Alberta's climate change policy announced.

[Guest]

Lots of talk of compensation, but also talk of over 3 billion in revenues, so I guess everyone wins.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/anyone-who-pollutes-will-pay-alberta-says-as-it-releases-tough-climate-change-policies

Edited November 25, 2015 by bcsapper

[TimG]

Lot's of talk of compensation, but also talk of over 3 billion in revenues, so I guess everyone wins.

A straight tax on all sources of CO2 is the best as long as it does not come with bogus reduction targets. At this point it looks good.

The trouble will come, of course, when the taxes don't actually reduce emissions because the alternatives are not viable at any price.

[-1=e^ipi]

$30 per metric ton is what BC has. I think $30 is likely a bit above the optimal level of taxation, but it isn't orders of magnitude off.

A tax on CO2 emissions is the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions. Not canceling pipelines or implementing cap and trade policies.

[socialist]

$30 per metric ton is what BC has. I think $30 is likely a bit above the optimal level of taxation, but it isn't orders of magnitude off.

A tax on CO2 emissions is the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions. Not canceling pipelines or implementing cap and trade policies.

This is nothing more than an underhanded, regular revenue creating scheme by the NDP. It is how they will be regularly padding the treasury and their pockets to pay for their gold plated pension plans and severance packages come next election. The taxpayer will be shaken upside down until every last nickel is shaken loose, then bent over a barrel and repeatedly screwed to the max - all in the name of "saving the environment".

The positive thing about this will be that it will better prepare Albertans for the reckoning of what the Trudeau government will do to them after Notely and her thugs are finished screwing them. This is the new Canadian order - where no nickel is left in our pockets.

[socialist]

Lot's of talk of compensation, but also talk of over 3 billion in revenues, so I guess everyone wins.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/anyone-who-pollutes-will-pay-alberta-says-as-it-releases-tough-climate-change-policies

BC has had a carbon tax for nealy a decade. The funds generated from it were to go towards establishing alternative energy options. Since day one the tax goes into general revenue and not one alternative option has been funded.

"The government expects its $30 per tonne carbon tax to generate $3 billion in annual revenues for the province, which is currently facing a $6.1 billion deficit following the collapse in oil prices that began in 2014."

I can't help but believe that this is really what it's all about. But of course that's what it's all about. If it was all about halting climate change, it would be revenue neutral. Taxes would be increased on carbon, but reduced somewhere else (income taxes for example).

The NDP understand the science of the cash grab very well.

[socialist]

A straight tax on all sources of CO2 is the best as long as it does not come with bogus reduction targets. At this point it looks good.

The trouble will come, of course, when the taxes don't actually reduce emissions because the alternatives are not viable at any price.

I don't know, Tim. Notley will chase so much capital out of Alberta and Canada that it will take a decade of high oil prices to bring it back. She and the idiots in Ottawa are going to make certain that there is no tidewater outlet for Canadian oil. The giant oil companies can invest anywhere, they have lower risk to capital in places like Russia, anywhere in the Middle East and Africa. These companies know how to deal with business risk anywhere on earth and now Alberta is going to be too costly to compete with places like Kazakhstan where there is a lot of easy to find conventional free-flowing oil. A friend of mine found a well there that produced 20,000 barrels per day and it cost less than 10 million to drill. Try to find a well like that in Alberta.

I might change my mind (were I to live so long) if in fact global warming was a serious problem in 2040. But I really have my doubts.

Edited November 23, 2015 by socialist

[socialist]

Is this really a step in the right direction? Or is it just another tax grab by ever expanding governments. Missing is the tax relief elsewhere (income taxes or corporate taxes) as well as reduction in the provincial payroll, especially the number and pay of civil servants.

Electricity rates will go way up, a foolish move as "renewables" are not nearly as green as advertised and certainly not renewable as solar panels or wind mills have to be replaced every 15-20 years and are triple to QUINTUPLE the cost per kwh !

Taxing carbon is for the little people, not the elite NDP - same old - do as I say, not as I do...

[On Guard for Thee]

BC has had a carbon tax for nealy a decade. The funds generated from it were to go towards establishing alternative energy options. Since day one the tax goes into general revenue and not one alternative option has been funded.

"The government expects its $30 per tonne carbon tax to generate $3 billion in annual revenues for the province, which is currently facing a $6.1 billion deficit following the collapse in oil prices that began in 2014."

I can't help but believe that this is really what it's all about. But of course that's what it's all about. If it was all about halting climate change, it would be revenue neutral. Taxes would be increased on carbon, but reduced somewhere else (income taxes for example).

The NDP understand the science of the cash grab very well.

The carbon tax in BC has been revenue neutral, and even somewhat revenue negative at times, and has reduced carbon emissions without hurting the economy. Just to update you..

[socialist]

The carbon tax in BC has been revenue neutral, and even somewhat revenue negative at times, and has reduced carbon emissions without hurting the economy. Just to update you..

No it hasn't. You just believe the media bias tat you are unable to decipher. Besides, this plan in Alberta is different than the B.C. scheme......in case you are unaware of the facts.

[TimG]

The carbon tax in BC has been revenue neutral, and even somewhat revenue negative at times, and has reduced carbon emissions without hurting the economy. Just to update you..

You cannot establish a causal relationship with emissions given a single experiment. More importantly, carbon taxes can marginally reduce emissions by encouraging people to drive slightly less or buy more efficient cars, however, there is a limit to amount of reductions that can be achieved. i.e. if you bring in a carbon tax one would expect to see a step change as people adjust which brings a modest emission reduction. After that you will have no further reductions without raising the carbon tax and if you do that enough do you risk killing the economy.

So carbon taxes are great because they are basically consumption taxes that allow politicians to claim they 'did something' but in the end they will not end emissions because the technology is not viable at any price.

[On Guard for Thee]

No it hasn't. You just believe the media bias tat you are unable to decipher. Besides, this plan in Alberta is different than the B.C. scheme......in case you are unaware of the facts.

I think I'll go with the facts the government produces (especially since they actually keep the books) rather than the bias all the naysayers seem to be stuck in.

[On Guard for Thee]

You cannot establish a causal relationship with emissions given a single experiment. More importantly, carbon taxes can marginally reduce emissions by encouraging people to drive slightly less or buy more efficient cars, however, there is a limit to amount of reductions that can be achieved. i.e. if you bring in a carbon tax one would expect to see a step change as people adjust which brings a modest emission reduction. After that you will have no further reductions without raising the carbon tax and if you do that enough do you risk killing the economy.

So carbon taxes are great because they are basically consumption taxes that allow politicians to claim they 'did something' but in the end they will not end emissions because the technology is not viable at any price.

You better try telling that to the bank off Abu Dhabi.

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/national-bank-abu-dhabi-even-10-barrel-oil-couldnt-match-solar-cost.html

[Wilber]

The Alberta government revenues are way down and money has to come from somewhere or start making drastic cutbacks, so they are instituting a carbon tax. Maybe they should put it to a referendum. Carbon tax, sales tax or big cuts in services.

It's called living within your means.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Wilber

[-1=e^ipi]

has reduced carbon emissions without hurting the economy.

Why do you think it is without economic cost?

The more broad the tax, generally the smaller the economic impact of it for the revenue generated. This is why a broad tax on CO2 emissions is the most economically efficient way at reducing emissions.

However, a consumption tax is even broader and has less economic impact. So by generating revenue with a CO2 emission tax rather than a consumption tax, there is an economic cost.

[On Guard for Thee]

Why do you think it is without economic cost?

The more broad the tax, generally the smaller the economic impact of it for the revenue generated. This is why a broad tax on CO2 emissions is the most economically efficient way at reducing emissions.

However, a consumption tax is even broader and has less economic impact. So by generating revenue with a CO2 emission tax rather than a consumption tax, there is an economic cost.

I didn't say it doesn't have a cost I said it didn't hurt the economy. Put simply, people use less fossil fuels because they cost more, so pollution is reduced, at the same time income taxes are reduced which encourages growth and investment.

[overthere]

From the article:

The province also expects a $30 per tonne price for carbon will generate $3 billion in annual revenues for the province, which is currently facing a $6.1 billion deficit following the collapse in oil prices that began in 2014.[/size]

other publications have noted that the $3B 'extra revenue'- which is simply more money paid by taxpayers for commodities they already buy today to get to work and heat their homes - will be 'reinvested' on energy alternatives and public transit and 'other government priorities'.

Translated, that means a) the govt will start to heavily subsidize energy costs for renewables, an Ontario replay which means prices per kwh will rise very sharply for business and consumers- a jobkiller by every measure, public transit will be expanded in a place where cities are sprawling and existing transit is already heavily subsidized c) they'll think they have a mandate to piss away more billions on their friends and supporters.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[msj]

they'll think they have a mandate to piss away more billions on their friends and supporters.

As opposed to maintaining the status quo and pissing away billions on current friends and supporters.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Agreed.

[overthere]

As opposed to maintaining the status quo and pissing away billions on current friends and supporters.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Agreed.

Notley subscribes to the theory that when you're in a hole, keep digging.

Example: complete refusal to acknowledge that in an economic downtown, it is reasonable to look at your expenses as well as revenue. She has kicked it up a notch by ignoring both, and gone the route of raising taxes and borrowing money.

Not one single civil service worker will lose wages or their job while tens of thousands of private sector workers do both.

That's 'progressive'.

[Guest]

Notley subscribes to the theory that when you're in a hole, keep digging.

Example: complete refusal to acknowledge that in an economic downtown, it is reasonable to look at your expenses as well as revenue. She has kicked it up a notch by ignoring both, and gone the route of raising taxes and borrowing money.

Not one single civil service worker will lose wages or their job while tens of thousands of private sector workers do both.

That's 'progressive'.

Time for a sales tax. I would happily accept a 5% sales tax until Alberta is back on solid fiscal ground.

[msj]

Example: complete refusal to acknowledge that in an economic downtown, it is reasonable to look at your expenses as well as revenue. She has kicked it up a notch by ignoring both, and gone the route of raising taxes and borrowing money.

Not one single civil service worker will lose wages or their job while tens of thousands of private sector workers do both.

That's 'progressive'.

No, that's a call for an economic death spiral.

[overthere]

No, that's a call for an economic death spiral.

That is our national reality.

[msj]

That is our national reality.

We've been through worse than a little bit of a commodity cycle bear market before.

We'll do fine.

[-1=e^ipi]

I didn't say it doesn't have a cost I said it didn't hurt the economy.

Which is dumb. There is a net negative cost to the economy since other forms of taxation, such as consumption taxes, are more efficient.

[Accountability Now]

Time for a sales tax. I would happily accept a 5% sales tax until Alberta is back on solid fiscal ground.

Not sure about this but has there ever been a sales tax that was 'temporary'. I have to assume that once its in that it will stay regardless of what fiscal ground we're on.

[Guest]

Not sure about this but has there ever been a sales tax that was 'temporary'. I have to assume that once its in that it will stay regardless of what fiscal ground we're on.

They could always make it a little more palatable by legislating its removal. Say, after two budget surpluses.