Carbon tax

[Topaz]

I hope this topic doesn't ended up like the F-35, but which do you think is better for Canada a Carbon tax or a cap and trade? I'm asking because if you have watched the House that's all the Tories are saying about the NDP but it has been reported the Quebec, the first, and British Columbia and I think Alberta, correct me if I'm wrong, have taxes on carbon. I saw on the news today, that carbon tax was coming and that Tim Horton is already making their coffee shops more environment friendly. Which do you prefer and why? Pro and Cons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading#Cap-and-trade_versus_carbon_tax

[Boges]

I hope this topic doesn't ended up like the F-35, but which do you think is better for Canada a Carbon tax or a cap and trade? I'm asking because if you have watched the House that's all the Tories are saying about the NDP but it has been reported the Quebec, the first, and British Columbia and I think Alberta, correct me if I'm wrong, have taxes on carbon. I saw on the news today, that carbon tax was coming and that Tim Horton is already making their coffee shops more environment friendly. Which do you prefer and why? Pro and Cons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading#Cap-and-trade_versus_carbon_tax

Both are just punitive ways to make consumers pay more for goods.

At least with the Carbon Tax the way the Liberals framed it in 2008 people would see some reduced income taxes to lessen the impact of the increased cost of products.

Cap and Trade just sounds like a complicated shell game that only proves to lower people's quality of life. I'm happy the CPC decided not to support it anymore.

[segnosaur]

...which do you think is better for Canada a Carbon tax or a cap and trade?

How about neither?

The problem with cap and trade is that it can result in all sorts of abuse... for example, the 'credits' that companies/countries often trade might be based on reductions that were going to happen anyways.

See: http://www.cracked.com/article_17084_5-ways-people-are-trying-to-save-world-that-dont-work_p2.html

A carbon tax is a little bit better, but it ignores the fungibility of various energy sources (e.g. a unit of electricity generated from coal works the same as a unit of electricity generated by hydro or wind.) With the way our power grids are connected in North America you'd just end up transferring the carbon emissions to another location. This was one of the problems I had with the Liberal's "green plan" in the 2008 election... a province like Manitoba or Quebec could be as wasteful as they want, simply because they produced so much hydro-electric power, even though globally they'd be better off to sell that electricity to areas where they use more fossil fuels.

If they want to get a handle on global warming, the government should:

- Help subsidize the construction of nuclear reactors. Yes, it will be expensive in the short term, but it might pay off in the long term (and even make us big-time exporter of electricity)

- Invest in speculative technologies. I'm not talking wind/solar. They're fairly established (although I'm sure a few enhancements will happen here or there), and at this point whether they succeed or fail will depend on economics. I'm talking about things like oil-from-algae, or nuclear fusion.

- If any sort of tax is applied, make sure its applied based on overall energy consumption (not just based on how the energy is produced)

[Moonbox]

Neither are worth considering until an internationally binding agreement can be reached/strong-armed with all the major players. We're kind of talking about this now in the other thread.

[CPCFTW]

Why not just reduce HST and make carbon tax a consumption tax?

Fill up a tank of gas, or buy an iPhone manufactured and flown in from China = big carbon tax

Buy a milk imported from a local dairy farm = low carbon tax

The tax amount will be based on the amount of CO2 created by buying the product/service.

The carbon tax component of consumption taxes can be built into the retail price, and we can let consumers reduce emissions with their wallets.

Also this could potentially restore domestic manufacturing.

Problem solved.

Edited September 24, 2012 by CPCFTW

[Bryan]

Both options are completely phoney.

Find ways to make green energy more affordable and people will switch to it anyway.

[Bryan]

Why not just reduce HST and make carbon tax a consumption tax?

Fill up a tank of gas, or buy an iPhone manufactured and flown in from China = big carbon tax

Buy a milk imported from a local dairy farm = low carbon tax

The tax amount will be based on the amount of CO2 created by buying the product/service.

The carbon tax component of consumption taxes can be built into the retail price, and we can let consumers reduce emissions with their wallets.

Also this could potentially restore domestic manufacturing.

Problem solved.

I like what you're thinking, but the WTO might consider that a tariff and have a harsh opinion about it. It'd be worth trying though.

[blueblood]

How about do nothing and let the NYMEX do what it does best. $150 oil fixes wasteful consumption in short order...

[cybercoma]

Both are just punitive ways to make consumers pay more for goods.

It all depends on price elasticity of demand. Read into it.

[Bonam]

If I was forced to choose between the two, I'd say the carbon tax. The government has to raise tax revenues one way or another, and that's just one way to do it.

Cap and trade, while designed to try to appeal to proponents of the "free market", is crap in my opinion. A free market should trade in goods and services that have real value, not in units of arbitrary scarcity created by fiat.

[dre]

If I was forced to choose between the two, I'd say the carbon tax. The government has to raise tax revenues one way or another, and that's just one way to do it.

Cap and trade, while designed to try to appeal to proponents of the "free market", is crap in my opinion. A free market should trade in goods and services that have real value, not in units of arbitrary scarcity created by fiat.

A free market should trade in goods and services that have real value, not in units of arbitrary scarcity created by fiat.

Gonna have to abolish the modern banking system then... Back to the gold standard?

[dre]

As for carbon taxes, etc. I would start by removing all the subsidies and tax breaks for established energy sources.

Whats the point of giving them all this money and then taking the same money back again through carbon taxes? Stop hiding the real cost of energy from consumers so that the market can work. Besides just the direct subsidies and tax breaks make oil companies pay for all the indirect costs as well... For example government action to secure foreign supplies in places like Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

[Bonam]

Gonna have to abolish the modern banking system then... Back to the gold standard?

Haha, I knew you were going to say that

[cybercoma]

I hope this topic doesn't ended up like the F-35, but which do you think is better for Canada a Carbon tax or a cap and trade? I'm asking because if you have watched the House that's all the Tories are saying about the NDP but it has been reported the Quebec, the first, and British Columbia and I think Alberta, correct me if I'm wrong, have taxes on carbon. I saw on the news today, that carbon tax was coming and that Tim Horton is already making their coffee shops more environment friendly. Which do you prefer and why? Pro and Cons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading#Cap-and-trade_versus_carbon_tax

The ironic thing about the government criticizing the NDP over cap and trade is that the Conservatives already collect a carbon tax. It's $0.04/L of gasoline every time you go to the pumps, plus HST/GST on top of that. According to the Tories' own talking points, they're killing jobs in Canada.

[Fletch 27]

Hmmmm... Now who put that tax in place.... Again... History lesson may be in order....

The ironic thing about the government criticizing the NDP over cap and trade is that the Conservatives already collect a carbon tax. It's $0.04/L of gasoline every time you go to the pumps, plus HST/GST on top of that. According to the Tories' own talking points, they're killing jobs in Canada.

[login]

CARBON TAX IS NOT THE ANSWER, what is needed is a broad environmental damage tax applied to producers and importers, assessed at the value of clean up damages directed to enviornment canada for epa as well as production technology upgrade credits.

Carbon is only one problem there are many others, a total comprehensive shstem needs to be undertaken, as medical costs for cancer and other diseases as well as climate change protections like forest fire and flood protections need to be implemented, the costs are not small and the public should not bear the health and safety costs of get rich defilers both here a d in Timbuktu pumping out goods while ignorant and blind as to the harm the are making in the world.

You can't be behind the movement like the Tories you must be a true leader and visionary for the future. Yesterday doesn't make tommorrow better if we live in yesterday striving for tommorrow. We must live tommorow today.

Edited October 9, 2012 by login

[Jerry J. Fortin]

My issues with this problem stem from the question of which tax is better. Lets be honest with each other here at least. Its a tax levied on citizens (personal or business) that goes into general revenues. From there the money is dispersed as per the will of the PM by both budgetary and discretionary means. Lets not bother to think this is a targeted effort to reduce the effects of industrial development and the detrimental impact to the environment by means of the perfect science of politics. Its a tax grab, pure and simple. Another scape goat policy designed to take more money out of the economy and the hands of citizens and place the economic power deeper into the pockets of the government. Wrong policy, wrong concept.

Politicians should be seeking solutions that provide simply reduced expense of society to the citizen while improving the benefits of that society. That should be the goal of government instead of seeking new ways to do old things.

[Moonbox]

Well said Jerry.

[Newfoundlander]

I don't mind a carbon tax, though income taxes would need to be substantially reduced.

[Fletch 27]

A tax is a tax is a tax..... Good news however, Steve Harper is in power with no sighns of loosing it. I will let the Liberals and NDP squable about wich tax is the best tax...

[TimG]

The ironic thing about the government criticizing the NDP over cap and trade is that the Conservatives already collect a carbon tax. It's $0.04/L of gasoline every time you go to the pumps, plus HST/GST on top of that. According to the Tories' own talking points, they're killing jobs in Canada.

Every tax is an incremental job killer but some taxes are better than others. Taxes on consumption reduce consumption but increase savings and investment which is good in the long term, Taxes on income reduce savings and investment and hurt consumption so they are generally bad. Carbon taxes kill off energy intensive industries but do nothing to change habits of consumers because the politically palatable rates are too low - so other than the loss of industry carbon taxes are just another consumption tax. Cap and trade is just a scam that accomplishes nothing other than allowing politicians to pretend they are doing something. Edited October 12, 2012 by TimG

[August1991]

The problem with cap and trade is that it can result in all sorts of abuse... for example, the 'credits' that companies/countries often trade might be based on reductions that were going to happen anyways.

....

A carbon tax is a little bit better, but it ignores the fungibility of various energy sources (e.g. a unit of electricity generated from coal works the same as a unit of electricity generated by hydro or wind.)

Both a carbon tax and cap-and-trade are subject to abuse. The key difference is that with a carbon tax, the government in effect becomes "owner" of the environment and the "tax" is similar to rent paid for "using it". In the case of cap-and-trade, the private sector "owns" the environment and private individuals can trade "its use".

Both methods achieve a critical purpose: they put a price on environmental use. At present, no one "owns" the environment and hence it is likely over-used.

----

BTW, the federal government imposes a special 10 cent per litre excise tax on gasoline. This approximates a carbon tax. BC and Quebec and other provinces add other taxes (in addition to any sales taxes).

IMV, Canada does not require a carbon tax on gasoline; we have one already.

Every tax is an incremental job killer but some taxes are better than others.

That's simply not true. Would you consider a passport fee a tax? Is it a "job killer"? Or, how about a CPP/RRQ contribution? Is that a "tax"? Or how about a municipal property tax? In many ways, condo fees are comparable to property taxes. Do condo fees "kill jobs"? Edited October 13, 2012 by August1991

[cybercoma]

August, just for the record, the minimum tax on gasoline averages about 25 cents per L. In Vancouver, it's 41 cents per L.

The federal government.... killing jobs, one litre at a time.

[login]

August, just for the record, the minimum tax on gasoline averages about 25 cents per L. In Vancouver, it's 41 cents per L.

The federal government.... killing jobs, one litre at a time.

Isn't it funny that the tax on gas is how much it costs in Saudia Arabia.

[August1991]

August, just for the record, the minimum tax on gasoline averages about 25 cents per L. In Vancouver, it's 41 cents per L.

The federal government.... killing jobs, one litre at a time.

If you believe that CO2 emissions threaten the environment, then the federal government 10 cent excise tax does not kill jobs. Rather, people are paying for the use of a resource.

Isn't it funny that the tax on gas is how much it costs in Saudia Arabia.

If you sold a device to avoid Walmart's theft detection system, what would be the price?

-----

I own my house. No one owns the environment. Guess what happens next.