Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

[Wilber]

That doesn't counter the fact that markets are manipulated and are not entirely self policing.

The same can be said for politics and goverment.

As you have yourself stated, the difference is modest. The global energy price increases are having far more influence than a carbon tax will.

So why a tax?

My point was that the price increase counts, not the source of the price increase.

Then why do you care if it is the market or government who increases the price? Again, why a tax?

[jbg]

Well, to me, the carbon tax accelerates a process that is occuring already, that is, fossil fuels becoming more expensive making non carbon based fuel sources a more attractive alternative. As technology improves and becomes more efficient/cheaper there will come a "tipping point", where non-carbon based energy sources become financially attractive alternatives. That is when we will transition from people buying energy efficient products for political/environmental beliefs to financial reasons. I am hoping that that change will happen in my lifetime.

If that's a "made in Canada" solution, the problem is tha tother countries that don't artificially inflate their energy costs will have a competitive advantage.

As many are not aware, China and India subsidize low gasoline prices, for example. These sorts of subsidies further increase those countries' manufacturers' competitive advantage.

[TomS]

If that's a "made in Canada" solution, the problem is tha tother countries that don't artificially inflate their energy costs will have a competitive advantage.

As many are not aware, China and India subsidize low gasoline prices, for example. These sorts of subsidies further increase those countries' manufacturers' competitive advantage.

I agree this will give an economic advantage to other countries, I also do not know how this will save the planet.

[jbg]

I agree this will give an economic advantage to other countries, I also do not know how this will save the planet.

It's very simple. Massive pollution in India and China benefits politically favored people and/or dictators. Lesser pollution in Canada or the US kills the planet and causes global warming.

I must admit, Gore and Suzuki are doing a wonderful job of saving the planet.

[Wilber]

I disagree with David Suzuki. I'm one of those he feels should be thrown in jail.

That comment made me wonder if Suzuki is going off the deap end. An astonishing thing to say for someone who spent part of their youth in an internment camp.

[Keepitsimple]

So many people and of course the Media, try to roll pollution, Global Warming, and Climate Change into one issue. The fact is, Canada's Provincial and Federal Governments have done a very good job at regulating the particulates that cause pollution. The air over Toronto is much cleaner than 20 years ago - smog warnings are now very infrequent......and regulations are getting tighter and tighter. Other countries can do it - if they want to. The issue with Global Warming (which may or may not be occurring) and Climate Change (Which is a natural occurrance and may or may not be largely exacerbated by humans) is focused on Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. So putting all the rhetoric about pollution aside, we're being told that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes the temperature go up - more than the natural historical climate change of one degree per century. We've been told that there's a direct relationship - the more CO2, the hotter it gets and if we don't do something drastic, we'll face an apocolypse in less than 100 years. For the record, CO2 has been increasing every year, yet the global average temperature has on average, not budged for a decade. So as all this pollution, Global Warming and Climate Change alarmist talk continues....keep asking the relevant questions:

1) Is the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere going up?

2) Is the temperature rising every year in a manner that outpaces the historical "natural" climate change of one degree per century?

[jdobbin]

Then why do you care if it is the market or government who increases the price? Again, why a tax?

Because the increase in this past year seems to have to do more with speculation than supply and demand.

Oil has now dropped to $118 a barrel and some analysts again today are thinking it might drop to where it was a year ago.

[Wilber]

Because the increase in this past year seems to have to do more with speculation than supply and demand.

Oil has now dropped to $118 a barrel and some analysts again today are thinking it might drop to where it was a year ago.

Back up to just over 120 again last I looked. Those damn speculators. Just what do you think the market is anyway?

[stevoh]

Well, it seems to me that you're making unsubstantiated premises again. Where are these alternatives you're talking about? How practical is it for a consumer to make a switch? You're asking for a big leap of faith.

Isn't this where we started?

I think I'm typical in that I have an older home and very little disposable income. Not that much credit headroom left, for that matter. My choices for heating are oil, gas and electricity. ALL of them steadily become more and more expensive!

So if your argument is that I should switch to an alternative, tell me what that alternative would be!

Yes, markets only care that a choice has become more expensive. If there's no cheaper alternative, so what? The typical home owner has only so many lamp sockets to fill with those new compact flourescent lamps. What's more, any electrician can do the simple math to show that the lighting portion of your household bill is mice nuts in comparison to any appliance with a motor or a heating element.

Unless you can show that there are indeed cheaper market sources I believe YOUR argument falls apart! If you can name me a few I will cheerfully concede.

Again, this is where we came in. I'm a techie. Show me something. Don't ask for my faith.

I am countering this claim:

He took a more objective view by stating that historical evidence suggested that all such attempts, particularly those from governments, to stimulate innovation through artificially increasing costs were doomed to failure. It seems to be human nature to simply adjust by the minimum amount necessary until we hit the point where a resource is almost gone!

This claim states that we will only innovate when a resource is almost gone (as opposed to government attempts to increase price having that effect). That is the statement that I am refuting.

In other words, rather than following the course of action outlined above, use less and less until a resource is almost gone, we will instead start using alternatives like hydro, solar, wind, etc as they become financially affordable by comparison.

This hasn't happened yet. But as prices of fossil fuels increase, and renewable technologies improve (large scale solar is currently only about 20% efficient, but you knew that, lots of room for improvement), we will eventually hit that point.

So, we will not get to the point where we are using the minimum amount necessary until the resource is almost gone, we will instead reach a point where the cost of energy generation through oil consumption is higher than other alternatives. Whether the increase is market or regulation based.

[jdobbin]

Back up to just over 120 again last I looked. Those damn speculators. Just what do you think the market is anyway?

As most analysts were saying today, speculators were taking profits as thoughts were that oil had peaked.

The market fundamentals of supply and demand generally don't change. Demand was not rising and supply was not declining near fast as oil was in terms of price. As some analysts were saying, it was a parabolic rise which often indicates a parabolic fall.

If oil does fall back to $70 a barrel, it will be hard to say, "why a tax?"

[Wild Bill]

I am countering this claim:

This claim states that we will only innovate when a resource is almost gone (as opposed to government attempts to increase price having that effect). That is the statement that I am refuting.

In other words, rather than following the course of action outlined above, use less and less until a resource is almost gone, we will instead start using alternatives like hydro, solar, wind, etc as they become financially affordable by comparison.

This hasn't happened yet. But as prices of fossil fuels increase, and renewable technologies improve (large scale solar is currently only about 20% efficient, but you knew that, lots of room for improvement), we will eventually hit that point.

So, we will not get to the point where we are using the minimum amount necessary until the resource is almost gone, we will instead reach a point where the cost of energy generation through oil consumption is higher than other alternatives. Whether the increase is market or regulation based.

Fair enough! You are supporting the idea that there are alternate sources that will be more cost-effective on a macro level, i.e. large scale generation of electricity.

Fortunately, I'll likely be dead by then. As a techie I still see nothing in the immediate future to help folks like me.

I guess what bothers me most is this common misconception that the "brains" will eventually produce anything needed. Science doesn't work like that. In many cases it's perfectly possible that there isn't a better solution.

Perhaps this is a modern thing. We've had over a century and a half of extremely rapid technological innovation. To a technically educated mind this seems only a natural progression. To a layman it often appears to all just be "magic".

If you think of it all as just magic then ANYTHING becomes possible! You might have to throw a lot of money at the techies to feed them while they work but if you do then you can ask or demand anything and they will provide.

Politicians often exhibit this behavior. For example, my area of Canada used to grow a lot of grapes. Our government responded to some rather alarmist eco-lobbyists with thin science by banning the only crop spray effective against mildew, which is an expensive problem with grape farming. Of course, the farmers pointed out that there was no known alternative but the politicos assured them that the science boys would have an alternative toute suite. Of course, it has never shown up. The grape crop here is a shadow of its former self. Grapes from upper New York came across the border and captured the market. Of course, the American farmers could use the spray with impunity. There was no photo-op in applying the ban to imported grapes.

When I hear you talk about how increased costs of energy will automatically generate new, cheaper sources I'm afraid I hear that same faith in "magic". It's entirely possible that we are already using all the cheap methods of energy production. We can invent new ones and improve on old ones but they will only offer limited or no cost savings.

If that's the case, increasing our living costs out of some belief that this will promote cheaper solutions to avoid the pain is simple cruelty.

[White Doors]

Necessity is the mother of invention as they say.

Curiously, most inventions and breakthroughs looking back in time do not come from 'scientists' at all.

Perhaps that is why you are having a hard time 'seeing it'.

[blueblood]

As most analysts were saying today, speculators were taking profits as thoughts were that oil had peaked.

The market fundamentals of supply and demand generally don't change. Demand was not rising and supply was not declining near fast as oil was in terms of price. As some analysts were saying, it was a parabolic rise which often indicates a parabolic fall.

If oil does fall back to $70 a barrel, it will be hard to say, "why a tax?"

I've also heard that oil is supposed to go back to 150 dollars by 2010, another possibility is leveling off at 100 dollars in 2009.

the fundamentals indicate that oil shouldn't fall to 70 dollars unless the world's economy crashes.

Why a tax if oil falls to 70 bucks? We don't want to shoot our economy in the foot and be caught with our pants down, why should Canadians punish ourselves severely if we aren't a part of the problem?

[jdobbin]

I've also heard that oil is supposed to go back to 150 dollars by 2010, another possibility is leveling off at 100 dollars in 2009.

Citation?

the fundamentals indicate that oil shouldn't fall to 70 dollars unless the world's economy crashes.

Citation? I have give several citations that say oil rose high on speculation and could fall low as the information about war, weather and economy become clearer.

Why a tax if oil falls to 70 bucks? We don't want to shoot our economy in the foot and be caught with our pants down, why should Canadians punish ourselves severely if we aren't a part of the problem?

Ah, there it is. Canada does have a problem or contribute to global warming. Well, we do. We have a larger per capita contribution to it and we should be seeking alternatives to growing carbon use exponentially.

So many on the right don't believe in global warming yet have no problem making Canadians pay more for their food and taxes as long as it supports ethanol.

[stevoh]

Fair enough! You are supporting the idea that there are alternate sources that will be more cost-effective on a macro level, i.e. large scale generation of electricity.

Fortunately, I'll likely be dead by then. As a techie I still see nothing in the immediate future to help folks like me.

I guess what bothers me most is this common misconception that the "brains" will eventually produce anything needed. Science doesn't work like that. In many cases it's perfectly possible that there isn't a better solution.

Perhaps this is a modern thing. We've had over a century and a half of extremely rapid technological innovation. To a technically educated mind this seems only a natural progression. To a layman it often appears to all just be "magic".

If you think of it all as just magic then ANYTHING becomes possible! You might have to throw a lot of money at the techies to feed them while they work but if you do then you can ask or demand anything and they will provide.

Politicians often exhibit this behavior. For example, my area of Canada used to grow a lot of grapes. Our government responded to some rather alarmist eco-lobbyists with thin science by banning the only crop spray effective against mildew, which is an expensive problem with grape farming. Of course, the farmers pointed out that there was no known alternative but the politicos assured them that the science boys would have an alternative toute suite. Of course, it has never shown up. The grape crop here is a shadow of its former self. Grapes from upper New York came across the border and captured the market. Of course, the American farmers could use the spray with impunity. There was no photo-op in applying the ban to imported grapes.

When I hear you talk about how increased costs of energy will automatically generate new, cheaper sources I'm afraid I hear that same faith in "magic". It's entirely possible that we are already using all the cheap methods of energy production. We can invent new ones and improve on old ones but they will only offer limited or no cost savings.

If that's the case, increasing our living costs out of some belief that this will promote cheaper solutions to avoid the pain is simple cruelty.

The increased costs of fossil fuel based energy will not generate new cheaper sources. It will make the new sources more and more cost effective as the cost of fossil fuel based sources continues to rise.

And, as you know, there is lots of room for improvement on current technologies, solar is only 20% efficient right now. So, while I don't believe there is going to be any "magic", I do believe that the cost of alternative energy sources is going to decline.

Our living costs are going to increase anyway, no matter if a Green Shift or other government venture adds to that cost (4 billion in alberta to "green" initiatives, that would also make a nice tax Albertan tax break of over 1000 dollars each). At least with green shift we see some return in the form of tax breaks from that increasing cost. With market sources, we simply swallow the increase as we have no choice.

I do feel for people like you, who are exhasperated at the increasing cost and really don't see any cost effective way of reducing energy bills. My family has managed to make quite a few changes over the last year or so, mostly in transportation costs. We are very close to hitting a point where we will not be able to make any further cutbacks to cut down our energy bill. But this situation was not created by the government, it was created by energy companies and market demand.

How do you feel about this quote:

A portion of the costs associated with these investments and changes in operations will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, thereby changing the relative price signals to the rest of the economy and favouring low-emitting investment and consumption choices. By 2018, regulated firms are facing an average greenhouse gas emissions cost of about $65 per tonne, as a result of the Regulatory Framework...

Our modelling suggests that Canadians can expect to bear real costs under the Regulatory Framework. For the majority of individual Canadians and for businesses outside the regulated sectors, these costs will be most evident in the form of higher energy prices, particularly with respect to electricity and natural gas.

This is the conservatives "turning the corner" plan. It does not include tax breaks for Canadians. It will result in increased energy prices. Is that a better solution?

[segnosaur]

Our living costs are going to increase anyway, no matter if a Green Shift or other government venture adds to that cost (4 billion in alberta to "green" initiatives, that would also make a nice tax Albertan tax break of over 1000 dollars each). At least with green shift we see some return in the form of tax breaks from that increasing cost.

Except for many people (especially in Ontario and Alberta, who do not have access to large amounts of hydro electric power), the tax cuts will not offset the new carbon taxes. So, for those people, they will end up paying both more taxes, AND higher energy costs. Weeee...

I do feel for people like you, who are exhasperated at the increasing cost and really don't see any cost effective way of reducing energy bills. My family has managed to make quite a few changes over the last year or so, mostly in transportation costs. We are very close to hitting a point where we will not be able to make any further cutbacks to cut down our energy bill. But this situation was not created by the government, it was created by energy companies and market demand.

How exactly would that be helped by making your energy bills even higher through a carbon tax? The market demand is not going to be going away any time soon.

[stevoh]

Except for many people (especially in Ontario and Alberta, who do not have access to large amounts of hydro electric power), the tax cuts will not offset the new carbon taxes. So, for those people, they will end up paying both more taxes, AND higher energy costs. Weeee...

Yes, the tax cuts may not offset the costs of energy increases for some people, but the conservative plan? Increase energy costs to Canadians with no tax cuts. Is that an improvement?

[segnosaur]

Yes, the tax cuts may not offset the costs of energy increases for some people, but the conservative plan? Increase energy costs to Canadians with no tax cuts. Is that an improvement?

First of all, I don't even think the conservatives have released their energy plan, so its a bit early to criticize them over it.

Secondly, this thread has the word "Liberal Green Shift" in the title. Its rather natural to talk about the pros and cons of the Liberal plan in it. If there are particular elements of the conservative plan for which you disagree, perhaps an appropriate thread can be created.

Lastly, why exactly do we have to be in favor of one plan just because another plan may be worse? Isn't it possible that both plans suck, and both plans deserve substantial criticism?

[stevoh]

First of all, I don't even think the conservatives have released their energy plan, so its a bit early to criticize them over it.

Secondly, this thread has the word "Liberal Green Shift" in the title. Its rather natural to talk about the pros and cons of the Liberal plan in it. If there are particular elements of the conservative plan for which you disagree, perhaps an appropriate thread can be created.

Lastly, why exactly do we have to be in favor of one plan just because another plan may be worse? Isn't it possible that both plans suck, and both plans deserve substantial criticism?

The conservative energy plan is called "turning the corner" and it has lots of details associated, some of which are in my posts in this thread. Here is a link:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=75038EBC-1

[Riverwind]

http://www.bclocalnews.com/kootenay_rockie...y/26876079.html

The 21-member advisory team, in a series of recommendations handed down Wednesday, says the provincial government must steel itself to jack the controversial tax higher yet after 2012 if necessary.

Although we appreciate the government’s decision to introduce the tax at a low rate and phase it in slowly to allow people time to adapt, we believe that higher rates will be required to achieve the province’s greenhouse gas reduction targets,” the team’s report says.

This more or less confirms what I have believed all along: carbon taxes do not significantly reduce emissions because the cost of reducing CO2 emissions is too high to be offset by few modest tax breaks. People therefore simply pay the tax and carry on. Unfortunately, these means the alarmists will try to keep upping to tax until the cost of the is too painful - a strategy is just as likely to induce a recession as it is to reduce CO2 emissions because the technology to replace fossil fuels simply does not exist at any reasonable cost. If the conservatives are smart they will use the BC panel's report in the upcoming election. Edited August 12, 2008 by Riverwind

[madmax]

Will First Nations have to pay these Green Shift Taxes?

[Riverwind]

Will First Nations have to pay these Green Shift Taxes?

Of course not. Which is a further reason why any regulations should target industry directly. Natives aren't exempt if the price of a product goes up to pay for carbon reduction schemes - only if the tax is on top of the price. Edited August 14, 2008 by Riverwind