saying the Tories would win since 2006. The problem is that they are no where near getting a majority. The combination of Harper's go for the throat partisanship and a lack of trust in regards to how the Tories would really legislate with a majority keeps them from getting the majority.
A repeat minority probably brings questions about Harper's ability to lead the party to the next election.

http://www.trendlines.ca/electcanada.htm

Wilber · July 13, 2008

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

Back to the tax. Maybe some do but so what. We impose a tariff on someone else's goods based on what we think their carbon footprint is, they object and apply a countervailing tariff to our products. Everyone else continues trading with each other while Canadian companies are shut out of their markets because of our own government's stupidity, ten years in the courts before it is settled and the loser ends up owing billions. This is policy?

capricorn · July 13, 2008

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?

The poll you refer to was completed June 29 and as polls go, it probably doesn't reflect today's voting intention snapshot. That poll also says a lot about Canadians. Voting intentions among Canadians seesaw up and down, depending on their mood and how engaged they are. Here's an illustration of the back and forth numbers from all the major pollsters:

http://www.nodice.ca/elections/canada/polls.php

And now that Dion is boasting about his PHD in sociology, I wonder if he can connect with voters who don't particularly like self-congratulating elites.

If the Liberals win the next election, "it will be the first time in the history of Canada that the prime minister of Canada will have a PhD," Dion said.
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2008/07...125556-sun.html

It turns out that at least one other PM had a PHD, that is Mackenzie King. I read that he may also have touted his wife's PHD and if elected he and Janine would be first PM couple to have PHDs. This will really go over well with average Jos and Janes. :rolleyes:

I think his blatant elitism and the concerns Canadians have over the green shift plan will hurt the Liberals in the next round of polls.

jdobbin · July 13, 2008

Back to the tax. Maybe some do but so what. We impose a tariff on someone else's goods based on what we think their carbon footprint is, they object and apply a countervailing tariff to our products.

Countervailing duties are only allowed under the WTO if the WTO finds Canada guilty of unfair trade.

jdobbin · July 13, 2008

The poll you refer to was completed June 29 and as polls go, it probably doesn't reflect today's voting intention snapshot. That poll also says a lot about Canadians. Voting intentions among Canadians seesaw up and down, depending on their mood and how engaged they are. Here's an illustration of the back and forth numbers from all the major pollsters:

There is real no see-saw. The Tories and the Liberals are pretty much where they were in the election.

And now that Dion is boasting about his PHD in sociology, I wonder if he can connect with voters who don't particularly like self-congratulating elites.

But they do like a good cowboy and Dion won best cowboy at the Stampede.

It turns out that at least one other PM had a PHD, that is Mackenzie King. I read that he may also have touted his wife's PHD and if elected he and Janine would be first PM couple to have PHDs. This will really go over well with average Jos and Janes.
I think his blatant elitism and the concerns Canadians have over the green shift plan will hurt the Liberals in the next round of polls.

He is one Phd that looks better in a cowboy outfit than an economist.

Wilber · July 13, 2008

Countervailing duties are only allowed under the WTO if the WTO finds Canada guilty of unfair trade.

The Americans were found in violation of NAFTA and the WTO several times during the softwood lumber dispute so woopie.

You seem to think you can arbitrarily set a tariff on what you deem to be the carbon footprint of a company exporting to Canada, even our NAFTA partners and they will just sit back and do nothing. If the courts settle this one in less than ten years, I'll be really surprised and in the mean time it will be Canadian exporters who suffer.

jdobbin · July 13, 2008

The Americans were found in violation of NAFTA and the WTO several times during the softwood lumber dispute so woopie.

Canada was found in violation as well.

You seem to think you can arbitrarily set a tariff on what you deem to be the carbon footprint of a company exporting to Canada, even our NAFTA partners and they will just sit back and do nothing. If the courts settle this one in less than ten years, I'll be really surprised and in the mean time it will be Canadian exporters who suffer.

As I said, if other countries don't apply the tariff, Canada probably won't either.

Wilber · July 13, 2008

As I said, if other countries don't apply the tariff, Canada probably won't either.

So Canadian companies will be exempt from the tax in order to stay competitive with those from countries that don't, right, or are you planning on hanging another anchor around their necks to go along with the high CAD?

Oleg Bach · July 13, 2008

So Canadian companies will be exempt from the tax in order to stay competitive with those from countries that don't, right, or are you planning on hanging another anchor around their necks to go along with the high CAD?

When you make a company "exempt" from the tax in order to have them stay competitive..you are actually removing competition through the sheer idea of exemptation of the competative nature of fellow corporates and governments. It's just a form of parasitic corporate welfare - and the pockets of the poor will be picked as the rich jerks continue to prosper and pollute and destroy the natural environ..in order to be wealthy you must plunder nature..it's a case of physics...and the problem is not that the satisfaction of wealth is not met..it is the problem that once the rich are satisfied materially they want to kill nature and us for sport - that is the problem - abuse of power by idiots.

jdobbin · July 13, 2008

So Canadian companies will be exempt from the tax in order to stay competitive with those from countries that don't, right, or are you planning on hanging another anchor around their necks to go along with the high CAD?

I think you have to make up your mind. Impose a tariff or not. Every single carbon plan whether it includes a tax or not is facing that choice.

We heard the same thing during the CFC debate. Some people kept saying that Canada couldn't do anything or our economy would tank. It didn't. And the CFC plan was addressed world-wide.

The right wing in Canada doesn't believe in global warming and even if it is happening, they says there is nothing to do about it.

Riverwind · July 14, 2008

We heard the same thing during the CFC debate. Some people kept saying that Canada couldn't do anything or our economy would tank. It didn't. And the CFC plan was addressed world-wide.

There were technically and economically feasible alternatives to CFCs when they agreed to the ban. more importantly, CFCs only affected a very narrow range of industries and there was no risk of triggering an inflationary spiral which would undermine the economy as a whole. Lastly, Canadian companies were not expected to adherd to the ban until after a global agreement was signed.

Using the precautionary principal to justify action in the faces of scientific uncertainty is a reasonable argument when the costs of acting are relatively small. In the case of CO2 the costs of acting are so rediculously high that the precautionary principal cannot be justified given the state of science at this time.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Riverwind

jdobbin · July 14, 2008

There were technically and economically feasible alternatives to CFCs when they agreed to the ban. more importantly, CFCs only affected a very narrow range of industries and there was no risk of triggering an inflationary spiral which would undermine the economy as a whole. Lastly, Canadian companies were not expected to adherd to the ban until after a global agreement was signed.

And yet people were still saying things were going to fall to pieces in Canada and around the world.

Using the precautionary principal to justify action in the faces of scientific uncertainty is a reasonable argument when the costs of acting are relatively small. In the case of CO2 the costs of acting are so rediculously high that the precautionary principal cannot be justified given the state of science at this time.

People still doubt the science on CFCs. Some of those people have now moved to become lobbyists against climate change.

Wilber · July 14, 2008

I think you have to make up your mind. Impose a tariff or not. Every single carbon plan whether it includes a tax or not is facing that choice.
We heard the same thing during the CFC debate. Some people kept saying that Canada couldn't do anything or our economy would tank. It didn't. And the CFC plan was addressed world-wide.

The right wing in Canada doesn't believe in global warming and even if it is happening, they says there is nothing to do about it.

Stop dancing. Will your party unilaterally impose a carbon tax on Canadian companies that our other main trading partners do not impose on theirs. Yes or no.

jdobbin · July 14, 2008

Stop dancing. Will your party unilaterally impose a carbon tax on Canadian companies that our other main trading partners do not impose on theirs. Yes or no.

Yes.

Riverwind · July 14, 2008

And yet people were still saying things were going to fall to pieces in Canada and around the world.

Cite. My recollection was simple rhetoric about job losses in the few industries that were affected.

People still doubt the science on CFCs. Some of those people have now moved to become lobbyists against climate change.

Some maybe. However, those numbers are insignificant compare to the socialists/communists/marxists who are using global warming as a way to achive political ends that they could not achieve via the normal political process. Dion's tax is a perfect example: it dramically increases cash transfers from the middle class to the poor and transfers from the west to quebec. Both policies would have been soundly rejected by voters if they weren't given phoney legimacy due to the CO2 hysteria.

jdobbin · July 14, 2008

Cite. My recollection was simple rhetoric about job losses in the few industries that were affected.

It wasn't just rhetoric. The U.S. was especially critical and said they wouldn't sign if China didn't come aboard and the Chinese said they wouldn't unless the U.S. started. Both argued it would crash the economies of their countries.

Fred Singer was shouting to the heavens how it was going to of great cost to the economy.

http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/ozone/ozonefranklin.html

The facts are that the scientific underpinnings are quite shaky: the data are suspect; the statistical analyses are faulty; and the theory has not been validated (3,4). The science simply does not support this premature and abrupt removal of widely used chemicals—at great cost to the economy.

Some maybe. However, those numbers are insignificant compare to the socialists/communists/marxists who are using global warming as a way to achive political ends that they could not achieve via the normal political process. Dion's tax is a perfect example: it dramically increases cash transfers from the middle class to the poor and transfers from the west to quebec. Both policies would have been soundly rejected by voters if they weren't given phoney legimacy due to the CO2 hysteria.

Some? It was quite a few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warmin...and_ozone_layer

he scientific basis of ozone depletion has been disputed by some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Kary Mullis, Steven Milloy, Fred Singer, and Frederick Seitz.

jbg · July 14, 2008

The combination of Harper's go for the throat partisanship and a lack of trust in regards to how the Tories would really legislate with a majority keeps them from getting the majority.

Pearson won three minority elections if I recall correctly.

Wilber · July 14, 2008

Yes.

So as well as having to cope with a 20+% rise in the Canadian dollar, our exporting companies, farmers etc are going to have an additional tax put on them that their competitors are not.

jdobbin · July 14, 2008

So as well as having to cope with a 20+% rise in the Canadian dollar, our exporting companies, farmers etc are going to have an additional tax put on them that their competitors are not.

Sounds like Canadians could even stand for more tax cuts then.

Wilber · July 14, 2008

Sounds like Canadians could even stand for more tax cuts then.

Funny, you obviously don't depend on your livelihood from exports, or at least you don't think you do.

jdobbin · July 14, 2008

Funny, you obviously don't depend on your livelihood from exports, or at least you don't think you do.

Dion has talked about introducing corporate tax cuts even before the carbon tax was announced. I suspect we'll see even more in that regard.

Wilber · July 14, 2008

I'm only around on weekends these days but has THIS poped up anywhere on this forum yet?

Wilber · July 14, 2008

Dion has talked about introducing corporate tax cuts even before the carbon tax was announced. I suspect we'll see even more in that regard.

What exactly will we see dobbin? Carbon taxes on corporations? Tax cuts for corporations to offset the carbon tax. Exemptions from the tax on exports so only Canadian consumers will get screwed, so I will be able to buy Canadian goods in the US for even less than I can already buy them in Canada. Quit the BS.