Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

[jdobbin]

You mention his "plan" in almost every post. Yet you never mention that your party considered his plan, whatever it's effect on the prices of gasoline turn out to be - to be too low. Your party wanted to raise the price of gasoline even higher.

I thought it was going to be too high if not accompanied by cuts in tax. The carbon tax some Liberals were talking about back then had no tax cut.

I have been calling for deep tax cuts ever since I started posting on this board. I have no problem with a carbon tax to reduce carbon use but I wasn't going to support it without accompanying tax cuts.

I think the tax cuts should go even further.

Absent Harper, absent his "plan" are you going to tell us that Dion would tax every other carbon fuel but not tax gasoline? Of course he would, and it would be higher!

That is the plan. Gas is already taxed more than other fuels.

[jdobbin]

The sticker shock for utilities etc. would do us in, we can't afford it, even if there is a rebate at the end of the year, how do we pay for the punitive increases we'll see on everything.

Might as well have a bumper sticker - Vote Liberal - Freeze in the Dark

Weston doesn't bother to say or doesn't know that Harper's plan will cost even more in price increases.

Or is the right wing trying to say there are no costs involved in caps, even intensity ones?

[madmax]

Might as well have a bumper sticker - Vote Liberal - Freeze in the Dark

From my original post

FREEZE in the DARK!!! Vote Liberal.

imagine that

cont...

Yup Imagine that

[scribblet]

From my original post

FREEZE in the DARK!!! Vote Liberal.

Yup Imagine that

It's a good one, worth repeating - I think we should have some bumper stickers made ASAP

[jdobbin]

It's a good one, worth repeating - I think we should have some bumper stickers made ASAP

How is the Conservative plan better? Will it raise energy prices? How will the costs be passed down? Will their be costs?

Any details would be good.

[jdobbin]

From my original post

How is the NDP policy better? Will their be no increase in gas and oil? If there is, how much will it be?

If it is more than the proposed Liberal policy, how will the NDP compensate lower income people?

[Wild Bill]

How is the Conservative plan better? Will it raise energy prices? How will the costs be passed down? Will their be costs?

Any details would be good.

At this point in time I think the Tories would be fools to reveal any plans or details! Is that what you're asking them to be?

There's likely to be an election in the fall. Certainly not too many months past that. Why should an incumbent government reveal their platform before the writ is dropped? To give their opposition the chance to critique it or steal ideas several months or more early from the campaign?

No, if you're pretty sure your opponent has a weak platform then you would be wise to wait until he actually starts his official campaign and doesn't have the time to backtrack or modify it.

Your posts sound like partisan wistful thinking, jd! I wouldn't expect ANY party to be that dumb!

[scribblet]

How is the Conservative plan better? Will it raise energy prices? How will the costs be passed down? Will their be costs?

Any details would be good.

It's a secret, not telling until during the election - meanwhile, working on those bumper stickers

[jdobbin]

It's a secret, not telling until during the election - meanwhile, working on those bumper stickers

Not surprised. My thinking is the Tory plan will end up costing a lot more on gas and diesel.

[jdobbin]

No, if you're pretty sure your opponent has a weak platform then you would be wise to wait until he actually starts his official campaign and doesn't have the time to backtrack or modify it.

Your posts sound like partisan wistful thinking, jd! I wouldn't expect ANY party to be that dumb!

For Dion, it is important to nip the challenge from the NDP and Greens now. Put the policy out now and then challenge the other parties to explain why they are better.

For the Tories, the Liberals just have to keep repeating that Harper doesn't care about global warming and the program that he now proposes simply raises costs for consumers while letting industry continue to raise emissions because of intensity levels.

[August1991]

The market is doing it regardless of what governments may or may not do. That's not OK with you? Is this about results or dogma for you, because when governments interfere they generally screw it up?

The problem with pollution is that the market price does not incorporate the environmental harm. This is known as an "externality" in that sense that it is external to a market price.

It's easier to simply pay a CO2 tax rather than engage in costly efforts to avoid it. In this sense, a CO2 tax is probably less costly to society.

So you think it's okay for old people to freeze in their old houses so that rich people in expensive condos can get income tax cuts?

...

You consider heating your house to be abusing the environment?

Your argument is demagogic, Argus. Why not carry it to the extreme and simply say that Dion & the Liberals plan to put all old people on ice floes and set them adrift.

1) We already have a hard time ensuring that goods imported from China don't have toxic substances in them. Calculating the amount of CO2 emitted to produce goods imported from China will be a virtual impossibility. I realize that carbon tariffs are not in Dion's current plan but it is only a matter of time because any carbon taxes set high enough to change behavoir will simply move production outside of the country.

2) Even if one accepts that CO2 is actually a "pollutant" the single minded obsession with CO2 is extremely misguided since humans pollute the environment in many ways and singling out CO2 will lead to increases in other types of pollution. For example, nuclear waste is a very deadly pollutant but more of it would be produced if only CO2 is taxed. To be consistent you should be calling for a complex "pollution tax" which would require legions of bureaucrats evaluate different types of pollution and put a tax on them.

3) Using pollution as a "tax base" is inherently unstable since one would expect "pollution" to decrease as a result of the price incentives which would undermine the "tax base". Increasing the taxes to compensate for the taxes lost would impose an ever increasing burden on those who have no choice but to pollute in order to produce essential goods.

4) A carbon tax will make it more economical to export energy rather than selling it in Canada. For example, the natural gas consumed by the tar sands development will still likely be shipped to the US and burned at lower prices. This will have no net effect on the environment but it will hurt the Canadian economy. In other cases, the resources will be left undeveloped

Riverwind, you mix several unrelated points here.

As a first response though, you might be wise to consider teh alternative to Dion's plan. What Harper proposes is a series of regulations of large CO2 emitters. Harper's proposal will cause even greater costs.

As to your tax base argument, which do you think is better: effort or pollution as a tax base? I would far rather see pollution reduced than effort. And no one is suggesting that we reduce pollution to zero. We simply want to reduce it to a manageable or sustainable level.

You have my attention regarding the whole AGW debate. Are manmade CO2 emissions really a problem or not? I think we should study the problem further while taking out an insurance policy.

I think Dion's (small) CO2 tax should be seen within a broader context of international negotiations. Whether McCain or Obama becomes president next year, both are on record as wanting to reduce America's CO emissions.

The simple fact is that the Liberal plan will reduce Canada's CO2 emissions at a lower cost to the Canadian economy than any other proposal.

[scribblet]

Sure it will....

http://www.theshiftygreen.ca/

better keep your BS meters running too

[Bryan]

the Liberals just have to keep repeating that Harper doesn't care about global warming.

Oh Noes!! They might expose Harper for not caring about Unicorns or The Tooth Fairy too!!!

[Argus]

How is the Conservative plan better? Will it raise energy prices? How will the costs be passed down? Will their be costs?

Any details would be good.

The Liberal plan is forecasted to increase electricity costs in Ontario by 20% - on top of the price increases for home heating fuels.

The Tory plan wouldn't do THAT.

[Argus]

Your argument is demagogic, Argus. Why not carry it to the extreme and simply say that Dion & the Liberals plan to put all old people on ice floes and set them adrift.

My logic is clear. Do you dispute that seniors will be disproportionately harmed under this plan? Do you dispute that well-off urban people living in expensive condos will benefit while seniors on fixed incomes living in older homes will suffer? What exactly about my comments do you find incorrect?

The Liberal plan is forecasted to increase the price of electricity in Ontario by 20% on top of major increases to the price of home heating oil and natural gas. Of course, that's Ontario. Quebec, with its hydro generating capacity, will face no such penalties. No doubt that was a factor in Dion, a Quebecer, choosing this plan.

Other side benefits to Quebec will be that the higher electricity costs in provinces without huge hydro electrici facilities will help to damage their economies and persuade business to relocate to Quebec. No doubt that was a consideration as well.

One can see why you would like the plan.

[segnosaur]

My thinking is the Tory plan will end up costing a lot more on gas and diesel.

Just out of curiosity... if you think that carbon emissions are truly causing environmental problems, then what exactly is wrong with that?

Not saying I support the conservative plans, or that your assessment is right or wrong, or even that human activities are causing global warming, but lets face it: transportation (especially personal transportation) is one of the few areas where significant reductions can be made. (And transportation has shown some of the highest growth in fossil fuel consumption over the past decade and a half. See: http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_repo...som-sum_eng.cfm )

Consider other areas: in Business or industry, companies already had an incentive to lower energy... its called profit. Charging them more for carbon usage probably isn't going to buy you much benefit. (And, if you look at the reference above, many industries already have been reducing their emissions.) And if a company is hit by higher energy taxes, the costs can easily get passed to the consumer. What about things like home heating? Well, we live in a cold country... apart from perhaps getting people to improve insulation (which many probably have already done) you can't save much there. Power generation? Again, people have probably already done all they can to reduce electrical use. (About the only things that might help at this point are added nuclear plants, and/or methods to smooth out consumption patterns, neither of which is going to get any major assistance from tax changes.)

Cars, on the other hand, are one of the few areas where carbon emissions are often discretionary. People often drive cars that are larger than they require. They go for pleasure drives. They take the car when they could take the bus. Unlike so many other areas of the economy, higher fuel taxes might actually make a more significant difference in people's actions (and ultimately in carbon emissions).

So, instead of pointing out a possible increase in fuel prices as a "flaw" in the conservative plans, perhaps you should be demanding that the Liberals change their policies to greatly increase fuel taxes, all in the name of protecting the environment.

[jdobbin]

Just out of curiosity... if you think that carbon emissions are truly causing environmental problems, then what exactly is wrong with that?

Because Harper allows industry to continue to increase emissions through intensity and lets the costs be passed on to consumers regardless. In other words, gas is expected to rise a lot more than 7 cents a litre but the oil industry will be allowed to increase emissions as long as intensity increases. The hard overall cap is really not there.

So, instead of pointing out a possible increase in fuel prices as a "flaw" in the conservative plans, perhaps you should be demanding that the Liberals change their policies to greatly increase fuel taxes, all in the name of protecting the environment.

The flaw is the Tory plan doesn't put a price on carbon. It goes after polluters but leaves these large loophole for intensity which means that they are not trying to put a price on consumption.

Edited June 25, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

The Liberal plan is forecasted to increase electricity costs in Ontario by 20% - on top of the price increases for home heating fuels.

The Tory plan wouldn't do THAT.

Really. Where is your evidence of that?

[jdobbin]

Oh Noes!! They might expose Harper for not caring about Unicorns or The Tooth Fairy too!!!

And that he sits down to a meal of kittens once a day.

Edited June 25, 2008 by jdobbin

[segnosaur]

The flaw is the Tory plan doesn't put a price on carbon. It goes after polluters but leaves these large loophole for intensity which means that they are not trying to put a price on consumption.

I'm not talking about the Tory plan. I'm talking about the Liberal plan, specifically how their failure to tax fuel used in transportation may actually eliminate the only 'benefit' the Liberal plan has in curbing carbon emissions.

So, once again, why are you not demanding the Liberals increase fuel taxes in order to cut carbon emissions?

[Argus]

Because Harper allows industry to continue to increase emissions through intensity and lets the costs be passed on to consumers regardless. In other words, gas is expected to rise a lot more than 7 cents a litre but the oil industry will be allowed to increase emissions as long as intensity increases. The hard overall cap is really not there.

What you mean is that if your business is successful and grows bigger, and you produce more of whatever it is you're producing, you are permitted to produce more CO2 emissions without rising penalties. Under a "hard cap" that you are advocating, the more succesful you are, the more you produce, the more people you hire, the higher your penalties get - until, of course, you close up shop and move your production to the US or Mexico.

[jdobbin]

What you mean is that if your business is successful and grows bigger, and you produce more of whatever it is you're producing, you are permitted to produce more CO2 emissions without rising penalties. Under a "hard cap" that you are advocating, the more succesful you are, the more you produce, the more people you hire, the higher your penalties get - until, of course, you close up shop and move your production to the US or Mexico.

Meanwhile passing on the 50 cents a litre increase to the consumers to upgrade your factories without it really having an impact on emissions.

[Argus]

I'm not talking about the Tory plan. I'm talking about the Liberal plan, specifically how their failure to tax fuel used in transportation may actually eliminate the only 'benefit' the Liberal plan has in curbing carbon emissions.

So, once again, why are you not demanding the Liberals increase fuel taxes in order to cut carbon emissions?

Because this plan is only peripherally involved with carbon emissions.

Look at it this way. The real purpose of the long gun registry was not to control guns or through that control to lower the crime rate. The actual purpose was political, to win votes in big urban centres which feared crime by telling people this would help.

In the same way, this plan is not designed to lower carbon emissions. That isn't really something the Liberals are concerned with (as evidenced their 13 years in office). This plan is designed to win votes by pumping up fears of global warming and portraying themselves as the great saviours.

[jdobbin]

I'm not talking about the Tory plan. I'm talking about the Liberal plan, specifically how their failure to tax fuel used in transportation may actually eliminate the only 'benefit' the Liberal plan has in curbing carbon emissions.

So, once again, why are you not demanding the Liberals increase fuel taxes in order to cut carbon emissions?

Every fuel is being taxed. The excise tax of gas will apply as carbon tax. That tax is already higher than other fuels.

Diesel will rise 5%.

[jdobbin]

In the same way, this plan is not designed to lower carbon emissions. That isn't really something the Liberals are concerned with (as evidenced their 13 years in office). This plan is designed to win votes by pumping up fears of global warming and portraying themselves as the great saviours.

Perhaps Harper will come out as the first leader to say he doesn't believe in climate change and pull out of all discussions and agreements on the matter.

Edited June 25, 2008 by jdobbin