Why is Harper against the green shift

[Topaz]

When I listen to Dion explain the green shift I can only say its good for canadians and not good for polluters and that were Harper's rage for this comes in. Back in the 60-70's he was a Liberal but quit the party because Trudeau bring in a national energy program and this was going to hurt Alberta and when Mulroney didn't get rid of it Harper left the PC because it would hurt Alberta. So now many years later he's the PM and he doesn't like the green shift because its going to hurt Alberta and tha that IS the only reason he is against in my view. I think Harper would be better at being the premier of Alberta instead of the PM of Canada.

[cybercoma]

That's funny because I seen signs all over New Brunswick that say no to the carbon tax. They must all be Albertans living out here.

[independent]

When I listen to Dion explain the green shift I can only say its good for canadians and not good for polluters and that were Harper's rage for this comes in. Back in the 60-70's he was a Liberal but quit the party because Trudeau bring in a national energy program and this was going to hurt Alberta and when Mulroney didn't get rid of it Harper left the PC because it would hurt Alberta. So now many years later he's the PM and he doesn't like the green shift because its going to hurt Alberta and tha that IS the only reason he is against in my view. I think Harper would be better at being the premier of Alberta instead of the PM of Canada.

Harper is not against a green plan. He has his own. He just shelved it for the election. The link below compares the NDPs,Liberals and Harpers plan.

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/10/10/can-the...ork/#more-12279

[Moonbox]

Harper is against the Green Shift because it is an income redistribution tax where the only people who will see a net benefit are the squirrels and the very poorest Canadians.

Anyone with even a reasonable income will pay more taxes. You can prove this yourself with the Green Shift Calculator on the Liberal website by seeing how much a poor family gets in tax credits compared to an average or well off family. They don't even compare.

[independent]

Harper is against the Green Shift because it is an income redistribution tax where the only people who will see a net benefit are the squirrels and the very poorest Canadians.

Anyone with even a reasonable income will pay more taxes. You can prove this yourself with the Green Shift Calculator on the Liberal website by seeing how much a poor family gets in tax credits compared to an average or well off family. They don't even compare.

The Macleans article sees the HARPER plan too be the worst of the three. It is probably a good idea if you read the Harper plan before you reserve judgement. The guy that wrote the article has a master in economics. I think I will take his word for it. If you read some of his articles you will see he has taken shots at all the parties. He claims to be non partisan and after reading some of his articles I know he is not Liberal.

[Riverwind]

When I listen to Dion explain the green shift I can only say its good for canadians and not good for polluters and that were Harper's rage for this comes in.

Increasing the cost of energy but taxing CO2 output perhaps the stupidest thinkg one could do when the economy is headed into a recession. The increase in prices will most likely exceed any tax breaks. Check out this peice by a climate alarmists who debunks the notion that a price on carbon will help the evironment: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/10/10/11432/625

Here are a few choice quotes:

The key facts to remember are that: "$50 per tonne of carbon corresponds to 12.5 cents per gallon of gasoline (PDF) or 0.5 cents per kilowatthour for electricity produced from natural gas at 53% efficiency (or 1.3 cents per kilowatt-hour for coal at 34% efficiency)."

That means a price of $400 a metric ton of carbon (whether achieved through a tax or a cap & trade system) would increase the price of gasoline a mere $1 a gallon. How much efficiency would that drive? Not bloody much! How do we know? How much efficiency did going from $2 a gallon to $3 a gallon drive? [Hint: Not bloody much.] Second, I was just in England, and they're paying over $8 a gallon -- how much more efficient are their cars than ours? [Hint: As of 2002, the average fuel economy of European Union vehicles was 37 miles per gallon, just a tad more than what the new energy bill requires, and their taxes are typically some $2 a gallon above ours.]

Charging a price for CO2 emissions would raise the price of gasoline, but that increase–and the resulting decrease in vehicle emissions–would be relatively small. Most of the reduction in CO2 emissions would occur in other sectors.

The initial impact on vehicle emissions would be particularly small: People could drive less and at slower speeds, and some could switch to public transit, but in the short run they would have few other alternatives. Over time, consumers could respond to higher gasoline prices by buying more fuel-efficient vehicles and reducing their commuting distance when an opportunity arises. Substantial increases in gasoline prices in recent years have triggered measurable responses of both types. But a CO2 price high enough to induce sizable reductions from other sources of emissions would have only a small effect on vehicle emissions of CO2. Recent changes to the automobile fuel economy standards–greatly increasing their stringency–will result in a substantial decline in vehicle emissions whether gasoline prices increase or not.

[Moonbox]

The Macleans article sees the HARPER plan too be the worst of the three. It is probably a good idea if you read the Harper plan before you reserve judgement. The guy that wrote the article has a master in economics. I think I will take his word for it. If you read some of his articles you will see he has taken shots at all the parties. He claims to be non partisan and after reading some of his articles I know he is not Liberal.

Harper's plan isn't good you're right. The difference is that Harper has placed ZERO priority on his own plan and it will likely never be implemented.