NDP's Layton promises investments

[bk59]

What the hell are you talking about, it's my tax money, it is not a gift and it is not free. You remind me of a certain other ideology which believed everything belonged to the state and only it should decide what people should or should not have.

You must be getting desperate indeed if you're resorting to allusions of communism. What I'm talking about is the disincentive you keep referring to. Except that I am showing numbers of what that disincentive would actually look like. And most people are smart enough to realize that saving $372 per year is better than losing $372 per year, even if in the past they could have saved $449 per year. But please, continue to focus on it.

Damn right, I put my money where my mouth is.

Yes, you're the only martyr in Canada. So aside from your master plan of saying "people should buy diesel cars" how are you suggesting we reduce emissions?

How do you know, we are only talking about motor vehicles here.

No we're not actually. We're talking about an emissions reduction scheme. More specifically, a carbon tax. Even if we are just talking about transportation, there are definitely people doing more than just buying a diesel car.

[bk59]

Let's start with country music. Nail on a sky-high tax and maybe we can reduce consumption!

I will support whatever tax you would like to put on country music.

When do folks like me get to tax folks like YOU for something?

It's not like you would be the only person paying a carbon tax. I would pay it to. But that goes more towards your phrasing and not your underlying point. As to that, the answer is: all the time. No one (or at least very, very few people) agrees 100% with any sitting government. Do you really think I want my tax dollars supporting an ineffective (or nonexistent) emissions reduction plan? Or subsidies to oil companies? Do you think I wanted my income tax to go up when the Conservative government first came to power?

This is democracy. For better or worse we all pay for something we would rather not pay for with our tax dollars.

Your entire argument is based on the premise that climate change is not just real but within man's control.

That's because it is within our control. More on that below. But even if it wasn't, what is the solution then? Climate change will have huge impacts for our society. So what will we do about it? Or are you saying that the climate isn't changing?

Not everyone agrees with your premise. To you it may be gospel but to others its just your personal opinion. You seem to feel that taxing folks like me will save us from ourselves. We see it as you are hurting us for nothing but a mistaken premise.

Quite frankly, the ship has sailed on that position. Scientists all over the world agree that the climate is changing. They also agree that these changes are occurring because of human actions. (So yes, if we made the problem then the solution is within our control.) Scientific agreement is not 100%. So you will be able to find those who disagree. But science on this scale is rarely, if ever, 100%. What is telling is that you have huge groups of experts in the field all agreeing that human action is causing climate change and they are saying that with about 90% certainty. In scientific terms, that is pretty darn certain. As an analogy, you can have a huge group of scientists saying that the value of gravity on Earth is X. And you can have a small minority saying that it is Y. Which value would you go with?

So some may consider the idea that humans are changing the world's climate as a personal belief, but that does not change the fact that this belief is backed up by science. Science that is generally accepted by the global scientific community. It is kind of hard to dismiss that.

What's your point? Why would anyone who disagreed with the premise want to pay for nothing of value?

Are you suggesting people MUST agree with you?

No, you don't have to agree. Feel free to vote against any plan by any party regarding emissions reductions. After all, I don't agree with some of the things the current government is doing, but I still pay my taxes. As I did with the government before this one.

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is this: are you willing to risk the costs associated with ignoring climate change on the assumption that the overwhelming evidence that humans are causing climate change is somehow mistaken?

[Wilber]

Except that I am showing numbers of what that disincentive would actually look like. And most people are smart enough to realize that saving $372 per year is better than losing $372 per year, even if in the past they could have saved $449 per year. But please, continue to focus on it.

Disincentive to do what, be more efficient? Most people are smart enough to realize that saving $449 per year is better than saving $372 per year.

Yes, you're the only martyr in Canada. So aside from your master plan of saying "people should buy diesel cars" how are you suggesting we reduce emissions?

Do you own a diesel? Do you have any intention of owning one? If not I guess you are free to comfortably indulge in your theories because it will never effect you.

Because diesels emit 30% less CO2 you acknowledged that if everyone switched to diesel today, passenger vehicle emissions would be reduced by 30% but you say that is not enough. Yet you maintain that by doing nothing other than adding a tax to diesel you will reduce emissions by, how much was it exactly? That's your master plan?

No we're not actually. We're talking about an emissions reduction scheme. More specifically, a carbon tax. Even if we are just talking about transportation, there are definitely people doing more than just buying a diesel car.

We have been talking about the taxation of motor fuels regarding the reduction of emissions. You have no GD idea what I may or may not be spending to reduce my own emissions in total.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Wilber

[Wild Bill]

Or are you saying that the climate isn't changing?

Quite frankly, the ship has sailed on that position. Scientists all over the world agree that the climate is changing. They also agree that these changes are occurring because of human actions. (So yes, if we made the problem then the solution is within our control.) Scientific agreement is not 100%. So you will be able to find those who disagree. But science on this scale is rarely, if ever, 100%. What is telling is that you have huge groups of experts in the field all agreeing that human action is causing climate change and they are saying that with about 90% certainty. In scientific terms, that is pretty darn certain. As an analogy, you can have a huge group of scientists saying that the value of gravity on Earth is X. And you can have a small minority saying that it is Y. Which value would you go with?

So some may consider the idea that humans are changing the world's climate as a personal belief, but that does not change the fact that this belief is backed up by science. Science that is generally accepted by the global scientific community. It is kind of hard to dismiss that.

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is this: are you willing to risk the costs associated with ignoring climate change on the assumption that the overwhelming evidence that humans are causing climate change is somehow mistaken?

I haven't made up my mind on whether or not the climate is changing. I've only lived for 56 years, after all. The Earth is far older than that. We've only been keeping records for an eyeblink in the world's history.

As for the debate being over, sorry! That strikes me as just a debating tactic to shut up the opposition. I'm a science and tech kind of guy. When you can prove to me that the Universe gives a damn about consensus as to explanations of how it works then maybe I'll believe you. We've had consensus about the Earth being flat and the centre of the universe as well. You've got scientists that make sense to you and so have I. So what? Reality will prove out.

Am I willing to take the risk? I certainly am! Why? Precisely because I've always been a science kid! This whole climate change movement strikes me as so riddled with politics and frankly outright loopiness that I just can't lend it any credence. It always looks like the ones leading the charge are the poli-sci majors from Queens U and Ryerson, and rarely the engineers.

You might walk around a campus with a petition about climate change and get 100% of the students to sign it. However, if 92% of the signatures came from arts majors and only 8% from engineers then your "consensus" may not be all that accurate.

When even one dissenting scientist loses his grant money and his livelihood for not going along with the climate change movement then any claim of true science has been tainted, at least to me.

[bk59]

Disincentive to do what, be more efficient? Most people are smart enough to realize that saving $449 per year is better than saving $372 per year.

You're the one who brought up the alleged disincentive to switch to diesel after a carbon tax is introduced. Most people are smart enough to realize that an incentive to switch to diesel will still be there even after a carbon tax is introduced.

Do you own a diesel?

Already answered. You would know that if you read what gets posted here.

Because diesels emit 30% less CO2 you acknowledged that if everyone switched to diesel today, passenger vehicle emissions would be reduced by 30% but you say that is not enough.

Once again your math is wrong. If everyone switched to diesel today passenger vehicle emissions would not be reduced by 30%. First, your numbers show that the drop would be closer to 25% between a gas and a diesel. Irrespective of the number, your statement would only be true if all passenger vehicles in use today were gas vehicles. They are not.

Yet you maintain that by doing nothing other than adding a tax to diesel you will reduce emissions by, how much was it exactly? That's your master plan?

Again, it is not just a tax on diesel. It is a tax on many things. And generally people will reduce their emissions by not using those fuels as much. Which is what needs to happen. It needs to happen with gas as well, but you have already conceded that no one will vote for a plan that increases the price of gas. So your "master plan" is to do nothing at all. To not even try to reduce emissions. Good plan.

At this point, some reduction is better than no reduction.

We have been talking about the taxation of motor fuels regarding the reduction of emissions. You have no GD idea what I may or may not be spending to reduce my own emissions in total.

Just like you have no "GD" idea what other people may or may not be spending to reduce their emissions in total. But that didn't stop you from making a comment did it?

Actually a number of posts have been about how the Green Shift is attempting to create a framework where all sources of carbon dioxide emissions get taxed. You disregard this of course, and only focus on diesel cars. It makes it easier to claim that no reduction in emissions will happen if you only focus on one part of the plan.

[Wilber]

You're the one who brought up the alleged disincentive to switch to diesel after a carbon tax is introduced. Most people are smart enough to realize that an incentive to switch to diesel will still be there even after a carbon tax is introduced.

You add to the cost of owning a diesel and do nothing to add to the cost of gas, then you tell people you are giving them an incentive to switch. Great psychology.

Already answered. You would know that if you read what gets posted here.

I'm not going back over 15 pages to review everything you have said, so you might refresh my memory. If not, I'll take it you don't.

Once again your math is wrong. If everyone switched to diesel today passenger vehicle emissions would not be reduced by 30%. First, your numbers show that the drop would be closer to 25% between a gas and a diesel. Irrespective of the number, your statement would only be true if all passenger vehicles in use today were gas vehicles. They are not.

OK, my master plan is to reduce vehicle emissions by 25%. Yours is to do nothing but add a tax to diesel and reduce vehicle emissions by, how much exactly? That's your master plan to reduce vehicle emissions?

It needs to happen with gas as well, but you have already conceded that no one will vote for a plan that increases the price of gas.

So you are planning on increasing the tax on gas, you just aren't going to spring it on us until after you get elected. Be honest now.

Just like you have no "GD" idea what other people may or may not be spending to reduce their emissions in total. But that didn't stop you from making a comment did it?

You were the one who said others were spending much more that me. As I said, you have no GD idea.

[bk59]

We've only been keeping records for an eyeblink in the world's history.

Except that the science is based on more than just recorded observations. We have techniques for measuring historical data.

As for the debate being over, sorry! That strikes me as just a debating tactic to shut up the opposition.

It might be a debating tactic if I had just said "Nope, you're wrong. The debate is over." But that is not what I said. I am pointing out that among the experts in the field, the debate is essentially over. Unless some major new evidence comes to light that contradicts everything else so far, then those scientists disagreeing with the idea that humans are changing the climate will remain in the minority. This is the scientific reality, not a debating tactic.

I'm a science and tech kind of guy. When you can prove to me that the Universe gives a damn about consensus as to explanations of how it works then maybe I'll believe you. We've had consensus about the Earth being flat and the centre of the universe as well. You've got scientists that make sense to you and so have I. So what? Reality will prove out.

OK, you're a "science and tech kind of guy". Then you should know that it's not about you having scientists that make sense to you and someone else having scientists that make sense to them. It's about actual data and seeing what the experts think of that data. When you have (for example) nine out of ten scientists in the field saying one thing and one scientist saying the opposite, then from a scientific point of view the nine hold a lot more weight than the one.

So it isn't about consensus. It is about acting on the best available data that we have. Remember, Newton wasn't right about gravity. But we still use his equations today because he was close enough.

Am I willing to take the risk? I certainly am! Why? Precisely because I've always been a science kid!

I'm not really sure what that means. Because a lot of "science kids" out there think that if there is a lot of proof indicating something will cause large problems, then we should do our best to mitigate that risk even if we are still not 100% certain about that something or its precise effects.

It always looks like the ones leading the charge are the poli-sci majors from Queens U and Ryerson, and rarely the engineers.

The example that you actually want to be using is York not Queens or Ryerson. (Why engineers?)

It may look that way to you. And to others. That doesn't change the fact that there is good science showing that climate change is happening and that our actions are the significant cause.

You might walk around a campus with a petition about climate change and get 100% of the students to sign it. However, if 92% of the signatures came from arts majors and only 8% from engineers then your "consensus" may not be all that accurate.

Luckily I wasn't talking about public consensus or university petitions. I was talking about consensus in the scientific community. And quite frankly, what makes you think that engineers know anything more about this than arts majors? I find it curious that you didn't include science majors anywhere in there.

When even one dissenting scientist loses his grant money and his livelihood for not going along with the climate change movement then any claim of true science has been tainted, at least to me.

Do you have examples of that? I know the opposite has certainly happened. Wasn't there a scientist "dismissed" by the Harper government for talking about global warming in a document when they first were elected? I believe he was reinstated because of public pressure.

Your position is still curious from a scientific point of view. I agree that legitimate projects should not be cancelled just because the person running it has expressed a certain viewpoint. But first, the project has to be legitimate and the view expressed must not be something that could impact the result of the project. Second, even if that political decision was made, how exactly does that affect the legitimate science done around the globe? How does one guy not getting a grant invalidate the overwhelming evidence collected and examined by a huge number of experts in the field?

[bk59]

You add to the cost of owning a diesel and do nothing to add to the cost of gas, then you tell people you are giving them an incentive to switch. Great psychology.

I did not say that. You said a carbon tax means that there is no incentive to switch to diesel. I said that even with a carbon tax there would still be an incentive to switch. I then proved that with numbers.

I'm not going back over 15 pages to review everything you have said, so you might refresh my memory. If not, I'll take it you don't.

You show me how my owning a diesel makes any difference to this "discussion" and I will re-answer your question.

OK, my master plan is to reduce vehicle emissions by 25%. Yours is to do nothing but add a tax to diesel and reduce vehicle emissions by, how much exactly? That's your master plan to reduce vehicle emissions?

Except that is not your master plan. What are you proposing that would get every person in Canada to switch to a diesel? I have heard nothing from you except "Liberals bad, Green Shift bad, carbon tax bad". That does not count as a plan, let alone a master plan.

Incidentally, repeating your inaccurate statements do not make them true.

So you are planning on increasing the tax on gas, you just aren't going to spring it on us until after you get elected. Be honest now.

Are you on crack? Who said anything about putting a tax on gas after someone was elected?

You were the one who said others were spending much more that me. As I said, you have no GD idea.

Not quite. You said you had bought a diesel and therefore were doing oh so much for the environment. I pointed out that others have done more than that. I was referring to transportation as well. You chose to simply declare that I did not know what I was talking about. I think it's safe to say that yes, I do know people who have taken greater measures with respect to transportation than simply buying a diesel vehicle.

It must be hard for you to be so superior to everyone else. Does it get hard for you to keep track of who in Canada has a GD idea and who does not?

[Wilber]

I did not say that. You said a carbon tax means that there is no incentive to switch to diesel. I said that even with a carbon tax there would still be an incentive to switch. I then proved that with numbers.

I know you didn't say that, you won't say it but that is what you are doing.

You show me how my owning a diesel makes any difference to this "discussion" and I will re-answer your question.

Don't bother, you don't need to.

Except that is not your master plan. What are you proposing that would get every person in Canada to switch to a diesel? I have heard nothing from you except "Liberals bad, Green Shift bad, carbon tax bad". That does not count as a plan, let alone a master plan.

Of course everyone switching to diesel isn't my master plan but at least it illustrates that people switching to diesel does lower emissions in comparison to what they are doing now. Do you honestly believe that doing absolutely nothing but putting a seven cent a liter tax on diesel will do anything measurable to reduce passenger vehicle emissions. Please don't tell me you believe that.

Are you on crack? Who said anything about putting a tax on gas after someone was elected?

Well you said that it needed to be on gas as well and you know that putting a small tax on diesel isn't going to do it because so few people use them. If you really are serious about reducing passenger vehicle emissions there is a snake in this wood pile somewhere.

Not quite. You said you had bought a diesel and therefore were doing oh so much for the environment. I pointed out that others have done more than that.

I said that I had spent a lot of money to buy vehicles that emit less CO2. How do you know I haven't done more than that in the rest of my life.

It must be hard for you to be so superior to everyone else. Does it get hard for you to keep track of who in Canada has a GD idea and who does not?

Hey, I'm not trying to pick someones pocket.

[madmax]

Dion has renamed the Excise Tax a Carbon Tax

POOF lower emissions.....

It's a scam. Anyone who tries to inhibit others who successfully lower emmissions by punishing them with a tax is spin doctor selling bad medicine. Nor is that person really concerned about the environment or solutions, but more interested in helping a political party that has been absent while in opposition.

The Green shift is snake oil.

Perhaps the LPC love the chaos behind the scheme. A proposal that can mean anything to anyone, as long as they sell it and as long as they receive the tax revenue.

Laytons Promise to take the excise tax and give a portion of it to the cities to invest in local transit is a practicle measure that doesn't take a magician to explain it.

Edited August 21, 2008 by madmax

[bk59]

I know you didn't say that, you won't say it but that is what you are doing.

Nope. I am not telling people that the carbon tax is giving them an incentive to switch from gas to diesel. I am saying that there is already an incentive to switch from gas to diesel and the carbon tax does not eliminate that incentive.

Don't bother, you don't need to.

Don't bother because you realized that the question was irrelevant? Or don't bother because you just assume you know the answer?

Of course everyone switching to diesel isn't my master plan but at least it illustrates that people switching to diesel does lower emissions in comparison to what they are doing now.

So switching to diesel is not your master plan. OK... so how exactly will you be accomplishing this goal then:

my master plan is to reduce vehicle emissions by 25%.

Saying that vaporizing all cars in Canada with a laser based on the moon also illustrates that people without cars will lower emissions in comparison to what people are doing now. The illustration is as pointless as your example if you don't have a feasible goal to make that emissions reducing measure happen.

So here's the question you continually refuse to address: you think that no one will vote for an increase on gas taxes. Yet, you basically refuse to accept any plan that does not increase gas taxes. So what gives?

Well you said that it needed to be on gas as well and you know that putting a small tax on diesel isn't going to do it because so few people use them. If you really are serious about reducing passenger vehicle emissions there is a snake in this wood pile somewhere.

Or this could be exactly what I said it was: a four year plan to put in place a system that begins to tax all carbon dioxide emissions. So that at the end of the fourth year, and presumably after another election, the price on all carbon dioxide emitting fuels, including gas, can be raised/lowered/maintained at the same time.

Incidentally, I did not say that "putting a small tax on diesel isn't going to do it because so few people use them."

I said that I had spent a lot of money to buy vehicles that emit less CO2. How do you know I haven't done more than that in the rest of my life.

You're like a pretzel. You say you bought a diesel. I point out that others are doing more than that. You say, "How do you know, we are only talking about motor vehicles here." When I point out that I was referring to transportation, you now switch to everything that you have done in your life? Did you want to make up your mind? Motor vehicles or entire life?

Why don't we start this again. You were acting the martyr because you bought a diesel. Well, good for you. But when it comes to personal transportation, others are doing more to reduce their emissions than simply buying a diesel. Not many mind you. But you don't get some special moral high ground because of the car you drive.

Hey, I'm not trying to pick someones pocket.

Your definition of picking pockets is pretty screwed up.

[bk59]

It's a scam.

Except that it will encourage people to reduce their usage of the covered fuels thus helping to lower emissions.

Anyone who tries to inhibit others who successfully lower emmissions by punishing them with a tax is spin doctor selling bad medicine. Nor is that person really concerned about the environment or solutions, but more interested in helping a political party that has been absent while in opposition.

At some point all carbon dioxide emitting fuels must be covered at an equal rate. For any emissions reducing scheme that must happen at some point.

As for the continual complaints about gas, it has been acknowledged here that no one will vote for any plan that increases the gas tax. So what are we left with? Do we choose a plan that will begin reducing some emissions or do we just say f*ck it, emit as you please?

A proposal that can mean anything to anyone, as long as they sell it and as long as they receive the tax revenue.

And then give it back in income tax cuts?

Laytons Promise to take the excise tax and give a portion of it to the cities to invest in local transit is a practicle measure that doesn't take a magician to explain it.

It doesn't take a magician to explain that taxing something will help lower that something's consumption. It also doesn't take a magician to explain that an increase in expenses due to the carbon tax will be offset by income tax reductions.

Aren't cities already getting a piece of the excise tax? I'm all for increased and improved public transit, but that is not an emissions reduction plan. Comparing that investment to a carbon tax is not even remotely apples to apples.

[madmax]

I'm all for increased and improved public transit, but that is not an emissions reduction plan. Comparing that investment to a carbon tax is not even remotely apples to apples.

I get it. Thanks.

Using a fuel that emits less, provides better gas milelage is not an emmissions reducing activity.

Improving Public Transit and letting cities expand their capacity so that people have better options then driving is not an emmissions reducing activity.

But, If you tax people, and let them continue to emit that is an emmissions reduction program.

If you increase the price of Diesel so that there is no advantage in using a lower emmissions fuel, so that people will buy regular fuel cars vs those thumpy noisey things made in Mexico driven by people I hate named Wilber, then that is an emmissions reduction program.

And if you give back the tax money generated, to people of wealth, then that is an emmissions reduction program. And of course, no other services will be affected by this lowering of income tax, because the monies you collected from the Green Shift will be given back to... well all sorts of programs, or income tax or child care, or health or , income tax breaks or happy time, because every dollar you collect, the emmissions will be reduced by ZERO.

These are emmission reduction programs? No This is a tax! It is not an emmissions reduction program.

I understand this magic tax. Puff the Magic Dragon lived by the sea....

[Wilber]

So switching to diesel is not your master plan. OK... so how exactly will you be accomplishing this goal then:

I'm not trying to tax you, you are trying to tax me. Tell me how you are going to do it with a seven cent a liter tax on diesel.

But how about this for a start, you put a one time tax on the purchase price of a new vehicle based on its CO2 emissions per kilometer. Something like they already do for air conditioning. Now you are actually taxing emissions instead of carbon. After the vehicle is purchased, the owners will be paying more for fuel anyway because emissions are in direct proportion to consumption. Not a perfect plan but certainly does more than yours because it actually targets emissions.

So that at the end of the fourth year, and presumably after another election, the price on all carbon dioxide emitting fuels, including gas, can be raised/lowered/maintained at the same time.

So there is no commitment not to put a tax on gasoline. You know you will have to because what you are proposing now will do nothing to reduce passenger vehicle emissions.

Saying that vaporizing all cars in Canada with a laser based on the moon also illustrates that people without cars will lower emissions in comparison to what people are doing now.

No plan is going to vaporize all the cars in Canada, the idea is to promote the use of lower emitting vehicles. Diesel is one of those, you should be promoting them, not taxing them.

So here's the question you continually refuse to address: you think that no one will vote for an increase on gas taxes. Yet, you basically refuse to accept any plan that does not increase gas taxes. So what gives?

I refuse to accept a tax that targets diesel only in the name of reducing passenger vehicle CO2 emissions, it is flat out dishonest.

Incidentally, I did not say that "putting a small tax on diesel isn't going to do it because so few people use them."

No but that is what you are doing. What you say and what you are doing are not related.

You're like a pretzel. You say you bought a diesel. I point out that others are doing more than that. You say, "How do you know, we are only talking about motor vehicles here." When I point out that I was referring to transportation, you now switch to everything that you have done in your life? Did you want to make up your mind? Motor vehicles or entire life?

You said that others are spending much more than me to reduce their CO2 emissions, I would like to know how you know that.

In edit: On reflection I guess someone who goes out and spends $120,000 on a Lexus LSh hybrid rated 27 MPG in the city is spending more to reduce his CO2 emissions than me who spent $27,000 on a TDI rated at 46 MPG city. But that Lexus guy is greeeen because he drives a hybrid that uses what? Gasoline. So I guess you are right after all.

Your definition of picking pockets is pretty screwed up.

You want to take my money, I think it is pretty clear.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

Dion has renamed the Excise Tax a Carbon Tax

POOF lower emissions.....

A lot of prominent NDPers support it.

One of the most respected economists in the world says it will reduce emissions.

A cap and trade plan will work too as many economists suggest. It will take longer and many industries will pass on their costs which in the same way will put a price on carbon. For gas at the pump, the plan will raise prices quite a lot.

Perhaps Layton will tell us how much he expects Canadians will pay at the pump, for heat and for and for energy in general under his plan. He wants to debate the Dion plan much in the same way Harper does but he is quite reticent about his own plan.

[Wilber]

If you increase the price of Diesel so that there is no advantage in using a lower emmissions fuel, so that people will buy regular fuel cars vs those thumpy noisey things made in Mexico driven by people I hate named Wilber, then that is an emmissions reduction program.

Brazil I think but my other diesel was built in the US of A.

[madmax]

One of the most respected economists in the world says it will reduce emissions.

I am an economist too. All economist can be treated with respect and the latter part is interpretable. The Carbon Tax under the LPC GREEN SHIFT does not, and without taxing GAS, is very unlikely to reduce Carbon and would be lucky under the best circumstance to lower it significantly. But it will generate revenue, and it will make the lifestyles of people on modest incomes, that much more difficult. You may go without a luxury or need not based on Carbon. Like a new bicycle or running shoes.

Seems that the LPC has picked up the easy sell, telling us gravy part of the program and in doing so is over playing the environmental results and underplaying the revenue generating excercise. It is another tax grab.

There are economic forums to have these discussions, with nicey charts, and curvs and economic lingo, but that is for economist banter. This is political banter, and the force behind the Green SHift are Liberals.

A party that has no respect for the holder of the name "GREENSHIFT".

[jdobbin]

I am an economist too. All economist can be treated with respect and the latter part is interpretable. The Carbon Tax under the LPC GREEN SHIFT does not, and without taxing GAS, is very unlikely to reduce Carbon and would be lucky under the best circumstance to lower it significantly. But it will generate revenue, and it will make the lifestyles of people on modest incomes, that much more difficult. You may go without a luxury or need not based on Carbon. Like a new bicycle or running shoes.

It does tax gas as has been mentioned many times.

I guess we can say that there is debate among economists though. Many support carbon taxes as a means of reducing emissions.

Seems that the LPC has picked up the easy sell, telling us gravy part of the program and in doing so is over playing the environmental results and underplaying the revenue generating excercise. It is another tax grab.

While the NDP plan will just pass on 40 cents a litre in fuel charges but never mention that it is part of their plan.

There are economic forums to have these discussions, with nicey charts, and curvs and economic lingo, but that is for economist banter. This is political banter, and the force behind the Green SHift are Liberals.

And some prominent NDP people.

I wonder how Layton feels about that. In the past, he has slapped down NDPers who don't go his way. Makes Harper look like a nice guy at times.

A party that has no respect for the holder of the name "GREENSHIFT".

It is why I don't use the term. The Liberals should have apologized immediately when it was shown to be a problem and used something else.

[Wilber]

It does tax gas as has been mentioned many times.

Right, and changing "Excise" to "Carbon" will reduce emissions as much as changing UI to EI reduced unemployment.

[jdobbin]

Right, and changing "Excise" to "Carbon" will reduce emissions as much as changing UI to EI reduced unemployment.

The tax will reduce emissions and changes to Employment Insurance did help to reduce dependence on the program that industry and employees were using that creative a vicious cycle.

[Wilber]

The tax will reduce emissions and changes to Employment Insurance did help to reduce dependence on the program that industry and employees were using that creative a vicious cycle.

What tax?

[jdobbin]

What tax?

The 10 cents a litre that some people still can't get around to acknowledging.

[bk59]

Using a fuel that emits less, provides better gas milelage is not an emmissions reducing activity.

Improving Public Transit and letting cities expand their capacity so that people have better options then driving is not an emmissions reducing activity.

But, If you tax people, and let them continue to emit that is an emmissions reduction program.

Yes, those are emissions reducing activities (to use your phrase). Neither is a plan that puts a price on emissions. Economists have generally recognized two ways to have the market take into account the true costs of emissions: an emissions tax and emissions trading. Having a patchwork of various programs, like funding public transit, is not enough because people will still not take into consideration the true cost of emissions. This is what I refer to when I say emissions reduction plan. An actual system for correcting a market failure, not a government spending program.

If you increase the price of Diesel so that there is no advantage in using a lower emmissions fuel, so that people will buy regular fuel cars vs those thumpy noisey things made in Mexico

There is still an advantage to using diesel as shown by actual math and not just rhetoric. Damn those pesky numbers.

Not to mention the fact that no one here has suggested anything that would in any way increase the adoption of diesel vehicles over gas vehicles. Except when I said that I would support rebates on the purchase of diesel vehicles. (Because let's face it, the big cost obstacle to diesel is actually purchasing the car, not 7 cents per litre at the pump.)

And if you give back the tax money generated, to people of wealth, then that is an emmissions reduction program.

No, it's not. The emissions reduction program part is the carbon tax. The income tax reductions are what is needed to first ensure that there is no huge shock to the economy and second to help sell the program.

Also, the proposed income tax cuts are greatest in the lower tax brackets. These cuts benefit lower income Canadians more than they benefit wealthy Canadians.

These are emmission reduction programs? No This is a tax! It is not an emmissions reduction program.

As I've said, an emissions tax is one of the two ways economists have suggested for a comprehensive emissions reduction program. Neither an emission tax nor emissions trading can be used on its own, but without one of these two features it is highly doubtful that any reduction program would have any affect at all.

As an example, you can add funding to public transit. But if people still think it is cheaper to drive then they will drive. There is a cost to emitting and any rationale program needs a way to bring that cost into the market. In other words, a tax or a trading plan.

I understand this magic tax. Puff the Magic Dragon lived by the sea....

I guess it's easier to quote lyrics to kids songs than it is to propose a rational alternative to an emissions tax. If you don't like the Green Shift then what do you propose?

[Wilber]

The 10 cents a litre that some people still can't get around to acknowledging.

The 10 cents a liter that has been there for years but will now change everything as soon as you rename it. Is that the one?

[jdobbin]

The 10 cents a liter that has been there for years but will now change everything as soon as you rename it. Is that the one?

And it is the same tax that will continue to make people look for alternatives, efficiencies and changes in driving habits.

It is also the tax that the Tories promised to end.

But please for Tory. The price for that will be much higher prices for diesel.

Edited August 22, 2008 by jdobbin