Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

[Riverwind]

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.

Stop wasting time with strawmen.

[jdobbin]

Stop wasting time with strawmen.

It is obvious you are not convinced but the fact remains that industry was preaching a large economic hit which didn't come.

[JerrySeinfeld]

It is obvious you are not convinced but the fact remains that industry was preaching a large economic hit which didn't come.

CFCs v Carbon is night and day. Carbon is EVERYWHERE.

[Wilber]

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.

Tax cuts for who, paid for by who? As in "trust me". This has become a religion, so I don't.

[Riverwind]

It is obvious you are not convinced but the fact remains that industry was preaching a large economic hit which didn't come.

The report I linked to makes it clear that the industry as a whole was not preaching a large economic hit - in fact, the industry jumped on board once they realized that they had technically feasible alternatives. Dupont was the exception and not representative.

The existance of economic alternatives is what made the CFC agreement possible. Without those alternatives the agreement would have never happened. There are no economical alternatives to CO2 emissions today so significant restrictiions on CO2 can only come with a signficant economic cost.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

The report I linked to makes it clear that the industry as a whole was not preaching a large economic hit - in fact, the industry jumped on board once they realized that they had technically feasible alternatives. Dupont was the exception and not representative.

The Montreal conference was full of hysteria in regards to the economic impact and it was just Dupont talking about it.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Economic hit or not, this is a blatant wealth transfer and pure politicking.

Dion is dropping a bomb on electoral gridlock by saying "f*ck you alberta - we're taking your $ and redistributing it"

It's a calculated gamble based around the principle that Alberta is a wasteland for Libs anyway.

However, its risky because a tax on carbon (which will absolutely increase the cost of fuel, directly or indirectly) during today's high oil prices could very easily piss off the rest of the country too.

He's playing the George W Bush game: screw California and New York etc. My constituency is enough without you.

Dion is betting he'll give up the nothing he has in Alberta for a bigger win in Quebec, the only place this tax has any degree of acceptance.

Smart politics? or A**hole?

You decide

[Argus]

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

The vast majority of "refunds"and credits are directed at those earning less than $40,000 per year. I will thus get little in the way of refunds or tax relief. I will, however, be stuck with the increased cost of electricity, fuel oil, and the inflationary affect of this "green shaft" on prices. I will also lose the employment tax credit.

Now do tell me again how removing the employment tax credit helps the environment.

[Argus]

del

Edited July 14, 2008 by Argus

[jdobbin]

Now do tell me again how removing the employment tax credit helps the environment.

It alone does nothing. It is part of the package of tax changes though with the policy.

[Argus]

It alone does nothing. It is part of the package of tax changes though with the policy.

So why even call this an environmental plan? This plan has little to do with the environment, and much to do with taking money away from the middle class and giving it to the poor.

And, of course, this plan fails abysmally where all such plans fail. That is, even if it actually worked, and you managed to substantially reduce carbon emissions the net result of that would be to substantially reduce taxes - which would be a disaster for the government. So if people spend a fortune retrofitting their houses and doing away with air conditioning and keeping their heat on low so they shiver through the winter, if they take the buses instead of the car, and do their best to save energy the government will respond - by raising their income taxes to make up for the lowered carbon tax income!

Nice.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Dion is thinly disguised hard core socialist.

This plan is a sweeping change in wealth redistribution (moving dollars from the successful to the useless, and from Alberta to the Ontarian/Quebec yesterdayvilles of the manufacturing era).

Actually, it's kind of a blessing he's touting this BS.

Why?

Because, at least for those thinkers in the world, we will see the curtain pulled back on the environmental movement, exposing it for what it really is (worldwide): a front for those snivle-noser socialist america haters who's side lost the cold war.

[jdobbin]

Dion is thinly disguised hard core socialist.

I can well imagine what your thoughts might be in regards to Stelmach with his environmental policy.

[jdobbin]

So why even call this an environmental plan? This plan has little to do with the environment, and much to do with taking money away from the middle class and giving it to the poor.

It is part of an entire package of tax moves. My preference would have been for straight income and corporate tax cuts. I disagree with tax credits for every last thing.

And, of course, this plan fails abysmally where all such plans fail. That is, even if it actually worked, and you managed to substantially reduce carbon emissions the net result of that would be to substantially reduce taxes - which would be a disaster for the government. So if people spend a fortune retrofitting their houses and doing away with air conditioning and keeping their heat on low so they shiver through the winter, if they take the buses instead of the car, and do their best to save energy the government will respond - by raising their income taxes to make up for the lowered carbon tax income!

The hysteria about freezing in the dark is going to look as silly as some of the alarmist talk about CFCs.

[jdobbin]

Tax cuts for who, paid for by who? As in "trust me". This has become a religion, so I don't.

On every income tax bracket. Paid for by the surplus of tax Canadians already.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I can well imagine what your thoughts might be in regards to Stelmach with his environmental policy.

What's the point of an environmental (carbon emissions) policy, anyway, other than self congratulation and vote-getting?

Statistically, even if Canada was wiped off the face of the earth and never emitted another ounce of carbon dioxide, it wouldn't have any measurable effect on the earth's climate.

[jbg]

I doubt my influence on your vote is that great.

Given the fact that you choose to put me and others who write well on "ignore" rather than answering, I wonder who you do influence.

Echo. Echo.

[jbg]

So if people spend a fortune retrofitting their houses and doing away with air conditioning and keeping their heat on low so they shiver through the winter, if they take the buses instead of the car, and do their best to save energy the government will respond - by raising their income taxes to make up for the lowered carbon tax income!

Even Al Gore wouldn't be dumb enough to give up his corporate jets and his humongo house to help the environment. Ditto Suzuki and his emission-spewing bus.

[Riverwind]

---

Edited July 16, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

This article from the American Physical Society Newsletter floored me: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

This is the same organization that issued this statement in 2007: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

It looks like the wheels are coming off the 'consensus' bandwagon.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

This article from the American Physical Society Newsletter floored me: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

This is the same organization that issued this statement in 2007: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

It looks like the wheels are coming off the 'consensus' bandwagon.

It looks like its going to be an interesting debate. I am interested in seeing how succesful they are at keeping it scientific, rather than political.

[Riverwind]

It looks like its going to be an interesting debate. I am interested in seeing how succesful they are at keeping it scientific, rather than political.

I am sure the editor will get a lot of flack for allowing the debate to occur at all. A couple months ago some professors from Georgia Tech invited Steve McIntrye from ClimateAudit to present his findings at the university. These professsors were apparently raked over the coals by some of the scientific funding bodies. Edited July 16, 2008 by Riverwind

[gc1765]

So if people spend a fortune retrofitting their houses and doing away with air conditioning and keeping their heat on low so they shiver through the winter, if they take the buses instead of the car, and do their best to save energy the government will respond - by raising their income taxes to make up for the lowered carbon tax income!

...which will still be lower than if there was no carbon tax...

I find it odd that you could complain about shifting taxation from income to pollution, but then complain if it is shifted back from to pollution to income.

[Savant]

Poor Ken Boshcoff has been getting smoked over his comments (I posted further back), since they don't portray the Green Shift program in a very favourable light. In an attempt to try and 'recast' his comments, he agreed to appear on a radio show on a Saskatchewan radio station. (News Talk 650 - Saskatoon) However, while he atttempted to talk his way out of it, he really didn't help matters. You can hear the interview here, and as noted on the page, the 'hard stuff' comes out at the 6:50 mark, where he tries to explain his way out of some simple math.

The point raised seems to be a good one.

Of all the spending in the Green Shift plan, there isn't ANY spending on the environment. Nothing. Zero.

Of the $15.4 billion that will be raised in carbon taxes, here is where the spending will go as per the Green Shift handbook...

Broad Based Personal Income Tax Cuts - $6.675 billion

Benefits for Working Families and Canadians - $3.740 billion

Support for Rural and Northern Canadians - $.789 billion

Corporate Tax Reductions - $3.823 billion

Contingency Tax Offset Reserve - $.400 billion

So where is the spending on the environment? Isn't this supposed to be an 'environmental' program?

What kind of environmental program spends NOTHING on the environment?

[madmax]

Of all the spending in the Green Shift plan, there isn't ANY spending on the environment. Nothing. Zero.

Of the $15.4 billion that will be raised in carbon taxes, here is where the spending will go as per the Green Shift handbook...

Broad Based Personal Income Tax Cuts - $6.675 billion

Benefits for Working Families and Canadians - $3.740 billion

Support for Rural and Northern Canadians - $.789 billion

Corporate Tax Reductions - $3.823 billion

Contingency Tax Offset Reserve - $.400 billion

So where is the spending on the environment? Isn't this supposed to be an 'environmental' program?

What kind of environmental program spends NOTHING on the environment?

The CST is just another GST in disguise.

Why should the money be spent on the Environment? This is a Carbon Tax Plan.