Party Leaders are lying about energy taxes and the environment

[Freddy]

Really think those plants would have ended up in Ontario if the electricity bills were a little lower?

Give corporations cheap electricity, and they'll complain about property taxes. Give them property tax breaks, they'll complain about environmental regulations. Relax environmental regulations, and they'll complain about the cost of labor. Until such time as Canadian workers are willing to work for $3/hr, corporations will have a powerful incentive to locate their plants in Mexico instead of here. And ultimately, if the way to get manufacturing jobs in Canada is to pay manufacturing workers $3/hr, then these jobs aren't the well-paying manufacturing careers that previous generations had. What's the point of jumping through hoops to create $3/hr jobs?

-k

So if manufacturing is no longer a option . I guess resources based economy is our only option left.

I guess that's why Harper took that route. Makes sense yes?

Edited August 11, 2015 by Freddy

[Ash74]

there is no single "flavour" of cap & trade... some deployments have resulted in emission reductions (as I've shown in past MLW threads), some distribute monies back to the population, and some have incentives for corporations to reduce emissions and to be able to sell rather than purchase pollution quotas... allowing the market to determine the price of quotas. Of course, what we have around MLW are the usual suspects (Harperites) who bleat on about the "nefarious cap & trade" plans of the NDP (potentially joining in with the WCI initiative that includes BC, Quebec and California)... all the while none of these usual suspects have any clue about what their talking points even mean!

now... as I've stated in the past, I'm not a proponent of the more traditional labeled cap-and-trade. What I have spoken in favour of is the "Tax and 100% Dividend" concept that scientist James Hansen regularly promotes:

That I would agree with. It promotes and rewards those that use less emissions.

The cap and trade that is generally used is nothing more than a tax grab. This money will fall into general revenue and will not reduce emissions.

[Argus]

if they haven't, as you stated, "said"... where's your claimed lying?

It's lying by pretending that this isn't a tax, and that it won't have any negative impact on the economy. And it sounds very much like the NDP is lying when they say they support continuing the production development of the oil sands when they've just revealed they're willing to sacrifice that to the fictitious CO2 emissions reduction gods.

[Argus]

there is no single "flavour" of cap & trade... some deployments have resulted in emission reductions

There's no evidence of this. They might reduce emissions THERE, where they are implemented, through helping spur the downward turn of the economy, but just as likely, all they did was cause the emissions producers to pack up and move overseas, along with the jobs.

[waldo]

It's lying by pretending that this isn't a tax, and that it won't have any negative impact on the economy. And it sounds very much like the NDP is lying when they say they support continuing the production development of the oil sands when they've just revealed they're willing to sacrifice that to the fictitious CO2 emissions reduction gods.

cite for your declared "pretending".

it would be helpful for you (at least once) to put forward an actual quote you presume to rail against... is there a contextual relevant quote/statement you can provide that speaks to your stated, "the NDP is lying when they say they support continuing the production development of the oil sands when they've just revealed they're willing to sacrifice that to the fictitious CO2 emissions reduction gods". In any case, there is this buzz-phrase out there... perhaps you've heard of it: "sustainable development". Remember... context is typically your downfall!

[waldo]

There's no evidence of this. They might reduce emissions THERE, where they are implemented, through helping spur the downward turn of the economy, but just as likely, all they did was cause the emissions producers to pack up and move overseas, along with the jobs.

cite for your unsubstantiated opinion, "there's no evidence of this"!!!

cite for your unsubstantiated opinion, "through helping spur the downward turn of the economy, but just as likely, all they did was cause the emissions producers to pack up and move overseas, along with the jobs".

[socialist]

cite for your declared "pretending".

it would be helpful for you (at least once) to put forward an actual quote you presume to rail against... is there a contextual relevant quote/statement you can provide that speaks to your stated, "the NDP is lying when they say they support continuing the production development of the oil sands when they've just revealed they're willing to sacrifice that to the fictitious CO2 emissions reduction gods". In any case, there is this buzz-phrase out there... perhaps you've heard of it: "sustainable development". Remember... context is typically your downfall!

Sustainable development is a key buzzword within Agenda 21. Smart growth - Smart Cities too.

[Argus]

cite for your declared "pretending".

it would be helpful for you (at least once) to put forward an actual quote you presume to rail against... is there a contextual relevant quote/statement you can provide that speaks to your stated, "the NDP is lying when they say they support continuing the production development of the oil sands when they've just revealed they're willing to sacrifice that to the fictitious CO2 emissions reduction gods". In any case, there is this buzz-phrase out there... perhaps you've heard of it: "sustainable development". Remember... context is typically your downfall!

I think the reference you're talking about was in the cite I posted to begin this topic, which you evidently didn't read.

[waldo]

I think the reference you're talking about was in the cite I posted to begin this topic, which you evidently didn't read.

I asked you to provide a cite for your statement, "It's lying by pretending that this isn't a tax, and that it won't have any negative impact on the economy"... your lame reply is to point to your failed OP article from... Wente?

you mean when the Opposition leaders speak of a carbon tax... they're "pretending" that tax... doesn't mean tax? Brilliant Argus! A quick scan of that Wente tripe has a quoted reference to counter the Harper Conservative "economy ONLY" bent... you know, where pursuits can positively impact both the environment and the economy. What a concept... one completely foreign to Harperites... and Wente!

.

[Shady]

This is what I disrespect most about anti-energy crowd. If they would at least be honest and upfront with people about the increased costs and the economic trade offs, but explained how it's necessary, I'd have much more respect for them. But they don't. They lie and obfuscate because they're fully aware that if they were honest about the real effects that the average Canadian would experience from the proposals and schemes, they'd get very little support. To me, they're tantamount to the tobacco companies of the 1960s, insisting that smoking was nothing to worry about, with absolutely no side effects.

[waldo]

anti-energy crowd.

you mean the sustainable fossil-fuel development/alternate energy crowd? That crowd?

[On Guard for Thee]

This is what I disrespect most about anti-energy crowd. If they would at least be honest and upfront with people about the increased costs and the economic trade offs, but explained how it's necessary, I'd have much more respect for them. But they don't. They lie and obfuscate because they're fully aware that if they were honest about the real effects that the average Canadian would experience from the proposals and schemes, they'd get very little support. To me, they're tantamount to the tobacco companies of the 1960s, insisting that smoking was nothing to worry about, with absolutely no side effects.

I doubt you could have picked a worse comparison there. (tobacco companies)

[waldo]

They lie and obfuscate because they're fully aware that if they were honest about the real effects that the average Canadian would experience from the proposals and schemes, they'd get very little support.

your "real effects"? You mean like those experienced in B.C.? Like those? Where per capita fuel use covered by the B.C. carbon tax has dropped by 16 per cent in the province relative to 2008 (the year the carbon tax came into effect), and so too has carbon pollution. Where B.C.’s economy has outpaced the rest of Canada’s over the same period. Shady... that's a 2-fer! Good for the economy... good for the environment! Shady, during the debate... which leader spoke directly to that 2-fer option? Don't hesitate now...

per the Pembina Institute:

"For the 2013–14 fiscal year, the carbon tax is forecasted to raise $1.2 billion — slightly less than three per cent of total provincial revenue. The Carbon Tax Act requires that money raised by the carbon tax be used to reduce other provincial taxes (referred to as ‘revenue neutrality’). In 2013–14, the largest reduction measures were cutting corporate income taxes ($440 million) and personal income taxes ($237 million) and providing low-income tax credits ($194 million). These were the only three measures in the initial carbon tax design, but additional personal and business tax credits have since been included and they totaled $361 million in 2013–14"

[Shady]

The anti-energy crowd is tantamount to those "eat anything you want, don't exercise, and still lose weight" groups. They insist that all of their environmental regulations and related taxes and increases in cost can be implemented, and nobody'll feel anything! Nothing'll change! All puppies and kittens goodness with no negative consequences at all! Nobody believes their bull plop. They'd be more respected if they talked candidly and admitted that there's trade offs, but that it's necessary.

[On Guard for Thee]

The anti-energy crowd is tantamount to those "eat anything you want, don't exercise, and still lose weight" groups. They insist that all of their environmental regulations and related taxes and increases in cost can be implemented, and nobody'll feel anything! Nothing'll change! All puppies and kittens goodness with no negative consequences at all! Nobody believes their bull plop. They'd be more respected if they talked candidly and admitted that there's trade offs, but that it's necessary.

Not sure who/what you mean by the "anti energy crowd".

[waldo]

Not sure who/what you mean by the "anti energy crowd".

ya... just who is member Shady's "they"?

[On Guard for Thee]

ya... just who is member Shady's "they"?

I just wanted to make sure he wasn't including me in that crowd as I kinda like energy. For instance it keeps my laptop going just now, and then later I can get all the latest news about the historical droughts and wildfires occurring nowadays.

[Argus]

you mean when the Opposition leaders speak of a carbon tax... they're "pretending" that tax...

But they don't speak of a carbon TAX, they speak very vaguely of a cap and trade system for industry, with no numbers. They're clearly trying to push this as something which will help the environment and cost Canadians nothing. Both are outright lies.

[Keepitsimple]

But they don't speak of a carbon TAX, they speak very vaguely of a cap and trade system for industry, with no numbers. They're clearly trying to push this as something which will help the environment and cost Canadians nothing. Both are outright lies.

To that vagueness you can add the "make the polluter pay" lie - because common sense says that WE are the ones who end up paying.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[-1=e^ipi]

To that vagueness you can add the "make the polluter pay" lie - because common sense says that WE are the ones who end up paying.

To be fair, both the polluter and the consumer will pay. The distribution of the burden depends on the elasticities of demand and supply of the market.

[Argus]

To be fair, both the polluter and the consumer will pay. The distribution of the burden depends on the elasticities of demand and supply of the market.

What is the elasticity of the demand for heating oil and natural gas in winter?

[-1=e^ipi]

What is the elasticity of the demand for heating oil and natural gas in winter?

http://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/49070/Shooshtari-Milad-MA-ECON-April-2014.pdf?sequence=1

-0.5 in the long run... maybe. Might be less though.

Edited August 13, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.441773.de/dp1372.pdf

Elasticity of supply is 0.76 for the united states. Probably about the same in Canada.

[Argus]

http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.441773.de/dp1372.pdf

Elasticity of supply is 0.76 for the united states. Probably about the same in Canada.

It's a little colder in Canada than in most of the US...

[-1=e^ipi]

It's a little colder in Canada than in most of the US...

Yeah so demand elasticity might be quite different. Supply elasticity is probably about the same.

Anyway, if we go with the above numbers, 60% of the tax burden will affect consumers, 40% will affect producers.

Edited August 13, 2015 by -1=e^ipi