Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

jdobbin · July 14, 2008

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.

I was talking about general cuts in corporate and personal taxes that was talked about even before the carbon tax.

A tax on carbon doesn't preclude even deeper cuts in those taxes. I think the right wing in Canada should take a breather. The fearmongering reminds me of what we saw from some quarters on CFCs. The economy didn't crash and there was an improvement from removal of CFCs around the world.

Wilber · July 14, 2008

I was talking about general cuts in corporate and personal taxes that was talked about even before the carbon tax.
A tax on carbon doesn't preclude even deeper cuts in those taxes. I think the right wing in Canada should take a breather. The fearmongering reminds me of what we saw from some quarters on CFCs. The economy didn't crash and there was an improvement from removal of CFCs around the world.

Resorting to comparing hair spray with energy. Rather pathetic. I think you should explain exactly what you are going to do other than continuous vague statements about making it up as you go along after the fact.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Wilber

jdobbin · July 14, 2008

Resorting to comparing hair spray with energy. Rather pathetic.

I think what is pathetic is how some of the same people who preached economic woes back then are doing it now.

I think you should explain exactly what you are going to do other than continuous vague statements about making it up as you go along after the fact.

That sounds a bit like the present Tory plan.

I'm not the leader nor am I privy to the entire Liberal platform but even prior to the carbon tax and not related to it, Dion was talking about sharper cuts in personal and corporate income taxes. He wasn't tying those to the present policy. It was separate from that.

You say the carbon tax will make Canada uncompetitive. I disagree because our most important market is making decisions on who has the greenest energy and products.

In any event, I believe that Liberals will unveil even larger tax cuts come the campaign. I personally advocate another 5 to 10% cut in taxes beyond what was talked about in the carbon tax proposal.

Wilber · July 14, 2008

You say the carbon tax will make Canada uncompetitive. I disagree because our most important market is making decisions on who has the greenest energy and products.

Ah, that must be why it is so hard to find anything not made in China.

In any event, I believe that Liberals will unveil even larger tax cuts come the campaign. I personally advocate another 5 to 10% cut in taxes beyond what was talked about in the carbon tax proposal.

They are going to shovel all this money to low income groups and cut taxes as well. Magic.

Riverwind · July 14, 2008

I think what is pathetic is how some of the same people who preached economic woes back then are doing it now.

The links you provided did not support you. Singer complained about the cost but did not suggest it was impossible or unachievable -> just expensive and unnecessary. The problem of CO2 is a different order of magnitude because it is simply not possible to solve the problem with the technology we have today. The statements linked by others on the wikipedia page also don't support your claim that those GW skeptics were claiming that banning CFCs would have led to economic collapse. In most cases they are using the CFCs to make a point about CO2.

Incidently, the scientific community has convinced itself that the CFC ban was a success but we have no proof that there was actually a causal link between the ban and ozone recovery. In fact, there is increasing evidence of a global climate regime change that started in 1998 which has led to flat temperatures and dropping methane concentrations - phenomena which scientists cannot adequately explain today. IOW - the ozone recovery may have occurred anyways because of the regime change.

jdobbin · July 14, 2008

Ah, that must be why it is so hard to find anything not made in China.

That is a reflection of low Chinese wages, subsidized energy costs, pent up demand as a developing nation and a currency tied to the U.S. dollar.

A lot of those dynamics are changing now.

The U.S. is now making many purchases based on carbon emissions and footprint. That footprint becomes a lot larger with trans-Pacific shipments.

Business stories in the Wall Street Journal showed that the increased carbon as well as energy prices in general gives the U.S. steel industry the biggest advantage it has had in years.

They are going to shovel all this money to low income groups and cut taxes as well. Magic.

Given the size of the surplus, it shouldn't be a problem.

jdobbin · July 14, 2008

The links you provided did not support you. Singer complained about the cost but did not suggest it was impossible or unachievable -> just expensive and unnecessary. The problem of CO2 is a different order of magnitude because it is simply not possible to solve the problem with the technology we have today. The statements linked by others on the wikipedia page also don't support your claim that those GW skeptics were claiming that banning CFCs would have led to economic collapse. In most cases they are using the CFCs to make a point about CO2.

Please. Singer was saying there was going to be severe economic consequences of the Montreal policy. Can you show me if any of that turned out to be true?

Incidently, the scientific community has convinced itself that the CFC ban was a success but we have no proof that there was actually a causal link between the ban and ozone recovery. In fact, there is increasing evidence of a global climate regime change that started in 1998 which has led to flat temperatures and dropping methane concentrations - phenomena which scientists cannot adequately explain today. IOW - the ozone recovery may have occurred anyways because of the regime change.

As yes, this was Singer's original point. He didn't believe the science and then he said it was going to be only achieved with severe economic consequences.

Well, I didn't see the economic collapse and last I heard, there was an improvement in ozone recovery. What do you know.

Riverwind · July 14, 2008

Please. Singer was saying there was going to be severe economic consequences of the Montreal policy.

I read your link and cannot find any claim of 'severe economic consequences'. The only economic consequences he listed was

Motorists will face shortages when they try to recharge their air conditioners, with the cost for repair or retrofit likely in the multi-hundred dollar range; the 10-y cost for U.S. automobiles is estimated as between $24 and $49 billion

and

The American public may not take kindly to those who are imposing a $1000 burden on every household with no obvious benefit. It will be interesting to see whether the new scientific results, and a scrutiny of the older ones, will force also a re-examination of existing policies.

You are arguing a straw man. Your own links prove my piont: people who were skeptical of CFCs did not predict economic disasater - they simply felt its was a waste of money.

Well, I didn't see the economic collapse and last I heard, there was an improvement in ozone recovery. What do you know.

Better question is what do you know? You have not provided any evidence that CFC skeptics predicted economic collapse and you cannot prove that the ozone recovery was actually a result of the ban. The fact that many other trends in the atmosphere reversed at the same time as the ozone trend suggests that the apparent correlation may be a coincidence.

Argus · July 14, 2008

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

Your party is not proposing a tax cut for me. They are proposing a large tax increase. Do please explain to me in simple words how removing the employment tax credit for people who earn over $50,000 a year will help the environment.

jdobbin · July 14, 2008

I read your link and cannot find any claim of 'severe economic consequences'. The only economic consequences he listed was
and

You are arguing a straw man. Your own links prove my piont: people who were skeptical of CFCs did not predict economic disasater - they simply felt its was a waste of money.

No claim of severe economic consequences? Dupont and others were predicting $5 trillion in consequences from the banning of CFCs and damage to human health.

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/...nfmanfreon.html

Lewis du Pont Smith calls this CFC policy “the most massive consumer fraud of this century.”
He writes that “The cost to consumers of the ban on CFCs will exceed $5 trillion: the consequences on human health will be devastating.”

Better question is what do you know? You have not provided any evidence that CFC skeptics predicted economic collapse and you cannot prove that the ozone recovery was actually a result of the ban. The fact that many other trends in the atmosphere reversed at the same time as the ozone trend suggests that the apparent correlation may be a coincidence.

See above.

I know many on the right wing are skeptics and won't believe any science if it makes them change their business practices.

jdobbin · July 14, 2008

Your party is not proposing a tax cut for me. They are proposing a large tax increase. Do please explain to me in simple words how removing the employment tax credit for people who earn over $50,000 a year will help the environment.

You have calculated what your tax would be before and after?

Riverwind · July 14, 2008

No claim of severe economic consequences? Dupont and others were predicting $5 trillion in consequences from the banning of CFCs and damage to human health.

That was not in your previous links so I guess you are admitting that you did not read what you posted and had to go find something else.

In any case, the president of Dupont is not one of GW sceptics speaking out today and as one of the major producers of CFCs it is not suprising that he engaged in hyperbole. Your original assertion was that the GW sceptics speaking out today claimed that the CFC ban would be economically devastating - a point which you have not demonstrated.

I found this analysis that discusses the history of the CFC ban and debunks that idea that it represents a success of science based policy decisions and international cooperation: http://cei.org/pdf/1184.pdf

I found this point quit damming:

Myth 4: The Montreal Protocol proves that global cooperation and
compliance can be achieved. If not for the high levels of compliance in the

developed world, particularly the U.S., and among the few large corporations

that produced most of the world’s CFCs, there would not have been

substantial declines in CFC production and use. Overall, global compliance

has been inconsistent, especially among the large developing nations, and

there is no viable enforcement mechanism to deter treaty violators. These

flaws may totally undermine attempts to reduce greenhouse emissions,

which have many more sources and will require far greater economic

sacrifices and global cooperation. While CFC production in China, India,

and Russia combined was approximately one third that in the U.S. when the

Montreal Protocol was signed, these three nations already account for greater

greenhouse emissions.117 The lack of truly global compliance with the

Montreal Protocol does not bode well for the prospects of significantly

reducing greenhouse emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, a far more ambitious

task, and one that will require high levels of cooperation from nations

whose compliance with the Montreal Protocol has not been strong.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Riverwind

jdobbin · July 14, 2008

That was not in your previous links so I guess you are admitting that you did not read what you posted and had to go find something else.

You said that there was no one making dire predictions about CFCs reductions. It is clear you had no memory of the debate and how people like Fred Singer were speaking on behalf of Dupont about how bad it would be.

In any case, the president of Dupont is not one of GW sceptics speaking out today and as one of the major producers of CFCs it is not suprising that he engaged in hyperbole. Your original assertion was that the GW sceptics speaking out today claimed that the CFC ban would be economically devastating - a point which you have not demonstrated.

Where do you think he got his analysis from? It was Singer papers on the subject? Singer and others were consultants to Dupont giving them the ammo on CFCs.

I found this analysis that discusses the history of the CFC ban and debunks that idea that it represents a success of science based policy decisions and international cooperation:

I'm sure someone could produce the same damning evidence on smoking as well. Better look to see what Singer says.

Wilber · July 14, 2008

That is a reflection of low Chinese wages, subsidized energy costs, pent up demand as a developing nation and a currency tied to the U.S. dollar.
A lot of those dynamics are changing now.

So what, I still have trouble finding anything that isn't made in China. Just bought a new barbecue and I wanted a good one because I have found quality is cheaper in the long run. Turns out that aside from Vermont Castings which build beautiful barbecues but is in Chapter 11, Weber is the only one still made in North America.

Business stories in the Wall Street Journal showed that the increased carbon as well as energy prices in general gives the U.S. steel industry the biggest advantage it has had in years.

All happened without a tax, so why do we need one?

Given the size of the surplus, it shouldn't be a problem.

A few months ago you said the Conservatives were spending themselves into deficit. What happened?

The hubris of politics never ceases to amaze me. A $40 per ton tax on carbon over 4 years is supposed to save the world. If a so called 10 cent a liter excise tax on gasoline equates to a $40 a ton tax on carbon, the 40 cent rise in prices over the past year equates to a $160 penalty at the pump. That may not fit your precious dogma but it is reality for consumers and business alike and they will respond to it without your interference.

The rest of the world is struggling to cope with a doubling of energy prices and to believe that somehow a $40 per ton carbon tax over four years which equates to 10 cents a liter on gasoline which incidentally will not be included so nothing changes there, will somehow give Canada some sort of lock on the development and marketing of green technologies is pure idealogical nonsense.

Point that out and the answer is that it is just a price fluctuation and doesn't count. Point out that applying it to diesel and not gasoline will discourage people from buying new diesel technology that is just as clean and produces over 25% less CO2 and that gets blown off as well. Point out that unbalancing fuel prices will result more people going farther to get cheaper fuel and transportation business like airlines tankering fuel will actually increase emissions and that gets brushed off as well. Point out the obvious implications of unilaterally imposing taxes on imports and we get the Trudeau shrug, not to worry, we'll just fight them in court and Canadian exporters can deal with the consequences. Tough.

Then there is the fleecing of Canadian middle income earners to make possible this massive income redistribution, which it will because the money has to come from somewhere. You know, the ones who go to work, to earn the income, to pay the taxes and buy the goods which keeps the economy working. When it comes to this middle income earner who is wondering how long he will remain one, because his income is fixed, you scare the hell out of him.

jdobbin · July 14, 2008

So what, I still have trouble finding anything that isn't made in China. Just bought a new barbecue and I wanted a good one because I have found quality is cheaper in the long run. Turns out that aside from Vermont Castings which build beautiful barbecues but is in Chapter 11, Weber is the only one still made in North America.

I think if you want to combine your dislike of Chinese products and climate change, you should consider a different thread.

All happened without a tax, so why do we need one?

Because our emissions are way over the 1990 levels. They are way over our Kyoto commitment.

A few months ago you said the Conservatives were spending themselves into deficit. What happened?

I said they were making the wrong type of tax cuts if they wanted to get the best results and that they were overspending past their election promises.

I have indicated where I think there should be cutbacks. The Liberals actually have a record of cutbacks.

jbg · July 14, 2008

The statements linked by others on the wikipedia page also don't support your claim that those GW skeptics were claiming that banning CFCs would have led to economic collapse. In most cases they are using the CFCs to make a point about CO2.

The CFC ban appears to have been another effort by the "Club of Rome" types to prove that the world cannot grow its way out of problems by doing the growth hobbling themselves.

jbg · July 14, 2008

I know many on the right wing are skeptics and won't believe any science if it makes them change their business practices.

If you are wealthy enough to afford, out of your pocket, the costs of totally useless "changes in business practices", be my guest and pay them.

Wilber · July 14, 2008

I think if you want to combine your dislike of Chinese products and climate change, you should consider a different thread.

I don't dislike Chinese products in particular but whether one does or does not, it is interesting that one who propounds to be an environmentalist can't make a connection. Building products closer to home and closer to the resources required to make them, produce fewer emissions because nothing has to be transported as far. Taxing companies to the point they move production to places where they aren't subject to them, does not. Taxing individuals just makes them less able to buy them.

Because our emissions are way over the 1990 levels. They are way over our Kyoto commitment.

Oil and most other energy costs are several times 1990 levels but a tax is supposed to fix the problem, right? Sorry, but I have trouble following that line of thought.

jdobbin · July 14, 2008

I don't dislike Chinese products in particular but whether one does or does not, it is interesting that one who propounds to be an environmentalist can't make a connection. Building products closer to home and closer to the resources required to make them, produce fewer emissions because nothing has to be transported as far. Taxing companies to the point they move production to places where they aren't subject to them, does not. Taxing individuals just makes them less able to buy them.

Companies were moving overseas even before the issue of emissions began.

The carbon tax isn't set up to increase that movement. It is why there are tax decreases as well set up for corporate and personal income tax cuts.

The right wing just focuses on the carbon tax.

Oil and most other energy costs are several times 1990 levels but a tax is supposed to fix the problem, right? Sorry, but I have trouble following that line of thought.

The principle has been explained many times here.

I suppose you can just vote as you intended to in the next election. We'll see if Harper's plan works out better for you.

Wilber · July 14, 2008

I suppose you can just vote as you intended to in the next election. We'll see if Harper's plan works out better for you.

Actually, I was so disgusted with the government's decision to pick and choose when they would intervene on behalf of Canadian citizens subject to the death penalty in foreign countries, that I wrote the minister and my MP to tell them they no longer had my support in any up coming election. You have almost single handedly made me revisit that decision.

jdobbin · July 14, 2008

Actually, I was so disgusted with the government's decision to pick and choose when they would intervene on behalf of Canadian citizens subject to the death penalty in foreign countries, that I wrote the minister and my MP to tell them they no longer had my support in any up coming election. You have almost single handedly made me revisit that decision.

I doubt my influence on your vote is that great.

Wilber · July 14, 2008

I doubt my influence on your vote is that great.

Don't kid yourself, I am not like you. I do have views on issues and you can label them whatever you wish but I have never belonged to a political party and never will. If the Liberals happen to win the next election, my greatest hope will be that they do a good job regardless of how I voted. That's all I want from a government, regardless of its label.

jdobbin · July 14, 2008

Don't kid yourself, I am not like you. I do have views on issues and you can label them whatever you wish but I have never belonged to a political party and never will. If the Liberals happen to win the next election, my greatest hope will be that they do a good job regardless of how I voted. That's all I want from a government, regardless of its label.

Then hope for a return to a consistent policy on the death penalty if they get in.

As for the carbon tax, I just can't believe some of the fearmongering in regards to it. When Mulroney pushed for a deal on CFCs, there was talk of a $5 trillion price to paid in the economy. It just didn't happen.

I expect that there will be additional taxcuts to come if the Liberals get in. They won't let the economy collapse as a result of an environmental policy.

JerrySeinfeld · July 14, 2008

I don't understand.

Canada as a nation emits 0.3% of the world's total annual carbon dioxide emissions.

With oil prices where they are now (a natural, market driven emissions reducer, by the way), this is a horrible time to be piling on with even more punitive carbon pricing.

Why is this ivory tower imbiscle trapsing around the country with a holier than thou attitude as if he's actually saving the planet.

I thought we as a country and western society in general had finally gotten past smug, know it all academics trying to run our countries into the ground.

I guess the GW Bush backlash has primed us for another round of empty plattitude, tax and spend blowhards like Dion and Obama. Shades of Trudeau and Carter.

Can you say "ugh"?