An interesting artlicle on Carbon Tax

[Slim MacSquinty]

Listening to an interview with Beaker on global, he has called Harper a liar at least five times already, isn't that out of character for a guy that is so empathetic? Funny how superior A**holes don't have mirrors.

Anyway, he is selling this carbon tax thing and he can't keep his logic going in the same direction. He just does not make sense.

Here is an interesting article written by an economist (I thought Dion said they all agreed with him) who certainly does not agree with Dion:

http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=66650

[capricorn]

Listening to an interview with Beaker on global, he has called Harper a liar at least five times already, isn't that out of character for a guy that is so empathetic? Funny how superior A**holes don't have mirrors.

His stump speeches now have a minimum 10 references to Harper the liar. Desperation gone amok.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Whats interesting about the article is that it challenges the notion of neutrality of the carbon tax, if as the author states, it is to be neutral for the individual, then she says there is no point in implementing it since it would not change anyones behaviour because the extra you saved on taxes eleswhere would cover the extra you paid for oil and gas and the like. So what she is getting at is that if indeed it is to be neutral then its only neutral for the government which means it is, like I've thought all along, a penatly for the middle class and an income redistribution program (read socialism).

So whos the liar now?

Edited October 11, 2008 by Slim MacSquinty

[capricorn]

According to the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change (IPCC), the European experience with carbon taxes shows that it sometimes has a beneficial impact initially, but that this effect does not last. That is, people get used to paying the higher prices and go right back to doing what they normally do. What is more, it takes a really big tax initially to bring forward any change in consumer behaviour. But even this may bring about very marginal effects on spending habits.

Norway is usually cited as the best example of a country that has benefited hugely from a carbon tax. But a report by Annegrete Bruvoll of Statistics Norway contradicts this assertion: "Despite considerable taxes and price increases for some fuel-types, the carbon tax effect has been modest."

It appears that the relatively high carbon tax that has been in effect since 1991 (about the highest carbon tax in the world) has contributed to only 2 percent of the total reductions in CO2 emissions. It has not been more effective because of "extensive tax exemptions and relatively inelastic demand in the sector in which the tax is actually implemented." What this means is that Norwegians did not change their consumption habits very much when the price increased.

But...but...I thought Dion said it works marvelously in European countries. That's an argument he's been using to sell his Green Shift.

So in other words, people will pay the higher consumption prices, continue in their old environment destructive consumption habits and there will be negligable reduction in CO2 emissions. Then, when industry significantly reduces its environmentally destructive practices, they won't be assessed a carbon tax to pay for the tax cuts and new social programs. I suppose then we'd be looking at tax increases to replace revenue from the carbon tax.

Have I got it straight?

I wish Dion would make up his mind about this Green Shift business. One day there will be no Green Shift until the economy recovers. Next day the Green Shift will implemented in stages, incrementally. Day three, Green Shift will be his top priority. He's got me totally confused. eeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkkkkkkkkk