What's the point in any sort of environmental Plan right now?

[gc1765]

Despite conventional wisdom, a carbon tax will likely be good for the economy, because it will allow a reduction in income and business taxes thereby encouraging people to make money rather than pollute.

[Riverwind]

Despite conventional wisdom, a carbon tax will likely be good for the economy, because it will allow a reduction in income and business taxes thereby encouraging people to make money rather than pollute.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The income redistribution under the scheme is heavily weighted towards low income individuals. Businesses get a token tax break but will be faced with much higher prices for energy. More importantly, only businesses currently making a profit benefit from a tax reduction but they have to pay higher energy prices no matter what. Bringing the carbon tax in on top of high dollar and oil which has already cut into the profit margins for companies will push many of them to relocate or close their doors.

[Smallc]

Despite conventional wisdom, a carbon tax will likely be good for the economy, because it will allow a reduction in income and business taxes thereby encouraging people to make money rather than pollute.

That would be true if not for the fact that the tax on diesel will raise the price of everything because pretty much everything is transported using diesel. It may be revenue neutral, but its not cost neutral.

[Moonbox]

You've already demonstrated that there is no point in having a reasoned discussion with you on this subject, but I saw fit to provide a concise answer to your header.

I can only shake my head at that. I attempted to provide a reasoned argument. Your concise answer was nothing less than a childish thought that the average first grader could have communicated with a crayon and could only be perceived by an adult as a smart ass remark totally devoid of any sort of wit/humour.

But okay, you're right, there may always be an environment, but that does not mean that it will be hospitable to man, which some would argue would be a good thing, and many others would not care because they are only concerned about the here-and-now.

and if could go ahead and surprise us and stretch that thought any further, you might come to grasp the idea that Canada's carbon footprint relative to the rest of the world is about as significant as a fart in the wind. I'm all for not ruining the environment. On the other hand, the clothes you're wearing right now were likely manufactured in world's worst offenders in terms of carbon emissions. For every added cost of doing business in Canada, you move yet another factory overseas to China, where there is ZERO regulation for carbon emissions.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Canadians pollute more than anyone else on a per capita basis--even the Americans.

Also, have you seen any pics of the arctic recently? large ice features that have been around for millenia have broken up and melted during just the last few years. That's not normal. In the past, slight changes in average global temps would have been caused by the sun or catastrophic incidents on Earth. But neither is the case here. The only source releasing massive amounts of carbon into works is human activity.

[Moonbox]

Canadians pollute more than anyone else on a per capita basis--even the Americans.

No we don't. That dubious honor belongs to Australia, and the Americans actually emit more per capita than we do too. This is as of Nov 2007: BBC News Worst Carbon Polluters Per Capita. That link just shows the stats for generating power, but I can bring up other ones as well. We're third, which is obviously not great, but we also have one of the most geographically dispersed populations living in one of the coldest countries in the world. As far as expectations go, we SHOULD be the worst but the Americans and Australians have one-upped us despite our disadvantages.

Also, have you seen any pics of the arctic recently? large ice features that have been around for millenia have broken up and melted during just the last few years. That's not normal. In the past, slight changes in average global temps would have been caused by the sun or catastrophic incidents on Earth. But neither is the case here. The only source releasing massive amounts of carbon into works is human activity.

I have seen the Arctic. I see the ice shelfs melting. With that being said, the annual increases in China and India's CO2 emissions ALONE by far outpace any reductions the modern world is making thanks to the Kyoto protocol. What I'm saying here is that unless China and India play ball, what we do here literally makes 0.00001% of a difference. We only make their industry and manufacturing more competitive in comparison to ours which will just encourage them to increase their industry and CO2 emissions even more.

[Riverwind]

In the past, slight changes in average global temps would have been caused by the sun or catastrophic incidents on Earth.

Pure BS. Take a look at this ice core record from greenland: http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm

It was at least 2degC warmer in Greenland 4000 years ago! What caused those huge swings? It certainly was not orbital changes over those timeframes. The climate has always changed and always will. There is certainly a human caused component to the current warming but the claim that we are way outside normal temperature variations is not supported by the facts.

Edited September 5, 2008 by Riverwind

[tango]

I would hazard a guess that OL was pointing out that if the environment cannot sustain people, we won't be here to need an "economy".

It will interfere with profits to keep humanity alive, but hey, what's it all about eh?

[Moonlight Graham]

Hey Moonbox, love the name. You'll have to pay some royalties though . I'll call it the 'Moon Shift' and you have to pay me a tax for every post you write under that username.

I was out of the country when Dion proposed this Green Shift plan, so i've had to catch up whats been happening. Seems there are advantages and disadvantages to all the proposed systems. I'll have to do more reading to see which one most analysts say works best.

Here's a good little article with some of the pros & cons of some of the proposed plans: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=552899

BTW, i sorta agree with you. IMO the only way we're going to really tackle this carbon & pollution problem is if nations like Canada and the U.S. etc. grab China & India by the balls and tell them that if they don't join in on a plan for seriously tackling their emmisions & environment problems, that we simply will not trade with them or put some sort of limit on their trade. This would also help human rights issues in China. Good ol' fashion blackmail baby!!

Edited September 5, 2008 by Moonlight Graham

[Argus]

Despite conventional wisdom, a carbon tax will likely be good for the economy, because it will allow a reduction in income and business taxes thereby encouraging people to make money rather than pollute.

The supposition here is that, despite the huge increases in fuel costs over the past year, Canadians are still happily wasting energy at every opportunity, and with an added tax on it will suddenly decide to start conserving. I'm not sure where people arrived at the logic behind this. I really don't see how, even with higher energy prices, I'm supposed to conserve more than I already do.

[Keepitsimple]

The supposition here is that, despite the huge increases in fuel costs over the past year, Canadians are still happily wasting energy at every opportunity, and with an added tax on it will suddenly decide to start conserving. I'm not sure where people arrived at the logic behind this. I really don't see how, even with higher energy prices, I'm supposed to conserve more than I already do.

You're right....but what Dion doesn't say......and if there ever was a hidden agenda, this is it.....is that the Carbon Tax will start as a benign irritant but over time, it will be raised, and raised again..until it becomes a sledgehammer that forces people to change....and at the same time, generates the massive amounts of revenue to accomplish Dion's Social Engineering projects.

[Moonbox]

and that's really the whole idea of the Carbon Tax. It's just another big Liberal social program for the have-nots.

[gc1765]

The supposition here is that, despite the huge increases in fuel costs over the past year, Canadians are still happily wasting energy at every opportunity, and with an added tax on it will suddenly decide to start conserving. I'm not sure where people arrived at the logic behind this. I really don't see how, even with higher energy prices, I'm supposed to conserve more than I already do.

And so you'd rather tax income & businesses. I guess the thought here is that people make too much money, so we should discourage people from making money.