Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

segnosaur · June 25, 2008

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?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=599498

(Dion) acknowledged the average household could eventually wind up paying up to $250 more a year because of higher heating and electricity costs.

http://news.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/Dion+intr...c&date=True

The proposed tax -- unveiled at a boisterous Liberal rally in Ottawa -- will hit electricity and home heating fuel[/i]

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...5968491-sun.php

In Ontario, for instance, government figures show Dion's plan would add at least 20% to the overall annual cost of generating electricity across the province. (Note that this source is an opinion column; however, it is from a national newspaper chain, and supposedly the figures were originally government figures.)

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...cqxvT6Bt-Defv3Q

Premier Dalton McGuinty says he still supports the federal Liberals' carbon tax plan...That would add a $1.1-billion tax on Ontario's coal-fired plants

Now, in 2006, revenue at Ontario Power Generation was $5.7 billion. Adding $1.1 billion in taxes is 19.2%... not quite 20%. but close enough.

Or lets look at the numbers...

In 2006, 117,000 kT of CO2 were released in Canada from electricity and heating. The Liberal plan is to see the price of carbon emissions end up at $40/ton. This means the total carbon tax would be roughly $4.7 billion/year. Given the fact that there are about 22 million Canadians who are of 'taxpayer' age, it works out to an additional $214 per person. And not everyone who pays that extra $214 will actually receive a tax cut in compensation.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_repo...006/tab_eng.cfm

http://www.opg.com/news/releases/NewsFeb16_07.pdf

segnosaur · June 25, 2008

'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.

Yes, you have made the claim that the 'excise tax' will apply as the carbon tax. But that is also totally irrelevant.

Every other use of fossil fuel has multiple taxes. There is no reason why the government would have to limit the price at the gas pump to just the 'excise tax'. (Remember, we also have the GST applied at the gas pump too.)

So, once again, given the fact that you are assuming carbon emissions are harmful to the environment, and that there is a significant amount of discretionary use in gasoline, then why are you not demanding the Liberals increase the taxes at the gas pump?

The question isn't that difficult.

Diesel will rise 5%.

Goody for that. Except A: That could actually be higher, if we REALLY want to encourage people to save gas, and B: still doesn't explain why gas is except (other than your discounted suggestion that the 'excise' tax counts as the carbon tax)

jdobbin · June 25, 2008

Yes, you have made the claim that the 'excise tax' will apply as the carbon tax. But that is also totally irrelevant.

Really? Why is that?

Every other use of fossil fuel has multiple taxes. There is no reason why the government would have to limit the price at the gas pump to just the 'excise tax'. (Remember, we also have the GST applied at the gas pump too.)

And why do you think that? The excise tax is already heavier on gas and light on diesel.

So, once again, given the fact that you are assuming carbon emissions are harmful to the environment, and that there is a significant amount of discretionary use in gasoline, then why are you not demanding the Liberals increase the taxes at the gas pump?
The question isn't that difficult.

The reason is that the carbon tax will already take a 15 billion from all carbon sources. Why should gas be more weighted than any other fuel?

Goody for that. Except A: That could actually be higher, if we REALLY want to encourage people to save gas, and B: still doesn't explain why gas is except (other than your discounted suggestion that the 'excise' tax counts as the carbon tax)

I have no idea why you want gas more weighted in the equation that other sources. I suppose if you want even higher gas costs, vote Tory. Their plan will increase gas 40 cents a litre.

segnosaur · June 25, 2008

Really? Why is that?
And why do you think that? The excise tax is already heavier on gas and light on diesel.

The reason is that the carbon tax will already take a 15 billion from all carbon sources. Why should gas be more weighted than any other fuel?

I already explained that in an earlier post.

Its because gas usage is more discretionary than many other forms of fossil fuel usage, and unlike taxes on industrial uses cannot be passed on to others.

Really, I explained all this earlier. Even gave references showing how carbon emissions in many industries have gone down over the past few years without any sort of green shift tax policy.

I have no idea why you want gas more weighted in the equation that other sources. I suppose if you want even higher gas costs, vote Tory. Their plan will increase gas 40 cents a litre.

I never said I wanted gas prices increased.

Try to follow the thread.

What I said that if you feel that carbon emissions are an environmental problem (and you champion a policy which punishes heavy users through taxation) then why aren't YOU demanding even higher gas taxes?

If you care about the environment, you should be writing your favorite Liberal to say "Increase the cost of gas at the pump... We need to save the environment". Heck, you should be championing the Conservative plan... after all, if taxes discourage waste, even higher taxes should discourage even more waste.

So, why aren't you demanding higher gas taxes? Is it because you don't really care that much about greenhouse gas emissions, and realize that it would be politically unpopular and prevent your liberals from getting into power?

August1991 · June 26, 2008

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.

Are you under the illusion that the Conservative plan will cost nothing?

Harper wants to regulate the largest CO2 emitters which includes Ontario's hydro producer. Government regulators rarely achieve anything at low cost.

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?

Why should rich seniors live in huge houses destroying the environment?

Argus, the old stereotype of the impoversihed senior living on cat food just doesn't work anymore. Anyway, the Liberal plan includes generous tax cuts at the lower end.

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.

Hydro is clean energy. What can I say.

Its because gas usage is more discretionary than many other forms of fossil fuel usage, and unlike taxes on industrial uses cannot be passed on to others.
...

If you care about the environment, you should be writing your favorite Liberal to say "Increase the cost of gas at the pump... We need to save the environment". Heck, you should be championing the Conservative plan... after all, if taxes discourage waste, even higher taxes should discourage even more waste.

So, why aren't you demanding higher gas taxes? Is it because you don't really care that much about greenhouse gas emissions, and realize that it would be politically unpopular and prevent your liberals from getting into power?

Segnosaur, on what basis do you claim that gasoline consumption is more "discretionary" than other energy use? I assume that you are referring to the demand elasticity of gasoline. Do you mean in the short run or the long run? The question of discretionary/elasticity often turns on available substitutes.

Dion has made it plain that he wants to tax all CO2 emissions equally. CO2 is CO2 is CO2. It doesn't matter its source. Once taxed, then consumers will choose their poison based on cost. There is no reason to impose a higher tax on gasoline.

At present, the incentives are wrong and the price mechanism misleads people into making wrong choices.

----

Above, you gave stats showing that the Liberal plan would amount to about $4 billion in extra taxes. This money would all be returned to Canadians. Those people who emit less CO2 stand to gain and those emit more CO2 stand to lose. Such is life.

More important, some people will choose to reduce CO2 emissions. This reduction will come at the lowest overall cost to the Canadian economy because individual Canadians will make these choices with their own money in their way.

I will simply add that $4 billion is a small amount and a $40/tonne CO2 tax seems very reasonable. No regulatory solution would ever achieve these results at such low cost.

jdobbin · June 26, 2008

I already explained that in an earlier post.
Its because gas usage is more discretionary than many other forms of fossil fuel usage, and unlike taxes on industrial uses cannot be passed on to others.

Discretionary? In what way? Our economy is now completely linked to gas usage for transportation. You think that is optional now?

Really, I explained all this earlier. Even gave references showing how carbon emissions in many industries have gone down over the past few years without any sort of green shift tax policy.

It's true that emissions have gone down for some industries. It has gone up for others. The tax policy will reward industries that continue to make improvements.

I never said I wanted gas prices increased.
Try to follow the thread.

What I said that if you feel that carbon emissions are an environmental problem (and you champion a policy which punishes heavy users through taxation) then why aren't YOU demanding even higher gas taxes?

I am satisfied that gas already pays a high price in terms of taxation and now the excise portion will go to a carbon tax.

If you care about the environment, you should be writing your favorite Liberal to say "Increase the cost of gas at the pump... We need to save the environment". Heck, you should be championing the Conservative plan... after all, if taxes discourage waste, even higher taxes should discourage even more waste.

Problem is the Tory plan let's emissions rise.

The policy promoted with the carbon tax is a rational one whereas what you are saying won't get support. It would like demanding gas be banned. What we are seeing here is baiting. Well, I'm not biting. And according to Decima this week, there is a fair amount of support for the Liberal idea. Appears the public is not biting either.

So, why aren't you demanding higher gas taxes? Is it because you don't really care that much about greenhouse gas emissions, and realize that it would be politically unpopular and prevent your liberals from getting into power?

Just more baiting.

The tax as it is set up now falls on carbon emitters, gas included. Regulations on gas mileage on vehicles and retiring old vehicles will be more effective tool than increasing the gas tax beyond other carbon producers and it will still decrease emissions.

Edited June 26, 2008 by jdobbin

madmax · June 26, 2008

Why should rich seniors live in huge houses destroying the environment?

Why should rich people get large tax breaks and have the burden of their excesses shouldered by lower and middle income families?

I know a scam when I see it.

Environment my ass.

This is a TAX plan. And every time the word environment is used, is just a cover for a suck and blow policy that rewards those with extra income to spend as they see fit.

Give to the wealthiest of society and let the least wealthy pay for it.

Regardless, the LPC do believe that this political exercise will result in greater political appeal over time. Unfortuneately, this may not be the case, and it could become the anchor that sinks Dions Political career.

segnosaur · June 26, 2008

Why should rich seniors live in huge houses destroying the environment?

Perhaps because many of those seniors have lived in those houses for many decades, and have also worked for this country (supporting its economy) for about the same length of time. As a result, many people think those people at least deserve a little respect, and part of that respect is the ability to live in their existing house.

Hydro is clean energy. What can I say.

First of all, hydro isn't exactly clean... fossil fuels are used in the construction of hydro dams and in maintaining the power lines. It also causes its own type of environmental problems: the required flooding changes ecosystems, removes trees (consumers of CO2), and may also release some CO2 (as the now-dead trees decay).

More importantly, Hydro is also fungible. Power generated from Hydro and power generated from fossil fuels is interchangeable. For every unit of power not consumed by Quebec, that power could in theory be used to decrease the need for power generated from coal or oil.

So, ultimately, if you really think its necessary to increase taxes in order to curb greenhouse gas emissions, you should consider taxing all energy consumption.

Segnosaur, on what basis do you claim that gasoline consumption is more "discretionary" than other energy use?

I've already explained many of the ways gasoline is more discretionary in a previous post...

Just to repeat though... People do take pleasure trips. People do drive when they could bus, walk, or car pool. People do often drive vehicles which are much larger than needed. People also often buy homes in the suburbs where they could choose a place closer to work.

Much of Europe has much higher gas taxes than here, so obviously it is possible for a functioning economy to have higher prices at the pumps.

In the short term, increasing gas prices will cause people to use their cars less. In the mid-term, it will encourage people to buy smaller cars, or live closer to where they work. In the long term, it might cause people to demand fuel alternatives.

Dion has made it plain that he wants to tax all CO2 emissions equally. CO2 is CO2 is CO2. It doesn't matter its source.
Once taxed, then consumers will choose their poison based on cost. There is no reason to impose a higher tax on gasoline.

Well, if you think that imposing taxes is the best way to go, do you really think that taxing all CO2 emissions equally is the best way to go? After all, there will always be cases where CO2 emissions cannot be avoided (e.g. basic heating, assuming the house is sufficiently insulated). Expecting people to use other forms of energy is not practical because of the fungibility of the energy consumed.

Wouldn't it make more sense to actually go after people who are responsible for CO2 emissions that are actually excessive to what they require?

Above, you gave stats showing that the Liberal plan would amount to about $4 billion in extra taxes. This money would all be returned to Canadians.

Ok, here's the problems with that statement...

First of all, you are trusting that the money would be returned to all Canadians. No guarantee that it would though. (I think the liberals have made some sort of claim that the auditor general would monitor things, but the Auditor general doesn't really have the authority to force the government to alter tax rates if they do find that the tax plan isn't really revenue neutral.

Secondly, keep in mind that even if somehow the plan is revenue neutral for the government, that does not mean that it will be revenue neutral for each person. For example, I myself do my best to keep my carbon emissions low.... I drive a small car, don't use it all the time, keep my house temperature low, have a programmable thermostat, have CF lights, etc. I don't do this to be environmental, I do this to save money. There isn't really much more I can do to cut costs. However, I am still using some energy, and as such I will end up paying more. And because my income is too high, I won't really have those tax cuts.

(On the other hand, some guy on welfare will now be able to afford to leave his El Camino idling in his driveway 24/7, thanks to the extra money from his tax cuts.)

Lets call this plan what it is... the "Take from the middle class, give to the poor" bill, because ultimately that's what it is.

Those people who emit less CO2 stand to gain and those emit more CO2 stand to lose. Such is life.

But we already have that incentive... its called greed.

Companies already have the desire to cut their CO2 emissions because reducing energy usage (even without the carbon tax) will increase overall profits. In fact, that's already happened... CO2 emissions in many industries have actually gone down over the past few years.

Individuals have an incentive to reduce CO2 emissions... its called their bank account. They want to see as much money in their bank account as possible, so it makes sense to cut as many costs (including energy costs) as possible.

I will simply add that $4 billion is a small amount and a $40/tonne CO2 tax seems very reasonable. No regulatory solution would ever achieve these results at such low cost.

Except for the fact that the Liberal plan probably won't do much to actually achieve anything, since companies and people already have an incentive to reduce costs.

So, no costs, no achievement. Kind of symmetrical, don't you think?

segnosaur · June 26, 2008

Discretionary? In what way? Our economy is now completely linked to gas usage for transportation. You think that is optional now?

First of all, I've already explained multiple ways that fuel consumption is discretionary (people driving when they don't need to, driving larger cars, etc.)

I could also add that having 'cheap' gasoline encourages importation of products; more expensive gas would encourage producers to locate closer to their customers.

Europe has much higher fuel taxes than Canada, and somehow they're surviving.

The tax policy will reward industries that continue to make improvements.

They already have a reward... its called profits. You might have heard of them?

I am satisfied that gas already pays a high price in terms of taxation...

But why? If you think that taxation discourages use, why is the current level of taxation OK, but much higher taxation wrong?

Problem is the Tory plan let's emissions rise.

I never claimed to support the conservative plan either.

Its possible that both plans are wrong... the Liberal plan because its ineffectual (since companies and people already have incentives to reduce costs), the conservative plan because its targeted incorrectly.

The policy promoted with the carbon tax is a rational one...

Except that it probably won't make a difference in actual CO2 emissions...

... whereas what you are saying won't get support.

Ah, now HERE we get to the crux of the issue.

So, even though the Liberals claim to want to save us from global warming, they don't have the guts or desire to do what's really necessary. Something needed but politically unpopular? Just drop it. Guess the earth takes a back seat to getting re-elected.

Regulations on gas mileage on vehicles and retiring old vehicles will be more effective tool than increasing the gas tax beyond other carbon producers and it will still decrease emissions.

First of all, regulations on milage may help reduce emissions... but I have not seen anything in the Liberal's plan to suggest such regulations are part of their plans.

Secondly, such regulation are really only tinkering... it doesn't stop people from using their vehicles unnecessarily, nor does it stop people from puchasing SUVs when a compact car will do.

Lastly, such regulations may ultimately be unnecessary. As gas prices go up, people will naturally start to look at smaller cars with better fuel efficiency. In fact, its already started to happen over the past year.

jdobbin · June 26, 2008

First of all, I've already explained multiple ways that fuel consumption is discretionary (people driving when they don't need to, driving larger cars, etc.)

You've explained it but I don't believe it

I could also add that having 'cheap' gasoline encourages importation of products; more expensive gas would encourage producers to locate closer to their customers.
Europe has much higher fuel taxes than Canada, and somehow they're surviving.

Smaller territory, better public transit, more compact neighborhoods and a whole host of other things come into play. Indeed, Europeans seem to fund more of their national spending through gas tax than we do.

They already have a reward... its called profits. You might have heard of them?

And a penalty of those profits for not enacting cleaner energy can be an effective tool.

But why? If you think that taxation discourages use, why is the current level of taxation OK, but much higher taxation wrong?

Because I don't believe gas should be penalized more than any other CO2 emitter.

If you are saying all of them should be taxed out of existence than I know you are just baiting.

The policy is spread out to all emissions. I know the Tories would like the Liberal to single out gas so they can pounce but it just isn't happening.

I never claimed to support the conservative plan either.

Since it will raise gas even higher, I can see why not.

Its possible that both plans are wrong... the Liberal plan because its ineffectual (since companies and people already have incentives to reduce costs), the conservative plan because its targeted incorrectly.

And I thought the argument was going to be that it is because climate change is not real and nothing needs to be done.

Except that it probably won't make a difference in actual CO2 emissions...

Many independent economists such as Don Drummond at TD believe it will reduce carbon.

Ah, now HERE we get to the crux of the issue.

I know Tories want this to unsaleable policy but the Liberals are just not taking the bait.

So, even though the Liberals claim to want to save us from global warming, they don't have the guts or desire to do what's really necessary. Something needed but politically unpopular? Just drop it. Guess the earth takes a back seat to getting re-elected.

Can't make the world a better place without getting rid of the Conservatives first.

Look, I knew where all the baiting was leading. It was tax gas out of existence or your hate the planet or if you don't tax it, then you are power hungry. How utterly transparent.

First of all, regulations on milage may help reduce emissions... but I have not seen anything in the Liberal's plan to suggest such regulations are part of their plans.

Yeesh, the right wing want all the policy released now while not releasing any information of their own.

Secondly, such regulation are really only tinkering... it doesn't stop people from using their vehicles unnecessarily, nor does it stop people from puchasing SUVs when a compact car will do.

I guess that puts the Tory plan in the garbage can because the Tories have made regulation their centerpiece.

Lastly, such regulations may ultimately be unnecessary. As gas prices go up, people will naturally start to look at smaller cars with better fuel efficiency. In fact, its already started to happen over the past year.

Again, the covers only one form of carbon emitter.

It is one reason why the gas tax doesn't need to go up. For every 10 cents a litre that gas rises, the government takes in an additional $100 million.

The Tories promised to end the excise tax in 2005. That promise went up in fumes.

segnosaur · June 26, 2008

First of all, I've already explained multiple ways that fuel consumption is discretionary (people driving when they don't need to, driving larger cars, etc.)

You've explained it but I don't believe it

So, you really don't believe people sometimes drive just for the pleasure of it? You REALLY think anyone that drives an SUV to their office really requires such a large vehicle just for them and their briefcase?

I personally know people who like to go for drives for pleasure. I personally know people who selected larger cars (because they like the 'feel' of them), even though they always drove alone. Granted, those are just anecdotes (and anecdotes are not really 'proof' of anything.) However, keep in mind that in the past year we've seen sales of SUVs decrease (corresponding with increases in fuel prices). If people really needed SUVs, why wouldn't sales of them continue to remain strong? Obviously people didn't need the extra size.

(on Europeans having higher gas taxes, but still survining)

Smaller territory

And most Canadians live in urban areas. So, this means that the 'larger territory' of Canada doesn't matter much, since most people don't have to drive across country on a regular basis.

, better public transit,

Oh yes, MUCH better transit. Of course, with our lower gas taxes here, we don't get the needed ridership to improve transit.

more compact neighborhoods and a whole host of other things come into play.

Yes, more compact neighborhoods... However, our sparse population density is due at least in part to cheap gas. Increase the cost of gas, and fewer people will choose to live in the suburbs.

They already have a reward... its called profits. You might have heard of them?

And a penalty of those profits for not enacting cleaner energy can be an effective tool.

They already have a penalty... its called their energy bill...

Honestly, do you actually think there are business people around now who are thinking "I could increase my profits by reducing energy bills, but I don't really feel like it"?

Its possible that both plans are wrong... the Liberal plan because its ineffectual (since companies and people already have incentives to reduce costs), the conservative plan because its targeted incorrectly.

And I thought the argument was going to be that it is because climate change is not real and nothing needs to be done.

Actually, I'm not totally convinced that humans are responsible for global climate change. Yes, there is some evidence in that direction, but there are some significant problems with their 'models' that should be addressed. The climate is very complex, and saying "humans did it" may not be accurate. (Even the U.N. experts have given themselves some leeway; I think they've said that they're only '90%' sure humans are responsible.)

However, I do think that reducing energy use has other benefits besides reducing carbon emissions... including reducing sulfur and other pollutants, and reducing dependence on possibly hostile foreign countries. However, I doubt the ultimate solution is going to involve tinkering with the tax system or setting regulations. The ultimate solution will be through science... nuclear fusion, improved solar, biofuels... I have no idea what the dominate technology will be, but it will not likely come from direct government action.

Many independent economists such as Don Drummond at TD believe it will reduce carbon.

Don Drummond also admitted that it is going to hit some harder than others. "...there will be no individual or company in the country that will exactly get back what it pays back in carbon tax,"..."There will be a lot of winners and a lot of losers." From: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/18/...an.html?ref=rss

So even Drummond admits its not exactly a perfect program.

So, even though the Liberals claim to want to save us from global warming, they don't have the guts or desire to do what's really necessary. Something needed but politically unpopular? Just drop it. Guess the earth takes a back seat to getting re-elected.

Look, I knew where all the baiting was leading. It was tax gas out of existence or your hate the planet or if you don't tax it, then you are power hungry. How utterly transparent.

Yeah, it was pretty transparent. But given the fact that you admitted that actually taxing gas would be "unpopular", it ended up being pretty accurate.

Lastly, such regulations may ultimately be unnecessary. As gas prices go up, people will naturally start to look at smaller cars with better fuel efficiency. In fact, its already started to happen over the past year.

Again, the covers only one form of carbon emitter.

But its the one carbon emitter which has seen its contributions rise faster than any other industry. Seems pretty significant to me.

jdobbin · June 26, 2008

So, you really don't believe people sometimes drive just for the pleasure of it? You REALLY think anyone that drives an SUV to their office really requires such a large vehicle just for them and their briefcase?
I personally know people who like to go for drives for pleasure. I personally know people who selected larger cars (because they like the 'feel' of them), even though they always drove alone. Granted, those are just anecdotes (and anecdotes are not really 'proof' of anything.) However, keep in mind that in the past year we've seen sales of SUVs decrease (corresponding with increases in fuel prices). If people really needed SUVs, why wouldn't sales of them continue to remain strong? Obviously people didn't need the extra size.

The extra size is discretionary and for a while it was affordable when there was a glut of oil around.

My main point is that our economy is set up so that gas is essential to the transport system. Even with a downgrade to mini cars, our neighborhoods are set up for driving, our supply lines are set up for driving.

And most Canadians live in urban areas. So, this means that the 'larger territory' of Canada doesn't matter much, since most people don't have to drive across country on a regular basis.

And more compact neighborhoods with houses taking up less footage both inside and out.

Oh yes, MUCH better transit. Of course, with our lower gas taxes here, we don't get the needed ridership to improve transit.

And I was going to say that it was low density of the neighborhoods which finally started causing things like the TTC to lose money. At one time, Toronto transit paid for itself.

Yes, more compact neighborhoods... However, our sparse population density is due at least in part to cheap gas. Increase the cost of gas, and fewer people will choose to live in the suburbs.

Our neighborhoods were getting more widespread even before gas vehicles because we had the space. Cars accelerated the spread.

Europeans taxed gas more heavily not because of environmental concerns but because they used the funds to pay for their large social services.

Our neighborhoods are not going to change overnight. Gas prices are going to make those large vehicles impractical. There is no need to tax gas heavier than other CO2 emitters.

They already have a penalty... its called their energy bill...
Honestly, do you actually think there are business people around now who are thinking "I could increase my profits by reducing energy bills, but I don't really feel like it"?

I think some large energy companies make money on high energy prices and the only way to get them to reduce emissions is regulate or to out a carbon tax in place.

Actually, I'm not totally convinced that humans are responsible for global climate change. Yes, there is some evidence in that direction, but there are some significant problems with their 'models' that should be addressed. The climate is very complex, and saying "humans did it" may not be accurate. (Even the U.N. experts have given themselves some leeway; I think they've said that they're only '90%' sure humans are responsible.)
However, I do think that reducing energy use has other benefits besides reducing carbon emissions... including reducing sulfur and other pollutants, and reducing dependence on possibly hostile foreign countries. However, I doubt the ultimate solution is going to involve tinkering with the tax system or setting regulations. The ultimate solution will be through science... nuclear fusion, improved solar, biofuels... I have no idea what the dominate technology will be, but it will not likely come from direct government action.

I think many on the right wing want no government action.

Don Drummond also admitted that it is going to hit some harder than others. "...there will be no individual or company in the country that will exactly get back what it pays back in carbon tax,"..."There will be a lot of winners and a lot of losers." From: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/18/...an.html?ref=rss
So even Drummond admits its not exactly a perfect program.

I don't think it is either. I want even deeper personal income tax cuts.

Yeah, it was pretty transparent. But given the fact that you admitted that actually taxing gas would be "unpopular", it ended up being pretty accurate.

I said taxing gas to your specs would be unpopular. Gas is already taxed heavily in this country.

But its the one carbon emitter which has seen its contributions rise faster than any other industry. Seems pretty significant to me.

Citation for that claim?

August1991 · June 27, 2008

Your long post amounts to this simple argument:

Wouldn't it make more sense to actually go after people who are responsible for CO2 emissions that are actually excessive to what they require?

Who is to be the judge of "excessive"? You? Me? Some bureaucrat?

IOW, you want the government to find who is emitting CO2 and then tell them to stop unless the government decides that it's OK.

Dion's proposal merely puts a single price on all CO2 emissions and then lets people decide whether it's worth it or not. That, by the way, is how we decide most things in a modern economy. OTOH, your idea above (and Harper's plan) is rather Soviet.

Why should rich people get large tax breaks and have the burden of their excesses shouldered by lower and middle income families?
I know a scam when I see it.

Environment my ass.

This is a TAX plan. And every time the word environment is used, is just a cover for a suck and blow policy that rewards those with extra income to spend as they see fit.

Give to the wealthiest of society and let the least wealthy pay for it.

Regardless, the LPC do believe that this political exercise will result in greater political appeal over time. Unfortuneately, this may not be the case, and it could become the anchor that sinks Dions Political career.

Huh? Rich people fly more, heat and cool bigger homes, drive more in bigger cars, buy more stuff shipped to them.

I just don't see how this CO2 tax can be viewed as taking from the poor and giving to the rich. All it does is put a price on CO2 emissions. You pay for a meal in a restaurant and by the same logic, you should pay for the use of the environment.

madmax · June 27, 2008

I just don't see how this CO2 tax can be viewed as taking from the poor and giving to the rich. All it does is put a price on CO2 emissions. You pay for a meal in a restaurant and by the same logic, you should pay for the use of the environment.

Tax Shifting.

It is a SCAM.

This is political opportunism at its worst. There is no other reason why Dion would make such a change of direction.

This is a regressive money grabbing government pick pocketing scheme designed under the guise of environmental benefits.

Tax Shifting is about..

WHO benefits. (The wealthiest)

not

WHAT benefits (the Environment)

Argus · June 27, 2008

Are you under the illusion that the Conservative plan will cost nothing?
Harper wants to regulate the largest CO2 emitters which includes Ontario's hydro producer. Government regulators rarely achieve anything at low cost.

And if Harper brought in a plan which raised electricity prices by 20% you can be damned sure I'd be critical of it. But he hasn't.

Why should rich seniors live in huge houses destroying the environment?

Rich? Define rich. I'm sure there are a few wealthy seniors in mansions somewhere. Do you actually think they will give a damn for this tax or attempt to downsize because of it?

Argus, the old stereotype of the impoversihed senior living on cat food just doesn't work anymore. Anyway, the Liberal plan includes generous tax cuts at the lower end.

Bullshit. I'm not talking about impoverished seniors. Like Dion, you seem to have a simplistic black and white view of the world. They're either rich or they're eating cat food. There's no in between with either of you. Most seniors I know of live in small apartments - because they don't need big houses any more - or small houses, bungalows, etc, again, because they don't need big houses any more, and because it's hard to keep them clean and keep up the grounds - or live in seniors residences, which are already pricey and will now cost much more to heat and cool and power. These are not dirt poor people who will get generous handouts, these are middle class people who will likely get little or nothing - which is what the middle class generally gets from the government.

Hydro is clean energy. What can I say.

And where is by far the most earnest demand that the government do something about carbon emissions coming from? Quebec. So Quebec gets a buyout, while Alberta and Saskatchewan and Ontatio get hammered with heavy taxes. What do Quebecers get? A tax cut.

Above, you gave stats showing that the Liberal plan would amount to about $4 billion in extra taxes. This money would all be returned to Canadians.

More specifically, it will be taken from Canadians in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan and given to Canadians in Quebec.

jdobbin · June 27, 2008

Tax Shifting.
It is a SCAM.

This is political opportunism at its worst. There is no other reason why Dion would make such a change of direction.

This is a regressive money grabbing government pick pocketing scheme designed under the guise of environmental benefits.

How much of the costs will be passed on from the NDP plan to Canadians? How is it better than Dion's plan?

segnosaur · June 27, 2008

Wouldn't it make more sense to actually go after people who are responsible for CO2 emissions that are actually excessive to what they require?

Your long post amounts to this simple argument:Who is to be the judge of "excessive"? You? Me? Some bureaucrat?

First of all, the issue of costs, etc. is already pretty arbitrary. Why $40/ton for CO2 in the liberal plan? Why not $50? Why not $20? Claiming that 'someone' has to make decisions is a red herring.

Secondly, if they really wanted to, they could target any sort of 'carbon tax' on an industry-basis. Industries where carbon emissions have gone up would have the tax applied; industries where carbon emissions are already dropping would escape any carbon tax. Or they could look at average usage (e.g. emissions per unit of product produced) and only tax those in the top half.

IOW, you want the government to find who is emitting CO2 and then tell them to stop unless the government decides that it's OK.

Actually, its not what I want at all. I've already explained that the Liberal plan is worthless for the simple reason that people already have an incentive to reduce carbon emissions, namely profits (or, in the case of individuals, greed).

I was simply pointing out one of the flaws in the Liberal plan... that people are going to be hit by CO2 taxes even though they've already done all they can do to reduce energy use, while others will benefit even if their carbon emissions actually go up. To me, that doesn't exactly sound fair.

Huh? Rich people fly more, heat and cool bigger homes, drive more in bigger cars, buy more stuff shipped to them.

I just don't see how this CO2 tax can be viewed as taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

Here I agree with you... in fact, it does the opposite, it takes from the rich and gives to the poor. The problem is, it won't decrease carbon emissions (since most people are already making attempts to save energy).

I already gave an example of this... Me. I drive a small car (don't even use it all the time), live in the city (so no long distance commute), use CF light bulbs, keep the heat turned down at my place, use a timed thermostat. (I don't do this because I want to 'save the environment'... I do all that to save money.) There's probably not all that much I can do to reduce my carbon emissions. Yet I will see my costs go up. And because my income is too high (and have no kids), I will not likely benefit from the tax cuts.

Meanwhile you can have Joe Welfareman who can use his tax cuts to keep his El Camino idling in his driveway... he benefits from the green shift, without actually doing anything.

segnosaur · June 27, 2008

My main point is that our economy is set up so that gas is essential to the transport system. Even with a downgrade to mini cars, our neighborhoods are set up for driving, our supply lines are set up for driving.

That does not mean that our neighborhoods have to be that way. If you think that Carbon emissions are such a problem, we should want our cities to be more densely populated. Saying "We have to allow huge carbon emissions for transportation" is basically just a cop out.

Europeans taxed gas more heavily not because of environmental concerns but because they used the funds to pay for their large social services.

Doesn't matter what the money is used for... the point is, their economy can handle high gas taxes. Therefor, our economy should be able to handle high gas taxes.

Honestly, do you actually think there are business people around now who are thinking "I could increase my profits by reducing energy bills, but I don't really feel like it"?

I think some large energy companies make money on high energy prices...

We're talking consumers here.... the people actually using the fossil fuels, not selling it.

Doubt anyone who uses energy is going to benefit from it costing more.

So, once again, do you really think there is some large group of businessmen who actually want to earn less profits by not cutting energy expenses even without the carbon taxes?

Really... I can just imagine the board of directors meeting...

Vice President: Sir, we found a way we can cut our heating costs. This will reduce our overall expenses, increase profits, and allow the company to give us all nice big executive bonuses

President: No, I think profits are high enough as it is. Better to keep spending money on energy than on dividends and executive bonuses.

... and the only way to get them to reduce emissions is regulate or to out a carbon tax in place.

And why wouldn't a company already be reducing its emissions, because cutting its energy bills will give it greater profits.

In fact, its already happening... many industries have actually been reducing their emissions over the past decade, and that's without the carbon taxes.

But its the one carbon emitter (transportation) which has seen its contributions rise faster than any other industry. Seems pretty significant to me.

Citation for that claim?

Already provided, in a posting on June 25 in this very thread, where i referenced a report from Environment Canada.

In that report, they point out that in the decade and a half before 2006, CO2 emissions in all of Canada went up by 22%. CO2 emissions in transportation went up 31% (including a 116% increase in trucks/SUVs), while emissions in agriculture and power generation went up by only 20-25%, and in industry actually decreased.

Edited June 27, 2008 by segnosaur

jdobbin · June 27, 2008

That does not mean that our neighborhoods have to be that way. If you think that Carbon emissions are such a problem, we should want our cities to be more densely populated. Saying "We have to allow huge carbon emissions for transportation" is basically just a cop out.

I'm sorry if this "if you love this planet, you'll tax gas into non-existence isn't getting the Liberals to bite.

Doesn't matter what the money is used for... the point is, their economy can handle high gas taxes. Therefor, our economy should be able to handle high gas taxes.

Quite possibly but it doesn't mean that Canada could adjust as fast or painlessly.

We're talking consumers here.... the people actually using the fossil fuels, not selling it.
Doubt anyone who uses energy is going to benefit from it costing more.

And I was talking sellers.

So, once again, do you really think there is some large group of businessmen who actually want to earn less profits by not cutting energy expenses even without the carbon taxes?
Really... I can just imagine the board of directors meeting...

Vice President: Sir, we found a way we can cut our heating costs. This will reduce our overall expenses, increase profits, and allow the company to give us all nice big executive bonuses

President: No, I think profits are high enough as it is. Better to keep spending money on energy than on dividends and executive bonuses.

I don't think that many energy companies think that reducing CO2 emissions helps increase their profits.

And why wouldn't a company already be reducing its emissions, because cutting its energy bills will give it greater profits.

CO2 scrubbers and sequestration increases profits?

In fact, its already happening... many industries have actually been reducing their emissions over the past decade, and that's without the carbon taxes.

Many have done it because of regulation because of other particulates associated with their product. Nevertheless emissions continue to rise.

Already provided, in a posting on June 25 in this very thread, where i referenced a report from Environment Canada.
In that report, they point out that in the decade and a half before 2006, CO2 emissions in all of Canada went up by 22%. CO2 emissions in transportation went up 31% (including a 116% increase in trucks/SUVs), while emissions in agriculture and power generation went up by only 20-25%, and in industry actually decreased.

I guess that is why the Liberal plan to turn the excise tax into a carbon tax is a good one. The rise of 5%+ on fuels should help the auto industry move to higher mileage vehicles.

In any event, I know you'd like the Liberals to go crazy (as Harper has said) and say they are introducing an enormous tax on gas but it just isn't going to happen.

The excise tax is enough and each time gas goes up 10 cents, the government collects an additional $100 million. I think that is plenty even if some on the right don't.

This is all about people on the right who don't believe in climate change and don't want to anything about it. It is also about Tory supporters who want the Liberals to push an even more aggressive policy that they know won't get them elected.

And yes, it is about electability.

This is about baiting. It is "do more or you hate the planet." Well, this type of politics happens with abortion, the death penalty and several other controversial issues. If the Harper government actually took strong positions on those issues, they would not be in power now. Instead, they fritter away at the edges of the issue to get what they want and hope to change opinion. My guess though that a majority would be too much for them not to take a strong position on things like gay marriage.

The Liberals have taken a position that will be hard to sell but will define them better in the next election. It puts the NDP and the Tories on their heels because it puts their own programs in question.

For example, the Tory criticism that the Liberals are "Not getting it done" are now replaced with "crazy" which the Globe and National Post have said will eventually put their own programs in sharp focus. Yesterday that At Issue panel mentioned how Baird had been ducking questions in Parliament about how the Tory program would be different and what the estimated costs to the consumer would be.

segnosaur · June 27, 2008

I'm sorry if this "if you love this planet, you'll tax gas into non-existence isn't getting the Liberals to bite.

I also notice its not going to cause Liberals to either explain or recognize the flaws in their 'plans'.

We're talking consumers here.... the people actually using the fossil fuels, not selling it.
Doubt anyone who uses energy is going to benefit from it costing more.

And I was talking sellers.

Talking about sellers here is irrelevant... it is the consumers that have the responsibility for reducing their energy usage.

I don't think that many energy companies think that reducing CO2 emissions helps increase their profits.

Just where exactly do you think that CO2 comes from? Do you think companies create CO2 magically, out of nowhere?

CO2 is produced when companies produce and use energy based on fossil fuels. Even if there's no tax specifically on CO2, there are still costs associated with the consumption of energy. You reduce the use of gas/hydro/etc. because it reduces your costs; the CO2 reductions are an added bonus. But those reductions were going to happen anyways. We've seen it happen in industry over the past few years.

So, specific taxes on Carbon emissions are irrelevant. Companies will reduce their energy usage anyways, and as a result emissions will decrease.

Really, do you think companies are generating CO2 from magic beans or something?

CO2 scrubbers and sequestration increases profits?

Sequestration is, as far as I know, only in the early pilot stages. In addition, it actually increases energy requirements, and may actually cause increases in other pollutants. (See: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/src...cs_chapter3.pdf page 144, lines on NOx and SOx.) Perhaps the technology may improve in the future, but expecting companies to use technology that isn't yet available is rather, shall we say, optimistic.

Many have done it because of regulation because of other particulates associated with their product. Nevertheless emissions continue to rise.

Yup... emissions continue to rise... fueled mostly by the transportation sector (in particular SUVs). Yet the Liberal plan would not actually do anything to change those dynamics.

This is about baiting. It is "do more or you hate the planet."

No, its about illustrating the significant flaws with the Liberal program, and how its pretty much useless, and how they refuse to take a stand that would actually do the most good.

The Liberals have taken a position that will be hard to sell but will define them better in the next election.

Actually, no... they've taken a position which is actually easy to sell... tinker with the tax system, but avoid doing anything really diffucult... makes you look like you want to help, but avoid any of the hard decisions or political backlash.

For example, the Tory criticism that the Liberals are "Not getting it done" are now replaced with "crazy" which the Globe and National Post have said will eventually put their own programs in sharp focus. Yesterday that At Issue panel mentioned how Baird had been ducking questions in Parliament about how the Tory program would be different and what the estimated costs to the consumer would be.

I really don't give a f*ck about the Tory program. I'm dealing with the Liberal program and specifically the flaws in it. I'm not a conservative, I am not defending their policy.

The fact that, whenever these flaws are demonstrated to you, you run away and respond with the "Tories are bad" argument does nothing to actually answer those flaws. Rather pathetic that that seems to be your response to everything.

Sadly, I am going away and will not be able to see you once again respond with irrelevancies and more "Blame the Tory" for the next few weeks.

jdobbin · June 27, 2008

I also notice its not going to cause Liberals to either explain or recognize the flaws in their 'plans'.

Seems to me that Dion will be talking about this policy all summer including areas that might have some flaws. Or did you not read that?

Talking about sellers here is irrelevant... it is the consumers that have the responsibility for reducing their energy usage.

And I'm talking about seller (ie: the producers) reducing their emissions during production.

Just where exactly do you think that CO2 comes from? Do you think companies create CO2 magically, out of nowhere?
CO2 is produced when companies produce and use energy based on fossil fuels. Even if there's no tax specifically on CO2, there are still costs associated with the consumption of energy. You reduce the use of gas/hydro/etc. because it reduces your costs; the CO2 reductions are an added bonus. But those reductions were going to happen anyways. We've seen it happen in industry over the past few years.

So, specific taxes on Carbon emissions are irrelevant. Companies will reduce their energy usage anyways, and as a result emissions will decrease.

And Royal Dutch Shell concluded that for emissions to be reduced, a price on carbon was necessary.

Really, do you think companies are generating CO2 from magic beans or something?
Sequestration is, as far as I know, only in the early pilot stages. In addition, it actually increases energy requirements, and may actually cause increases in other pollutants. (See: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/src...cs_chapter3.pdf page 144, lines on NOx and SOx.) Perhaps the technology may improve in the future, but expecting companies to use technology that isn't yet available is rather, shall we say, optimistic.

And yet that is the policy that is being promoted. Probably because it will take years to do and the hope is that the government will help fund it all.

Yup... emissions continue to rise... fueled mostly by the transportation sector (in particular SUVs). Yet the Liberal plan would not actually do anything to change those dynamics.

I disagree.

No, its about illustrating the significant flaws with the Liberal program, and how its pretty much useless, and how they refuse to take a stand that would actually do the most good.

Once again I disagree.

Actually, no... they've taken a position which is actually easy to sell... tinker with the tax system, but avoid doing anything really diffucult... makes you look like you want to help, but avoid any of the hard decisions or political backlash.

Not difficult? I think that has to be an understatement. It will not be an easy policy to sell at all. Harper calls it crazy without defining why his own program is superior.

I really don't give a f*ck about the Tory program. I'm dealing with the Liberal program and specifically the flaws in it. I'm not a conservative, I am not defending their policy.
The fact that, whenever these flaws are demonstrated to you, you run away and respond with the "Tories are bad" argument does nothing to actually answer those flaws. Rather pathetic that that seems to be your response to everything.

Sadly, I am going away and will not be able to see you once again respond with irrelevancies and more "Blame the Tory" for the next few weeks.

I'm sorry you seem to get really upset and personalize.

I disagree with what you say and that appears to make you angry.

madmax · June 27, 2008

........Dion's plan?

Tax Shifting.

It is a SCAM.

This is political opportunism at its worst. There is no other reason why Dion would make such a change of direction.

This is a regressive money grabbing government pick pocketing scheme designed under the guise of environmental benefits.

Please don't lead me to believe that Dion found salvation.

Provincial Governments are pitching these tax grabbing initiatives. Monkey See, Monkey Do.

I also read about how this revenue neutral proposal is going to provide all sorts of Social Services.

It ain't possible.

Either you aren't giving the Wealthy a Large Tax Break or you are?

Either you are generating more Income for Social Services or you are Revenue NEUTRAL, in which case tax income will be the same.

So many wholes, you can pretty much say anything you want in order to get votes.

1) Rich Get Tax Breaks

2) Poor Get Tax Refunds

3) Social Services Increased

4) Revenue Neutral

5) Good For the Environment.

6) Make the pollutor pay.

These are SLOGANS!

This is politics and the Liberals want back in.

I don't believe Federal Liberals to follow through on anything anyways. The Little Red Book was campaigned on for 13 years and not one piece of it made legislation.

Then those wonderful campaigns against Free Trade And the GST.

So why would anyone be surprised that the LPC are creating a Little Green Book that they are going to campaign on for the next 13 years if they get elected?

I will repeat for the 3rd and final time (today)

Tax Shifting.

It is a SCAM.

This is political opportunism at its worst. There is no other reason why Dion would make such a change of direction.

This is a regressive money grabbing government pick pocketing scheme designed under the guise of environmental benefits.

Please don't lead me to believe that Dion found salvation

jdobbin · June 27, 2008

This is political opportunism at its worst. There is no other reason why Dion would make such a change of direction.
This is a regressive money grabbing government pick pocketing scheme designed under the guise of environmental benefits.

Please don't lead me to believe that Dion found salvation

Well, it is political opportunism. I disagree that it is a scam.

Perhaps the NDP will be able to show how their plan is superior. I'm all ears but I want to hear how costs are passed on in detail.

Wilber · June 27, 2008

It is one reason why the gas tax doesn't need to go up. For every 10 cents a litre that gas rises, the government takes in an additional $100 million.
The Tories promised to end the excise tax in 2005. That promise went up in fumes.

The government makes an additional $100 million because of the GST which incidentally is charged on all the other fuel taxes including any carbon tax. A tax on taxes. All other fuel taxes are flat rates and have nothing to do with the pre tax price.

jdobbin · June 27, 2008

The government makes an additional $100 million because of the GST which incidentally is charged on all the other fuel taxes including any carbon tax. A tax on taxes. All other fuel taxes are flat rates and have nothing to do with the pre tax price.

However, the Tories have tried to sell the GST lowering as being a substitute for not removing the excise tax which they promised. Even basic math skills would show that this would have been a more significant cut than 2% of GST.