Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

[jdobbin]

Dion is on the right track with this proposal. Governments in the future will increasingly tax our use of natural resources including the environment.

My main concern is that the Liberals have no credibility when it comes to tax promises. In otice that Dion has givenm the Auditor-General the authority to audit the "revenue neutral" promise. That promise alone is pathetic.

The Liberals had no credibility on taxes for a long time under Chretien. What exactly did you not find credible about Martin's tax reductions?

[jdobbin]

One word: contraband!

Only because of an unwillingness to crack down on the tobacco companies and the cross border traffic through the reserves.

The end results of the tax though has been a reduction in smoking.

[Riverwind]

Therefore the scheme only adds costs for those consumers and businesses that overuse critical resources.

What this logic forgets is that one person's "wasteful use of energy" is another person's "essential contribution to society". The carbon tax does not distinguish between to two. This leads to situations where a poor person earning little more than minimum wage will be forced to quit their job and go on welfare but a rich person can easily afford to keep driving that hummer. There is no way a tax break can make up for increases in non-descretionary spending that poorer people face.

If your don't like that example because gasoline is 'exempt' for now then consider the plight of poor person living in rental accomodation where they are responsible for the heating bills. This person cannot afford the cost of upgrading the heating system and will likely not have many options when it comes to choosing different accomodation. But difference in costs won't make any difference to a rich person who runs an inefficient air conditioner.

At the end of the day this proposal will result in even more offshoring of Canadian jobs as businesses discover that moving production to countries with no such taxes is cheaper than actually doing something about emissions. For those industries whic can't move they will increase thier prices which will lead to more inflation.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

At the end of the day this proposal will result in even more offshoring of Canadian jobs as businesses discover that moving production to countries with no such taxes is cheaper than actually doing something about emissions. For those industries whic can't move they will increase thier prices which will lead to more inflation.

You are also opposed to the Tory and NDP plans which are forecast to add 30 to 40 cents to gas prices?

Edited June 19, 2008 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

Dion's proposal will tax people who emit CO2. If you heat with oil, and you use electricity generated with coal, you will see prices rise. If your house is large and you use air conditioning in summer, you emit proportionately more CO2 than average.

The problem is there are no technically feasible alternatives that can replace coal generation in many places. Quebec has hydro but that is the exception rather than the rule and the amount of power that can be produced is limited by geography. Solar power is virtually useless in northern latitudes and it takes a lot of energy to drill through rock which means the upfront cost of geothermal power will be ridiculously high in most places.

To make matters worse - CO2 emissions are an intrinsic part of the process of making concrete and there are no real alternatives to concrete for many applications. This will increase capital costs for many projects.

These kinds of issues will inevitably lead to a situation where politicians will abandon the 'market mechanism' of the carbon tax in order look after different political constituencies. The fact that the liberal plan exempts gasoline taxes is simply the first example of this. A carbon tax will eventually make the income tax system look simple and elegant as byzantine carbon tax regulations get piled on top of each other.

You must remember that carbon taxes will always be followed by carbon import tariffs in order to prevent the offshoring of CO2 producing activities. For example, given a high enough price incentive innovation will likely find a way to allow concrete to be imported from Russia or China before it finds a way to make concrete without CO2 emssions.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

You are also opposed to the Tory and NDP plans which are forecast to add 30 to 40 cents to gas prices?

Of course. Natural market processes will get people off gasoline. However, the government should not make the transition more difficult by taking away access to coal power electricity before practical alternatives exist. Edited June 19, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

The problem is there are no technically feasible alternatives that can replace coal generation in many places. Quebec has hydro but that is the exception rather than the rule and the amount of power that can be produced is limited by geography. Solar power is virtually useless in northern latitudes and it takes a lot of energy to drill through rock which means the upfront cost of geothermal power will be ridiculously high in most places.

I guess that means that the Tory plan to go after big polluters will be even worse.

Perhaps they will support the idea of the mini reactors for communities under 5000 as proposed by the Russians at the Arctic conference. Its uses proven technology.

To make matters worse - CO2 emissions are an intrinsic part of the process of making concrete and there are no real alternatives to concrete for many applications. This will increase capital costs for many projects.

Cement companies have reduced their CO2 emissions faster than most industries. Emissions from cement account for less than 1.5% of total American emissions. Then use of limestone greatly reduces emissions.

These kinds of issues will inevitably lead to a situation where politicians will abandon the 'market mechanism' of a the carbon tax in order look after different political constituencies. The fact that the liberal plan exempts gasoline taxes is simply the first example of this. A carbon tax will eventually make the income tax system look simple and elegant as byzantine regulations get piled on top of each other.

The Tory plan doesn't exempt gas. It is forecast to rise 30 to 40 cents a litre. I wonder which plan the public will favour.

[jdobbin]

Of course. Natural market processes will get people off gasoline. However, the government should not make the transition more difficult by taking away access to coal power electricity before practical alternatives exist.

Who is taking away access? What is happening is a price is put on carbon so that alternatives can be looked at.

It has been twenty years in Canada and thirty years in the U.S. since a nuclear plant has been built. Why? Because coal has been relied on. It isn't just CO2 that is a concern with that type of energy.

[Fortunata]

The Tory plan doesn't exempt gas. It is forecast to rise 30 to 40 cents a litre. I wonder which plan the public will favour.

Since the Con's plan isn't widely advertised nor talked about it will go largely unnoticed while they bash the Lib plan (which I don't like either). Until we are given viable alternatives there should be no carbon tax nor extra gas taxes. They are punishing us without us being able to do much other than burn fossil fuels both for transportation and for heating.

[jdobbin]

Since the Con's plan isn't widely advertised nor talked about it will go largely unnoticed while they bash the Lib plan (which I don't like either). Until we are given viable alternatives there should be no carbon tax nor extra gas taxes. They are punishing us without us being able to do much other than burn fossil fuels both for transportation and for heating.

I agree that so much more as to be done to get Canadians off of fossil fuels and it can't simply be a tax.

I think that the government should assist in getting more buildings and homes built with thermal and solar plants as well as creating even more energy efficiencies.

I await the time that a new subdivision is built that is completely off the gas grid because it is tied to thermal and solar completely. We are very close now and the rise in gas just based on demand will push those changes. However, more has to be done to assist in the capital costs.

[Riverwind]

Who is taking away access? What is happening is a price is put on carbon so that alternatives can be looked at.

WHat happens if there are no alternatives? How much economic pain do we have to endure before the environmental zealots are discredited?

It has been twenty years in Canada and thirty years in the U.S. since a nuclear plant has been built. Why?

You got facts wrong. Nukes have not been built because of opposition by the people who are demanding that the coal plants be shut down. David Suzuki is on the record saying that hydro, nuke and coal are unacceptable sources of power in his twisted little world. Edited June 19, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

WHat happens if there are no alternatives? How much economic pain do we have to endure before the environmental zealots are discredited?

I think the Liberal plan addresses that too. Supports will be given in those cases.

You got facts wrong. Nukes have not been built because of opposition by the people who are demanding that the coal plants be shut down. David Suzuki is on the record saying that hydro, nuke and coal are unacceptable sources of power in his twisted little world.

Um, what facts are you referring to? I just gave you the accurate numbers of when the last nuclear plants were built and that coal has been used as the main alternative.

I haven't mentioned anything about Suzuki.

[noahbody]

I agree that so much more as to be done to get Canadians off of fossil fuels and it can't simply be a tax.

What country do you live in again? If it's Canada, you might want to champion cleaner technologies for the fossil fuel industry instead of championing the replacement of the industry. Though vilianized, it is the hand that feeds health care and all those other social progams you need and/or support.

[eyeball]

QUOTE (jdobbin @ Jun 19 2008, 01:34 AM)

Two words: cigarrete taxes.

One word: contraband!

Make your own fuel. Apparently you can make up to 90 gallons a day with this puppy.

That's about $10,000 a month a today's prices.

[fellowtraveller]

Since we are on the topic of Liberals and taxes, any word on when the Liberals intend to eliminate the GST as they solemnly promised in 1993?

It has been a while.....

[fellowtraveller]

If a Canadian is sincere in reducing their energy footprint and saving the planet, there is one option and only one: move to somewhere with a much better climate.

Any way you cut it, if you live in our climate you will consume a lot of energy just to stay warm and alive.

So, true believers: start packing for Central America. You know it is the right thing to do.

[jdobbin]

What country do you live in again? If it's Canada, you might want to champion cleaner technologies for the fossil fuel industry instead of championing the replacement of the industry. Though vilianized, it is the hand that feeds health care and all those other social progams you need and/or support.

I can't recall villianizing anything nor have I dismissed cleaner technologies. Can you indicate where you thought I did this?

Leaders from George Bush to Gordon Brown have said that their countries have to get off their dependence on fossil fuels, particularly oil. Harper has been fairly quiet in regards to this.

It is obvious that our need for fuel is increasing inflation dramatically. The government would do well to assist Canadians in going hydro, nuclear, thermal, solar and wind wherever possible.

[jdobbin]

Since we are on the topic of Liberals and taxes, any word on when the Liberals intend to eliminate the GST as they solemnly promised in 1993?

It has been a while.....

Any word on when the Tories that they will eliminate the excise tax on gas? It has been only a short time.

[jdobbin]

Make your own fuel. Apparently you can make up to 90 gallons a day with this puppy.

That's about $10,000 a month a today's prices.

If it is ethanol from grain or corn, it is a poor choice. I like ethanol from garbage and there is one group in Montreal that is doing well with that.

[jdobbin]

If a Canadian is sincere in reducing their energy footprint and saving the planet, there is one option and only one: move to somewhere with a much better climate.

Any way you cut it, if you live in our climate you will consume a lot of energy just to stay warm and alive.

So, true believers: start packing for Central America. You know it is the right thing to do.

There are plenty of energy alternatives in Canada that can be explored. Thermal, solar, wind and hydro. Many of these are not as easy to access in Central America than Canada.

[myata]

What this logic forgets is that one person's "wasteful use of energy" is another person's "essential contribution to society". The carbon tax does not distinguish between to two. This leads to situations where a poor person earning little more than minimum wage will be forced to quit their job and go on welfare but a rich person can easily afford to keep driving that hummer. There is no way a tax break can make up for increases in non-descretionary spending that poorer people face.

There're special allowances for those in need as stated in the article. And yes, I know all plans would have some downside. Except the preferred one of course - sit on your hands and do nothing.

[August1991]

What this logic forgets is that one person's "wasteful use of energy" is another person's "essential contribution to society". The carbon tax does not distinguish between to two. This leads to situations where a poor person earning little more than minimum wage will be forced to quit their job and go on welfare but a rich person can easily afford to keep driving that hummer. There is no way a tax break can make up for increases in non-descretionary spending that poorer people face.

But this problem arises in every activity dependent on the price mechanism.

Rich people can afford more than poor people. Canadians spend billions every year on chocolate while people starve to death in the world.

The relevant point is that we should not use the environment to try to spread the wealth.

The bottom line here is that the Liberal proposal will achieve the same results as the Conservative proposal (of regulations) but at lower cost.

[capricorn]

I heard comments on open line shows that there are domino effects to this plan which at first glance are not apparent. For example:

the rising cost of utilities in subsidized housing will have to paid by the municipalities. These cost increases may well result in a rise in property taxes or cuts in services to fund the extra municipal expenses,

hotel operators may well increase room prices to offset the higher cost of heating and cooling,

grocery markets may well increase the price of food for refrigeration, heating and cooling,

the cost of the bureaucracy to administer the plan may rival the cost of the gun registry bureau,

etc.

The NDP is right to point out that the proposed plan fails to provide numbers on the reduction of GHG emissions which a main plank of the plan.

Dion threw out a lot of numbers in his presentation. At this point, not too many Canadians understand the mechanics of the "green shift" proposal. Liberal MPs have their work cut out this summer to explain it to their constituents and to answer the myriad of questions they will face.

It seems to me the Conservatives are on to something in labeling it a "tax on everything". Harper called it "crazy economics". Of course these are exaggerations but it is language Canadians can understand.

[jdobbin]

It seems to me the Conservatives are on to something in labeling it a "tax on everything". Harper called it "crazy economics". Of course these are exaggerations but it is language Canadians can understand.

The Tory plan will increase taxes on gas by 30 to 40 cents according to the experts in the Globe and Mail stories on the differences in the plan. The cost of the regulations will be passed on to the consumers. The problem here is that there won't be any accompanying income tax decreases. Or at least we have been told by Flaherty that there isn't more tax deductions on that scale.

[capricorn]

The Tory plan will increase taxes on gas by 30 to 40 cents according to the experts in the Globe and Mail stories on the differences in the plan.

You've raised this point too many times on various threads for me to count. Looks like you're not immune to the "but the Liberals/Conservatives" malady.