Are the Liberals damaging Green party chances...?

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

The pragmatic choice would be to defer until the alarmists can provide factual evidence for their claims.

Just like in smoking? Some are still doubting the harmful effects. Ask Steve Milloy.

Edited July 25, 2008 by jdobbin

segnosaur · July 25, 2008

Nuclear is the only option available but regulatory hurdles means that it cannot be deployed at the pace required. Wind and solar are completely uneconomical without massive subsidies and that is not likley to change any time soon.

Funny, McCain and T. Boone Pickens disagree.

Before you go praising T. Boone Pickens as an expert, keep in mind that his wind farms do enjoy government subsidies.

As for McCain, he's also a big fan of nuclear power, and plans to build up to 100 nuclear plants in the coming years, starting with 45 to be finished in about 20 years.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/nucl...&dist=msr_4

Riverwind · July 25, 2008

There were several companies that were opposed at the Montreal. Union Carbide, Dow Chemical and even General Motors expressed strong opposition.

The politics changed over time. By the mid 90s alternatives existed and the companies dropped their opposition. The key factor was the availability of alternatives. Until then the companies correctly pointed out that banning CFCs would be a disaster.

Funny, McCain and T. Boone Pickens disagree.

McCain, like most opportunist politicians, don't have a clue what is economical and what is not. Pickens is another sort of opportunist who is looking make money from government subsidised for wind projects. He would not be wasting his time if he was forced to funded the wind projects without subsidies. In fact, he is on the record saying he would never allow windmills on his own property because they look ugly.

There is that insulting tone we have come to expect from the right wing again. Will you give it a rest?

A silly comment for who insists on attaching labels to anyone who disagrees with his point of view. It also does not change the fact that there is no experimental evidence that demonstrates that CO2 is the risk that alarmists claim. It is nothing but a hypothesis that is supported by the scientific community because no one has come up with a better hypothesis.

If it is the pragmatic choice, why not embrace it?

It is only pragmatic if one assumes that the alarmists will succeed in getting anti-CO legislation passed. It also may be a delaying tactic in US politics because the US public dislikes taxes. Edited July 25, 2008 by Riverwind

segnosaur · July 25, 2008

We have seen marginal drops in both countries while at the same time there has been regulatory changes and legislation introduced in a number of states and provinces to decrease emissions.

And we have also seen large increases in GDP and population in that time.

Like I said before, you are claiming that this green plan will somehow prevent emissions, more than the effects of naturally higher gas prices. Still looking for evidence from you that that would actually happen.

There are alternatives and where there are none, the Liberals among others, have said a cap and trade program will be effective.

I'm not about to get into cap and trade right now. (I'm not necessarily in favour of it, regardless of who proposes it.)

And what exactly are those alternatives?

You've already criticized ethanol to cut transportation. Wind power? Solar? Both currently depend on large subsidies. Hydro? Not only are pretty much all resources in use already, it causes its own environmental problems. About the only option is nuclear, and since the development of nuclear plants is pretty much out of the hands of your average company, its up to the provincial utilities.

Seems to me that I've said, investment in green alternatives would create jobs, not destroy the economy.

If the cost of using a 'green alternative' drives up prices, it will make your company less competitive.

Well, you'll have to excuse me, but I'm more likely to believe multiple experts from a wide variety of reputable sources rather than one anonymous poster who doesn't even seem to understand basic economics.

Ah, the insulting right wing tone again.

I'm one of the few people who isn't anonymous here. Perhaps you would like to come out from the shadows yourself.

Ah ok, so maybe I shouldn't have called you anonymous. (I just never really cared about your real identity.) But the point is, you're still only one person, giving nothing but a personal anecdote. The same type of 'evidence' provided by faith healers and snake oil salesmen. I think I'll stick to studies from people who A: have looked at a large number of vehicles, and B: have actually done more in depth study into the issue.

Just like your anecdote about how you are going to get whacked by the carbon tax?

I gave you all the information you need to verify my study. I gave my approximate income. I gave my province of residence. I gave details about how I heat my home. Everything you need to verify my figures.

Even if you doubt my own personal details (heck, I could actually be Steven Harper posting here...), none of the values I gave were unusual. Even if you don't thing I personally would be negatively affected by the carbon tax, there's enough information there to show that there will be some people affected by the tax.

I haven't done much different in terms of driving and the cars are both well maintained.

How do you define 'much different'? Pretty vague term. Remember, the difference between the numbers I quoted and the numbers you gave were withing 1-2%. Do you not think its possible that you might have driven just a LITTLE differently?

And how do you know exactly what your MPG is? Do you have a gas usage guage on your car? You just basing that on the number of times you have to fill up in a week? Do you actually count the number of KM traveled and the number of litres consumed?

Heck, even if you're right and you have seen your mileage go down by 5-6%, you'd still save money.

It is still money I'd rather not spend for a program...

what do yo mean 'spend for a program'? I've shown that, in pretty much every scenario, you'd actually end up saving money in the end through decreased gas prices (Even if corn isn't the best way to manufacture ethanol).

Secondly, nice to see you're so well off that a 'couple of hundred bucks' is nothing to you, but it does mean something to me. I'm already doing my best to provide for myself. That 'couple of hundred bucks' would have been my groceries for most of the month. Its the cost to go visit my elderly parents, twice. Why do you hate my parents?

Ah, nice. Glad to see the tone is still there.

If a couple of hundred bucks means a lot, you should hate the Tories for how they changes the income trust. Cost a lot of people a whole lot more than a couple of hundred bucks.

Whether or not the changes to the income trust was wrong is a totally different issue.

If I have a finger chopped off, do I not have a right to complain, even if there are people out there who have had an entire hand chopped off? While one case is obviously worse than the other, does not mean that both situations are ones that we should strive for.

Except, as I demonstrated in the other thread, the Liberal tax cuts would not likely be enough (at least in my case) to offset the cost of new appliances that would be more efficient than my existing ones.

Since we are doubting anonymous posters, I don't know what we know anything of your case.

As I've said before... I've given all the details that you would need to verify at least the numbers in my case. Even if you don't believe that its an accurate representation of myself, the situation I gave (income, province of residence, home heating method), etc. are certainly not unusual. So at least you can say that someone matching those characteristics would be negatively affected.

I believe alternatives are there. I'd go so far as to say the government of Ontario would probably do well to build thermal heating for homes to curb its energy needs and reduce emissions.

What type of thermal heating are you referring to? Geothermal? Passive solar?

Geothermal costs approximately $15-30k. Are you in favor of subsidies for that?

http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/index.cfm?fuse...eothermal#intro

You know, with the possible liberal tax cut of someone in my income level of around $300, it would take me around 50 years to save up enough to actually pay for such a system.

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

The politics changed over time. By the mid 90s alternatives existed and the companies dropped their opposition. The key factor was the availability of alternatives. Until then the companies correctly pointed out that banning CFCs would be a disaster.

Those predictions will being made right up till the Montreal Protocol.

McCain, like most opportunist politicians, don't have a clue what is economical and what is not. Pickens is another sort of opportunist who is looking make money from government subsidised for wind projects. He would not be wasting his time if he was forced to funded the wind projects without subsidies. In fact, he is on the record saying he would never allow windmills on his own property because they look ugly.

Pickens said he would do this with subsidies?

All I've heard is that he needs help with transmission rights of way. Most of the investment would come from private funds.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/...21/daily35.html

"I believe this plan provides a significant bridge to the future that gives us time to develop the next generation of alternative fuels, including electric vehicles," Pickens says. "It results in revitalizing much of rural America with more than $1 trillion in private investment within 10 years instead of enriching other nations at our expense. It can all be accomplished with private investment but needs government support by clearing the way for action, which means help on providing the transmission rights of way, the appropriate renewals of the renewable energy tax credits, among other things."

As far as McCain goes, he doesn't support ethanol but does support moving to nuclear. There hasn't been a plant built in 30 years in the U.S.

A silly comment for who insists on attaching labels to anyone who disagrees with his point of view. It also does not change the fact that there is no experimental evidence that demonstrates that CO2 is the risk that alarmists claim. It is nothing but a hypothesis that is supported by the scientific community because no one has come up with a better hypothesis.

You keep tossing out insults to anyone who disagrees with you. I just wish you'd give it a rest before you end up getting banned like so many others who got carried away.

It is the latest approach that says all science is theoretical and therefore unreliable. We've seen the right wing use that with Darwin so they could teach Intelligent Design. The courts wouldn't hear of it though since is ran straight into the constitutional ban on religion in schools.

It is only pragmatic if one assumes that the alarmists will succeed in getting anti-CO legislation passed. It also may be a delaying tactic in US politics because the US public dislikes taxes.

Since the U.S. is already engaging in all sorts of approaches to global warming including a carbon tax at some state and local levels, it is the federal government that is running behind the pack.

Riverwind · July 25, 2008

It is the latest approach that says all science is theoretical and therefore unreliable.

The problem is it is theoretical and therefore an unsuitable basis for justifying major policy changes. Energy is a not an academic discussion like evolution because the livelihood of billions of people is a stake and we cannot afford to make a mistake. For that reason any policy changes must be pursued with caution and any radical changes which would become impossible to reverse later must be categorically rejected. A carbon tax is a policy change like income tax and the GST which will be permanent once it is put in place even if planet starts to cool again. For that reason, it is unacceptable. Edited July 25, 2008 by Riverwind

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

And we have also seen large increases in GDP and population in that time.
Like I said before, you are claiming that this green plan will somehow prevent emissions, more than the effects of naturally higher gas prices. Still looking for evidence from you that that would actually happen.

The gas price as we have seen in the last week also fluctuates downwards. The carbon tax remains a fixed cost that encourages seeking non-carbon alternatives or even greater energy efficiencies.

I'm not about to get into cap and trade right now. (I'm not necessarily in favour of it, regardless of who proposes it.)

It is already happening both at the government and private level. However, it doesn't cover as much of carbon production as a carbon tax does at the production and consumption level. All by itself, it can be a shell game of complications. With a carbon tax, it becomes clearer who needs to trade and for what.

You've already criticized ethanol to cut transportation. Wind power? Solar? Both currently depend on large subsidies. Hydro? Not only are pretty much all resources in use already, it causes its own environmental problems. About the only option is nuclear, and since the development of nuclear plants is pretty much out of the hands of your average company, its up to the provincial utilities.

Nuclear can be done by private companies. Canada's problem is that government would like provinces to use AECL. They may be able to do the job but the need is now.

There is plenty of hydro in Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland if the feds help with east-west transmission. One could say that right now, Ontario would not be anywhere near the problem it is in right now if Conawapa had not been cancelled.

If the cost of using a 'green alternative' drives up prices, it will make your company less competitive.

Companies were already seeking to re-locate with unreliable electrical power in Alberta two years ago. Likewise, Ontario was juggling power needs for its own growing population. For companies looking to invest, it represented an uncompetitive atmosphere and still does.

Even without a carbon tax, the federal government can be a help to east-west trade by helping to build high power transmission lines. It isn't so different as the incredible help they have given to pipelines to the south for oil.

Ah ok, so maybe I shouldn't have called you anonymous. (I just never really cared about your real identity.) But the point is, you're still only one person, giving nothing but a personal anecdote. The same type of 'evidence' provided by faith healers and snake oil salesmen. I think I'll stick to studies from people who A: have looked at a large number of vehicles, and B: have actually done more in depth study into the issue.

I'd love to hear more independent Canadian studies on mileage done. I am still calculating it for the year but it has been consistently at the 5% level so far. It would interesting to know if there is a difference in corn versus grain which I am wondering if it accounts for the difference. We use grain here.

I gave you all the information you need to verify my study. I gave my approximate income. I gave my province of residence. I gave details about how I heat my home. Everything you need to verify my figures.
Even if you doubt my own personal details (heck, I could actually be Steven Harper posting here...), none of the values I gave were unusual. Even if you don't thing I personally would be negatively affected by the carbon tax, there's enough information there to show that there will be some people affected by the tax.

It is still anecdotal, as you say. I'd like to see those Canadian studies done. It seems only fair that someone actually research the outcome in terms of emissions, mileage and food costs.

Harper's reaction so far was to dismiss any information about food price increases and ethanol but gave no breakdown in what was causing the increases.

How do you define 'much different'? Pretty vague term. Remember, the difference between the numbers I quoted and the numbers you gave were withing 1-2%. Do you not think its possible that you might have driven just a LITTLE differently?
And how do you know exactly what your MPG is? Do you have a gas usage guage on your car? You just basing that on the number of times you have to fill up in a week? Do you actually count the number of KM traveled and the number of litres consumed?

As soon as the change happened, I calculated kms travelled, litres consumed and cost of the gas purchased. I haven't done anything different in terms of driving. I've wondered aloud if the difference is between grain and corn but I've never had corn ethanol so I have no way of knowing.

It is still money I'd rather not spend for a program...
what do yo mean 'spend for a program'? I've shown that, in pretty much every scenario, you'd actually end up saving money in the end through decreased gas prices (Even if corn isn't the best way to manufacture ethanol).

Since the taxpayer also helps pay for the ethanol plant, the costs just seem to go up for the taxpayer/consumer.

As I've said before... I've given all the details that you would need to verify at least the numbers in my case. Even if you don't believe that its an accurate representation of myself, the situation I gave (income, province of residence, home heating method), etc. are certainly not unusual. So at least you can say that someone matching those characteristics would be negatively affected.

I'd have to see far more evidence of those characteristics to see if that is the true outcome.

What type of thermal heating are you referring to? Geothermal? Passive solar?
Geothermal costs approximately $15-30k. Are you in favor of subsidies for that?

If it costs $500 million for a new plant, pipelines and equipment to supply a community of 50,000 people with heat, I think it is worth looking into geothermal and solar as an alternative.

Save the $500 million it would take to build a plant and create zero emissions homes.

You know, with the possible liberal tax cut of someone in my income level of around $300, it would take me around 50 years to save up enough to actually pay for such a system.

It isn't worth doing this if the home has a newer air conditioning and heating unit for most people.

I see this as real alternative for new subdivisions and new industrial parks instead of building a new power plant.

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

The problem is it is theoretical and therefore an unsuitable basis for justifying major policy changes. Energy is a not an academic discussion like evolution because the livelihood of billions of people is a stake and we cannot afford to make a mistake. For that reason any policy changes must be pursued with caution and any radical changes which would become impossible to reverse later must be categorically rejected. A carbon tax is a policy change like income tax and the GST which will be permanent once it is put in place even if planet starts to cool again. For that reason, it is unacceptable.

This is the same argument we heard on smoking. We still hear it is not harmful from some.

Riverwind · July 25, 2008

This is the same argument we heard on smoking. We still hear it is not harmful from some.

Your strawman tactics are quite silly and simply demostrate that you cannot refute the basic argument: that there is no experimental evidence that demonstrates that the climate models provide accurate predictions of the effects of CO2. In fact, the standards of evidence used by climate scientists to justify their assertions are so low that they would result in legal charges and lawsuits if they were using the same quality of science to sell medical products. Edited July 25, 2008 by Riverwind

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

Your strawman tactics are quite silly and simply demostrate that you cannot refute the basic argument: that there is no experimental evidence that demonstrates that the climate models provide accurate predictions of the effects of CO2. In fact, the standards of evidence used by climate scientists to justify their assertions are so low that they would result in legal charges and lawsuits if they were using the same quality of science to sell medical products.

I have more confidence in the scientists that have said global warming is a problem than the phony lists of MASH characters we have seen from the right.

Riverwind · July 25, 2008

I have more confidence in the scientists that have said global warming is a problem

Blind faith may work for you but it does not for me. I have waded through a lot of opinion looking for the actual scientific evidence that the claims are based on. I have found nothing conclusive and found that the entire CO2 hysteria rests entirely on these climate models. I have looked for evidence that the climate models have successfully predicted climate changes and have also found nothing conclusive. In fact, the recent weather trends strongly suggest that the models have over predicted the effect of CO2. For me the evidence is clear: we don't have any idea whether CO2 will be a problem or not. All we know is that it could be a problem. When faced with such uncertainty we must proceed with caution. This does not mean we do nothing but it does mean that we must hedge our bets and only abopt policy choices that would make sense even if CO2 turns out to be a non-issue. Edited July 25, 2008 by Riverwind

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

Blind faith may work for you but it does not for me. I have waded through a lot of opinion looking for the actual scientific evidence that the claims are based on. I have found nothing conclusive and found that the entire CO2 hysteria rests entirely on these climate models. I have looked for evidence that the climate models have successfully predicted climate changes and have also found nothing conclusive.

I don't have blind faith it. I have confidence that what I have heard so far indicates it is a problem.

In any event, why convince me? Convince your leader Harper that it is not a problem.

Bryan · July 25, 2008

I have more confidence in the scientists that have said global warming is a problem

If they are right, why do they get caught lying so often? If you have the truth, why tell huge fibs to exaggerate your position?

Riverwind · July 25, 2008

In any event, why convince me? Convince your leader Harper that it is not a problem.

I realize you are a liberal fan boy and I can understand where you are coming from because I used to be one. Now I look at each issue independently and don't really care what the party positions are nor do I feel the need to defend any party's position. In any case, the problem is not the politicians but the legions of activists and rent seekers which have cajoled a large number of Canadians in believing that there needs to be strong laws to make other people pay for the cost of the reducing CO2. Edited July 25, 2008 by Riverwind

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

I realize you are a liberal fan boy and I can understand where you are coming from because I used to one. Now I look at each issue independently and don't really care what party positions are nor do I feel the need to defend any party's position. In any case, the problem is not the politicians but the legions of activists and rent seekers which have cajoled a large number of Canadians in believing that be need strong laws to make other people pay for the cost of the reducing CO2.

You really can't prevent yourself from personalizing and insulting, can you? Why do you do it? Do you really want to end up getting banned like so many others before you?

I think you are letting Harper off the hook as so many on the right are wont to on this issue.

Riverwind · July 25, 2008

You really can't prevent yourself from personalizing and insulting, can you? Why do you do it?

Excuse me? You are the one who inserting irrelevent comments like: "Convince your leader Harper that it is not a problem." or "letting Harper off the hook as so many on the right " as if it is some sort of hockey match. Try following your own advice. We are talking about climate change and the appropriate policy response. From my perspective the current positions of the parties have nothing to do with the question of what we should be doing. Edited July 26, 2008 by Riverwind

jdobbin · July 26, 2008

Excuse me? You are the one who inserting irrelevent comments like: "Convince your leader Harper that it is not a problem." or "letting Harper off the hook as so many on the right " as if it is some sort of hockey match. Try following your own advice. We are talking about climate change and the appropriate policy response. From my perspective the current positions of the parties have nothing to do with the question of what we should be doing.

I asked a legitimate question without resorting to personally insulting you. It may be irrelevant to you but not to others. The right wing seems to give Harper a free ride on things like ethanol or the fact that he says he believes in the science of climate change. Do you disagree? You seems to have no problem attacking Dion but he is not in government now and Harper is and he has been moving on the premise that global warming is real.

You can't seem to responding without insulting which usually tells me that somehow is headed for trouble with the rules of the board at some point.

Edited July 26, 2008 by jdobbin

jdobbin · July 26, 2008

If they are right, why do they get caught lying so often? If you have the truth, why tell huge fibs to exaggerate your position?

I ask that question of the global warming deniers all the time who compile lists with TV characters on them as scientific consensus against global warming.

jdobbin · July 26, 2008

Before you go praising T. Boone Pickens as an expert, keep in mind that his wind farms do enjoy government subsidies.
As for McCain, he's also a big fan of nuclear power, and plans to build up to 100 nuclear plants in the coming years, starting with 45 to be finished in about 20 years.

I didn't go praising either. I just said they disagree with the argument.

Riverwind · July 26, 2008

The right wing seems to give Harper a free ride on things like ethanol or the fact that he says he believes in the science of climate change. Do you disagree?

Define believe. I agree that CO2 will cause the planet to warm. I only dispute how much and whether mitigation is the most appropriate strategy for dealing with any warming that may occur. I would say that means I 'believe in the science'. However, when you use that question you are really asking if Harper believes that the preferred policy options of the most vocal activists are the best way to deal with climate change. Obviously, he does not share those views.

You seems to have no problem attacking Dion but he is not in government now and Harper is and he has been moving on the premise that global warming is real.

I attack the policy not Dion himself. So far Harper has not proposed any irreversible policy changes so I don't I worry that much about it. I do worry that we might end up stuck with a carbon tax that we can't get rid of even if the earth starts sliding into a new ice age. Edited July 26, 2008 by Riverwind

jdobbin · July 26, 2008

Define believe.

One where Harper said it requires immediate action.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

I have not received an invitation from the United Nations Secretary-General," Mr. Harper told the Commons. "However, if we did, we would accept . . . we all realize this is a serious environmental problem that needs immediate action."

I agree that CO2 will cause the planet to warm. I only dispute how much and whether mitigation is the most appropriate strategy for dealing with any warming that may occur. I would say that means I 'believe in the science'. However, when you use that question you are really asking if Harper believes that the preferred policy options of the most vocal activists are the best way to deal with climate change. Obviously, he does not share those views.

From what we are led to believe, Harper favours had caps based on intensity.

According to Baird today, the plan is still to go after the big companies in Canada.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080725/...aird_carbon_tax

"We also have to break the back of growing emissions and that really makes the job twice as difficult," Baird said.
"We're starting with the big polluters because we believe the best place to start is where the big emissions are."

The minister said some 700 industrial and power companies account for 50 per cent of emissions in Canada.

I attack the policy not Dion himself. So far Harper has not proposed any irreversible policy changes so I don't I worry that much about it. I do worry that we might end up stuck with a carbon tax that we can't get rid of even if the earth starts sliding into a new ice age.

And no worries about the Harper plan to go after big polluters? Baird never indicates how much that is going to cost but that is the policy they are pursuing. You think that is reversible?

Edited July 26, 2008 by jdobbin

Riverwind · July 26, 2008

And no worries about the Harper plan to go after big polluters? Baird never indicates how much that is going to cost but that is the policy they are pursuing. You think that is reversible?

Absolutely. The targets are industry specific which means the government has the power to make sure they are achievable. If the government turns out to be wrong for some industry then it can simply loosen the targets for that industry without affecting the other parts of the plan. If the skeptics are vindicated by a planet that refuses to warm then the regulations can be quietly dropped without any effect on the government treasury. None of those things are true for a carbon tax. Once it is in place and funded by income tax reductions there will be no way to get rid of it. It is worth remembering that income tax was a 'temporary tax' intended to fund WWI.

As I said before, I am not against doing something about CO2 and anything we do will involve some costs to economy but we need to hedge our bets and be prepared for the possibility the the climate scientists and their wonderful computer models turn out to be wrong.

Edited July 26, 2008 by Riverwind

jdobbin · July 26, 2008

Absolutely. The targets are industry specific which means the government has the power to make sure they are achievable. If the government turns out to be wrong for some industry then it can simply loosen the targets for that industry without affecting the other parts of the plan. If the skeptics are vindicated by a planet that refuses to warm then the regulations can be quietly dropped without any effect on the government treasury. None of those things are true for a carbon tax. Once it is in place and funded by income tax reductions there will be no way to get rid of it. It is worth remembering that income tax was a 'temporary tax' intended to fund WWI.

I'm sorry if that sounds like phony argument.

Taxes can go up and down as well. I don't buy the argument that it is there for good if it is determined that carbon is not a problem.

The Tory program will have costs passed on to the consumers. Some on the right don't account for how much that cost will be but it could be substantial. Why no hue an cry in regard to that, especially for those in denial.

As I said before, I am not against doing something about CO2 and anything we do will involve some costs to economy but we need to hedge our bets and be prepared for the possibility the the climate scientists and their wonderful computer models turn out to be wrong.

Economists have said that a carbon tax is the simplest and most reliable way of pricing carbon.

Baird dismisses that. I do think regulation plays a part as well but the cost passed on by producers is not being addressed. The fact that those who deny seem to think this is pragmatic sounds like a free ride for Tory policy. Where's the scrutiny?

Edited July 26, 2008 by jdobbin

Riverwind · July 26, 2008

Taxes can go up and down as well. I don't buy the argument that it is there for good if it is determined that carbon is not a problem.

The carbon tax is billed as revenue neutral which means it simply transfers money from group of people to another. Reversing the tax would require that the money transfer be reversed which would be opposed by the people who benefited from the carbon tax in the first place. This would make it politically impossible to remove the tax once it is in place. As I mentioned before, income tax was introduced as a 'temporary' measure in WW1. Given that history you cannot possibly argue that the carbon tax would be removed if the science is shown to have grossly exaggerated the problem.

Economists have said that a carbon tax is the simplest and most reliable way of pricing carbon.

Only if one agrees that pricing carbon is a worthwhile policy objective at this time. As I said before, there is no experimental evidence that demonstrates that the climate models have any skill at predicting the future which means it is too early to discuss permanent changes to the taxation system. I am sure those same economists would agree that artificially increasing energy costs is extremely bad policy if it turns out that carbon is not a serious concern.

Baird dismisses that. I do think regulation plays a part as well but the cost passed on by producers is not being addressed.

A carbon tax will actually impose higher costs on producers because they have to pay the carbon tax on top of costs of reducing emissions. These costs will be passed on the consumers. Edited July 26, 2008 by Riverwind

jdobbin · July 26, 2008

The carbon tax is billed as revenue neutral which means it simply transfers money from group of people to another. Reversing the tax would require that the money transfer be reversed which would be opposed by the people who benefited from the carbon tax in the first place. This would make it politically impossible to remove the tax once it is in place. As I mentioned before, income tax was introduced as a 'temporary' measure in WW1. Given that history you cannot possibly argue that the carbon tax would be removed if the science is shown to have grossly exaggerated the problem.

I still call it a bogus argument about it being impossible to change.

Only if one agrees that pricing carbon is a worthwhile policy objective at this time. As I said before, there is no experimental evidence that demonstrates that the climate models have any skill at predicting the future which means it is too early to discuss permanent changes to the taxation system. I am sure those same economists would agree that artificially increasing energy costs is extremely bad policy if it turns out that carbon is not a serious concern.

And yet the Tory policy makes sense? Please. This is what I mean about the right wing pussy footing about the direction Harper wants to go in regards to going after big polluters.

A carbon tax will actually impose higher costs on producers because they have to pay the carbon tax on top of costs of reducing emissions. These costs will be passed on the consumers.

That is not what the panel at the National Post believed. It would be nice if Baird was up front about what the costs will be if they go after polluters.