Ignatieff launches anti-middle class, anti-Alberta campaign

[geoffrey]

From the horses mouth: http://www.michaelignatieff.ca/en/news_info.aspx?id=254

The Liberals have continued to show their disconnect with the average Canadian today, with their front runner, launching a campaign against middle-class people and Albertans.

-Disguised as a "tax-shift", middle-class car drivers would pay more money in gasoline excise taxes to subsidize ethanol fuels used in more expensive vehicles. You'll pay more for groceries too, any everything else shipped via car. Ignatieff also proposed increasing the GST. There is a plea for assistance from the middle class in Canada right now, a group stuck with skyrocketing inflation in some areas and what's the Liberals' answer? Raise their taxes!

-What is described as "a cap on maximum aggregate emissions for major industrial emitters that puts a price on the cost of emissions;", which is simply a carbon tax against Alberta gas producers will compound the problem by dramatically increasing cost of in Canada produced fuels. Oil companies don't pay carbon taxes, consumers do. None the less, this form of taxation will reduce investment in Alberta oil sands development and hinder the provinces prosperity. All while doing absolutely nothing about the toxic cancer cloud that hangs about Toronto, because we know a Liberal can't touch that manufacturing core and win an election. So the proposal can be summarized as paying more taxes and dying faster in Toronto.

-He continues his attack on Alberta with the statement: "a carbon sequestration standard to shift the burden for greenhouse gas emissions management to the fossil fuel industry." So shift the cost of Canada's welfare system to Albertans, like we don't pay enough to fund the rest of the country. Shift the cost of cancer causing agents and asthma causing toxins from the manufacturing core that creates them to an industry that just produces health harmless CO2. It's not even logical.

If Ignatieff is elected to the PM job with that agenda, my time with this country is done. And I'd prefer to stay in Alberta, so hopefully another NEP would cause enough disdain that I could stay here and be done with Canada.

He's shown his admiration for Trudeau by outlining a policy that includes an aggressive tax and spend mentality and assaults on Alberta prosperity. Just remember though Liberal members, when you cast your leadership ballot, how awful economic life was in Canada under Trudeau. Also, think about how poor Canada would be without Alberta's equalisation dollars.

[August1991]

Geoffrey, I think your sensationalism is misplaced. Ignatieff might even get the Redmonton vote with this proposal.

This is what Ignatieff's web site has:

The policies presented in the outline include:

an innovative tax-shift on fuels;

a cap on maximum aggregate emissions for major industrial emitters that puts a price on the cost of emissions;

a program that requires automakers to increase market share for low, ultra-low and zero-emissions vehicles;

a partnership with the provinces to set minimum market shares for renewable energy generation;

a carbon sequestration standard to shift the burden for greenhouse gas emissions management to the fossil fuel industry.

limited purchases of international emissions reduction credits to contribute to credible emissions reductions projects in the developing world.

The key features are the carbon tax, world-carbon markets and developing a standard for carbon sequestration. These features make perfect sense.

Geoffrey, I don't know why you are on this "air pollution in Toronto" gig. If people in Toronto are upset about smog, let them solve the problem.

You raise a valid point about a tax grab. What's Ignatieff going to with all the carbon tax revenues?

[Hydraboss]

I see what you're getting at with the Toronto comparison. If the oilfield were located in Ontario, and the manufacturing sector was located in Alberta, you can bet that the latter would be the root of the greenhouse evil. Environment be damned, this is not about health and wellness of people and planet, it is about votes and Ontario has more seats.

The remainder seems to be a re-hash of the old "Kyoto-good/Kyoto-bad" argument. The two sides will never agree about the benefit/non-benefit of purchasing carbon credits. (I feel that it accomplishes absolutely nothing for the planet's environment...not gain=0).

Mikey is looking for the double whammy: massive tax grab without affecting the most seats, and paying back Alberta because it's fun and it just doesn't matter what we think unless it's a very close election.

[geoffrey]

I see what you're getting at with the Toronto comparison. If the oilfield were located in Ontario, and the manufacturing sector was located in Alberta, you can bet that the latter would be the root of the greenhouse evil. Environment be damned, this is not about health and wellness of people and planet, it is about votes and Ontario has more seats.

There we go. It's easier for a Liberal, or any government for that matter, to raise taxation from Alberta than Ontario politically. Might as well rob the oilman, they only have 28 seats.

The remainder seems to be a re-hash of the old "Kyoto-good/Kyoto-bad" argument. The two sides will never agree about the benefit/non-benefit of purchasing carbon credits. (I feel that it accomplishes absolutely nothing for the planet's environment...not gain=0).

Maybe, I still insist our priority should be on what is killing Canadians now, not what might eliminate the polar bear 1000 years from now.

Mikey is looking for the double whammy: massive tax grab without affecting the most seats, and paying back Alberta because it's fun and it just doesn't matter what we think unless it's a very close election.

Our mistake is making it seem to the Liberal's we'll never elect one of them. Now they follow that famous Trudeau campaigner quote, "screw the west, we'll take the rest."

What is the motivation to stay with a country that merely views us a resource colony?

Geoffrey, I think your sensationalism is misplaced. Ignatieff might even get the Redmonton vote with this proposal.

Edmontonians still rely on oil and gas for their well being. They were equally upset by the last NEP. That being said, I don't think any Canadian will appreicate increase gasoline taxes and GST. Maybe in Quebec, the land of the every balloning taxation scheme, but not in the ROC.

The key features are the carbon tax, world-carbon markets and developing a standard for carbon sequestration. These features make perfect sense.

Geoffrey, I don't know why you are on this "air pollution in Toronto" gig. If people in Toronto are upset about smog, let them solve the problem.

Then the people in Toronto should keep to themselves as well, let Alberta deal with its pollution in the economical ways that we are. I'd rather breathe Alberta air than Ontario air, yet Alberta will bare an overwelming majority of carbon taxation, supposedly to end pollution? Please.

You raise a valid point about a tax grab. What's Ignatieff going to with all the carbon tax revenues?

Apparently he's going to give it back to the provinces that the tax came from. Just like gas taxes... oh wait, that fell through. A reasonable person would assume it will go to general revenue and we'll see increased spending.

[August1991]

There we go. It's easier for a Liberal, or any government for that matter, to raise taxation from Alberta than Ontario politically. Might as well rob the oilman, they only have 28 seats.

Would you agree to a carbon tax if half the proceeds wento Albertans?

The key features are the carbon tax, world-carbon markets and developing a standard for carbon sequestration. These features make perfect sense.

Geoffrey, I don't know why you are on this "air pollution in Toronto" gig. If people in Toronto are upset about smog, let them solve the problem.

Then the people in Toronto should keep to themselves as well, let Alberta deal with its pollution in the economical ways that we are.

It's called global warming, Geoffrey. Burning fossil fuels in Alberta affects the planet's environment. Local smog is a local problem easily avoided by moving elsewhere.

You raise a valid point about a tax grab. What's Ignatieff going to with all the carbon tax revenues?

Apparently he's going to give it back to the provinces that the tax came from. Just like gas taxes... oh wait, that fell through. A reasonable person would assume it will go to general revenue and we'll see increased spending.

I agree with you on this point. I'm in favour of a carbon tax and a simultaneous income tax cut so that the effect is revenue neutral. More important, I want to see lower government expenditure.

[gc1765]

I don't understand why Ignatieff wants to pass the tax savings onto ethanol users. Like you mentioned before, ethanol will be used mostly by the rich, and it still contributes to greenhouse gases. I would MUCH rather see that money used to further subsidize public transit. That seems like a much better way to reduce greenhouse gases than ethanol fueled cars.

I agree with you that anyone who produces pollution (ie manufacturing) should pay for the associated health costs (and more) through taxes. I'm not sure how it works now, but if they're not paying for it they should be. However, those who produce CO2 should also have to pay for the associated costs. Whether it is in the oil industry in Alberta, or manufacturing in Ontario, it really doesn't matter. If you produce it, you pay for it.

I'm also curious what this means (from Ignatieff's website): "...where revenue would be recycled back to the

province it originated from." Does that mean that the money collected from energy used in the oil sands will go back to Alberta? If that's the case, maybe it's not directed at Alberta.

As for his GST hike, the only problem with it is that retailers just finished changing their registers. Wouldn't it be a hassle to have to change them back? I'd be all for a GST hike (I was opposed to cutting it in the first place) but it seems like it would be very inconvenient, especially if it keeps going up and down everytime we change governments.

[Hydraboss]

The key features are the carbon tax, world-carbon markets and developing a standard for carbon sequestration. These features make perfect sense.

Geoffrey, I don't know why you are on this "air pollution in Toronto" gig. If people in Toronto are upset about smog, let them solve the problem.

Then the people in Toronto should keep to themselves as well, let Alberta deal with its pollution in the economical ways that we are.

"It's called global warming, Geoffrey. Burning fossil fuels in Alberta affects the planet's environment. Local smog is a local problem easily avoided by moving elsewhere."

But the majority of the burning of fossil fuels is not done in Alberta. The taking of fossil fuels from the ground is done here, but the vast majority of raw materials is sent east or south for processing. While we produce greenhouse gases here in Alberta, we do not have the population to produce anywhere near what east-central Canada does. Per capita may or may not be comparative, but sheer numbers will never even be close, hence the smog in Toronto, London, and (my favorite) Sarnia, Great Land of Petrochemicals. So who pays the carbon tax? The producer, or the secondary/tertiary manufacturer, the end-user or all?

The idea that the tax-grab will end up in General Revenue is justified, as this tends to be where a lot of unaccounted for money ends up (Read: EI).

[gc1765]

But the majority of the burning of fossil fuels is not done in Alberta. The taking of fossil fuels from the ground is done here, but the vast majority of raw materials is sent east or south for processing. While we produce greenhouse gases here in Alberta, we do not have the population to produce anywhere near what east-central Canada does. Per capita may or may not be comparative, but sheer numbers will never even be close, hence the smog in Toronto, London, and (my favorite) Sarnia, Great Land of Petrochemicals.

Not true.

CALGARY - Alberta's greenhouse-gas emissions have once again topped all other provinces -- accounting for nearly a third of the country's total emissions, the latest government figures show.

The province's emissions rose to 39.4 per cent above its 1990 level in 2004, with the oil and gas industry cast as the main culprit behind the 235 megatonnes of greenhouse gases released into the air, the federal government's national inventory report states.

Link

[August1991]

But the majority of the burning of fossil fuels is not done in Alberta.

True.

There seems to be confusion here and I may have caused some of it.

The burning of fossil fuels, wherever it takes place, contributes to greenhouse gases and global warming. Cars driven in Calgary, Toronto or Tokyo are all contributors.

A carbon tax would specifically apply to the burning of fossil fuels (such as gasoline). The tax could be collected at the pump but as everyone should know, it is not obvious who would really pay the tax: the buyer or the seller or more likely both would share the burden. I suspect however that the bulk of the tax would fall on consumers and here's why. A Canadian carbon tax would have little or no effect on the world price of oil. Albertans would still receive the world price for any oil they sell. A carbon tax would merely show up as a higher price to consumers.

The burning of fossil fuels (along with many other industrial processes) also contributes to low-altitude urban smog. This is a phenomenon of cities and depends on local geography and weather conditions. An individual can easily avoid urban smog by moving to a different city or moving to a rural area. It is impossible to avoid global warming because it occurs at the level of the planet.

The federal government (and central governments around the world) must think seriously about greenhouse gas emissions. Local governments should think about urban smog.

-----

Some highlights of Ignatieff's proposal:

A free-market dictates that emissions will continue to rise unless reducing emissions is reflected in the cost of doing business. If we are serious about climate change, we need to design and implement policies that provide strong financial and regulatory constraints to prevent the free dumping of emissions into the atmosphere.

That's very true.

• Restructured excise taxes and GST on transportation fuels to reflect greenhouse gas emissions as a first tax shift.

• Net revenue neutral with surplus revenue, if any, being recycled back to province of origin.

This begs the question. Would the surplus revenues be returned to the provincial governments or returned to individuals in the province? How would the carbon tax be revenue neutral?

I would prefer to see a dollar-for-dollar cut in income tax for each dollar of carbon tax revenue but I don't know if that would be politically palatable for the Liberals. Then again, they have little chance of ever getting the Western rural vote.

Overall, this is an impressive document. Elsewhere, I have called Ignatieff a flake. Depending on how this policy develops, I might consider changing my opinion and my vote.

[jbg]

I'm disappointed. I thought Ignatieff would return the Liberals to common sense policies. The signs were good on the Middle East issues. I guess a Liberal is a Liberal.

[geoffrey]

But the majority of the burning of fossil fuels is not done in Alberta.

True.

There seems to be confusion here and I may have caused some of it.

The burning of fossil fuels, wherever it takes place, contributes to greenhouse gases and global warming. Cars driven in Calgary, Toronto or Tokyo are all contributors.

A carbon tax would specifically apply to the burning of fossil fuels (such as gasoline). The tax could be collected at the pump but as everyone should know, it is not obvious who would really pay the tax: the buyer or the seller or more likely both would share the burden. I suspect however that the bulk of the tax would fall on consumers and here's why. A Canadian carbon tax would have little or no effect on the world price of oil. Albertans would still receive the world price for any oil they sell. A carbon tax would merely show up as a higher price to consumers.

The burning of fossil fuels (along with many other industrial processes) also contributes to low-altitude urban smog. This is a phenomenon of cities and depends on local geography and weather conditions. An individual can easily avoid urban smog by moving to a different city or moving to a rural area. It is impossible to avoid global warming because it occurs at the level of the planet.

I disagree again. The oil sands is a major consumer of fossil fuels, in natural gas. They'd pay a ridiculously high share of any introduced carbon tax.

On top of that, you don't think our taxes are high enough on gasoline?

[August1991]

I'm disappointed. I thought Ignatieff would return the Liberals to common sense policies. The signs were good on the Middle East issues. I guess a Liberal is a Liberal.

This a sensible policy and for a tax, it's packaged the best way possible to survive politically. I would love to see an election on environmental policy and tax policy.

The problem with Liberals is that they promise but they don't deliver. I can easily imagine a PM Ignatieff in 2011 giving X, Y, Z reasons to explain why his government was unable to implement a carbon tax.

Whatever Harper proposes (and there's no doubt the Tories will propose something similar), there's a much stronger chance that it will actually be implemented.

I disagree again. The oil sands is a major consumer of fossil fuels, in natural gas. They'd pay a ridiculously high share of any introduced carbon tax.

That's correct, Geoffrey. The burden of a carbon tax will fall largely on fossil-fuel consumers - including makers of synthetic (tar-sand based) fuels. But this makes sense. It is up to the Syncrude people to devise ways to use less natural gas or to capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions.

On top of that, you don't think our taxes are high enough on gasoline?

No, they are not high enough. Absolutely. People buy gasoline and then get to dump it freely into the atmosphere with impunity. Would you allow me to dump 50 litres of gasoline on your front lawn just because I wanted to? It is not too far an exaggeration to say that that is what people do now everytime they fill a tank of gasoline.

Our cities would be a mess if people could just dump trash out a window whenever they wanted. Yet, that is precisely the situation with greenhouse gases today.

The current price of gasoline does not include the cost of disposing of burnt gasoline and this must change. Bear in mind that we would just be paying money to ourselves for the use of something we own collectively. Ignatieff's proposal shows that this point is beginning to dawn on politicians. Under his scheme, a carbon tax would be revenue neutral by province.

[Rue]

Ignatieff's proposals are no different then what believe it or not some Republicans are also talking about when they propose the US find an alternative to dependence on Middle East oil. Even Bush has made some speeches going in this direction. I do not doubt what Ignatieff is saying is simply hot air at this point because he is seeking leadership of the Liberals and needs sound bites but eventually all countries will have to look at how alternative fuels are funded. The fact is provinces like Alberta which depend heavily on oil need not panic. They will continue to swell on their oil wealth for years to come. And besides you Albertans have lots of land to set up refugee camps for Ontarians who you assume will continue to finance the rest of Canada. As for me I just love watching you rich dudes in Alberta watch the rest of us struggle. I am a displaced refugee from Quebec who went to Truntah. I should have kept going. I hear the streets are paved with Gold in Calgary and you guys sent all your drug addicts to Vancouver.

[kimmy]

We were discussing this in another thread recently, and I again have to ask: why is the producer, rather than the consumer, being made the target of the carbon tax?

People are familiar with

pie-charts showing a break-down of gas prices.

They should be able to look at a break-down like this and see that they pay X cents per litre for putting emissions into the air. That's really the only time the environmental cost of driving an Escalade instead of a Civic is going to smack them in the face.

Ethanol-blended fuels would have a lower environmental surcharge per litre because ethanol-blended fuels produce less emissions per litre of fuel burned. I would have to dig out my highschool chemistry notes to figure out exactly how much, but the cost should be linked directly to the amount of C02 that gets put into the air. Propane and natural gas fuels likewise create less emissions per litre of fuel, so the environmental surcharge should be lower.

That's just basic fairness.

But what government has the guts to put something this unpopular right in front of the consumer's face?

Mulroney had the guts to put something this unpopular right in front of the consumer's face... and look how that turned out.

August will probably argue that applying the tax to the producer or applying the cost to the consumer are equivalent, since producers would just pass along the cost to consumers anyway. I disagree.

-first off, not all oil or gas used in Canada comes from Canada. Refineries in eastern Canada get some of their oil from offshore. I believe that some wholesalers in eastern Canada get their gasoline from US refineries. How do I, as an environmentally concerned Canadian, know whether a litre of gas pumped into a car in Toronto or Halifax has paid the appropriate environmental surcharge? A situation could arise where a retailer is able to secure a big per-litre profit-margin advantage relative to his competition by finding a supplier that isn't subject to a carbon-tax on Canadian producers.

-at what point in the production process is the tax to be applied?

When the oil comes out of the ground? But not all oil used in Canada comes from Canadian sources.

When the oil is refined? But wouldn't that create an incentive for oil producers to move the processing portion of their production out of Canada? I thought we decided that shipping our raw materials out of the country and then buying the value-added goods back at higher prices was a dumb strategy.

-visibility and transparency. August speaks of creating a market for a service called environmental protection. If the goal is to create an understanding of the environmental costs of our behavior and to use market forces to discourage the waste of fossil fuels, then why (other than political expediency or cowardice) would we hide the cost from the consumer? Why implement the carbon tax in a way that invites the consumer to blame the high cost of fuel on greedy oil companies rather than on a community decision to apply an environmental charge?

-kimmy

[Charles Anthony]

-at what point in the production process is the tax to be applied?

At the pump. If the purpose of the tax is to discourage the emissions, the tax should be applied only at the last transaction before the gas is burned.

If the purpose of the tax is to generate revenue or to nickel-and-dime Canadians or to redistribute wealth or to steal-from-Peter-to-give-to-Paul, apply the tax wherever you want or wherever politics allows.

[Hicksey]

It doesn't really matter what he says. It doesn't matter who gets the party leadership. The anger over the scandal is waning which means the Liberals will be returned to office whenever we return to the polls.

Harper is doing OK, but to change the view that the Liberals are the ruling class of Canada he had to be great. He's not been great. I think the best CPC voters can hope for is another slim minority.

[August1991]

Kimmy, as usual on this forum, we have been discussing this question in different threads and meandered off topic at times into peak oil, equalization, Alberta vs. Central Canada and Klein's sobriety. Such is the Internet, or MLW.

We were discussing this in another thread recently, and I again have to ask: why is the producer, rather than the consumer, being made the target of the carbon tax?

You are referring to something called tax incidence or the idea that the person legally required to pay a tax is often not the person who bears the cost of the tax. (Incidentally, the wikipedia article is not very good. Someone should improve it.)

For example, the government could impose a carbon tax on consumers at the pumps but the true cost would be borne by producers since competition would force them to lower the retail price.

In this particular case, I feel safe in arguing that whoever is legally required to pay a carbon tax, consumers would bear the burden of the tax. Of course, "consumers" would include Torontonians buying gas for their Hummers and Syncrude buying natural gas to melt tar sands.

(Why do I think this? The world oil price creates a benchmark and any Canadian carbon tax would simply move the domestic retail price away from this benchmark.)

People are familiar with pie-charts showing a break-down of gas prices.

They should be able to look at a break-down like this and see that they pay X cents per litre for putting emissions into the air. That's really the only time the environmental cost of driving an Escalade instead of a Civic is going to smack them in the face.

It's not a pie chart decal plastered on a pump that makes people change their behaviour (only Leftists believe purely symbolic advertising can effect change). No, it's Bob and Mary with squirming kids at the dealership doing the calculations as they negotiate a lease on a new SUV, and then add in how much it'll cost in gasoline. We've all been there, done that. At a certain point, you look the other in the eye and say "It's too much." Only nerds notice the decals; everyone else looks at the out of pocket price.

Ethanol-blended fuels would have a lower environmental surcharge per litre because ethanol-blended fuels produce less emissions per litre of fuel burned. I would have to dig out my highschool chemistry notes to figure out exactly how much, but the cost should be linked directly to the amount of C02 that gets put into the air. Propane and natural gas fuels likewise create less emissions per litre of fuel, so the environmental surcharge should be lower.

Ethanol would be lower because it is CO2 neutral. In growing, corn stalks take CO2 out of the atmosphere and then burning the ethanol puts it back in. I have a suspicion that propane, benzine, butane, gasoline and diesel all have similar CO2 profiles. Unlike particulate, sulphur or CO emissions, butane is not "cleaner" than diesel when it comes to CO2.

But what government has the guts to put something this unpopular right in front of the consumer's face? Mulroney had the guts to put something this unpopular right in front of the consumer's face... and look how that turned out.

That's why a carbon tax has to be revenue neutral, and revenue neutral by province. After that, a politician has to pray that she/he can explain the tax and sufficient voters care about global warming. I'm sure political colleagues around the table would be thinking: "Red bandana kamikaze."

August will probably argue that applying the tax to the producer or applying the cost to the consumer are equivalent, since producers would just pass along the cost to consumers anyway. I disagree.

-first off, not all oil or gas used in Canada comes from Canada. Refineries in eastern Canada get some of their oil from offshore. I believe that some wholesalers in eastern Canada get their gasoline from US refineries. How do I, as an environmentally concerned Canadian, know whether a litre of gas pumped into a car in Toronto or Halifax has paid the appropriate environmental surcharge? A situation could arise where a retailer is able to secure a big per-litre profit-margin advantage relative to his competition by finding a supplier that isn't subject to a carbon-tax on Canadian producers.

A carbon tax would have to apply to all locally produced oil and all imported oil (unless the oil came from a place like Norway where a tax had already been applied). People don't need to know that a carbon tax is included in the price. [see below.]

-at what point in the production process is the tax to be applied?

When the oil comes out of the ground? But not all oil used in Canada comes from Canadian sources.

When the oil is refined? But wouldn't that create an incentive for oil producers to move the processing portion of their production out of Canada? I thought we decided that shipping our raw materials out of the country and then buying the value-added goods back at higher prices was a dumb strategy.

I agree with Charles above. Ideally, the tax should apply at the moment of CO2 emission into the atmosphere. In practice, any purchase (and burning) of fossil fuels leads directly to easily predicted CO2 emissions. A carbon tax could apply when the oil comes out of the ground or gets offloaded from a ship.

You make a good point though. The issue becomes more complex in terms of incentives to create CO2 sinks or sequestration. If you design a car engine that burns gasoline but captures the CO2 from the exhaust and magically turns it into diamonds and pure oxygen, then drivers of your car should not have to pay the carbon tax.

-visibility and transparency. August speaks of creating a market for a service called environmental protection. If the goal is to create an understanding of the environmental costs of our behavior and to use market forces to discourage the waste of fossil fuels, then why (other than political expediency or cowardice) would we hide the cost from the consumer? Why implement the carbon tax in a way that invites the consumer to blame the high cost of fuel on greedy oil companies rather than on a community decision to apply an environmental charge?

I have argued elsewhere that the modern Left confuses symbol and reality. Your final point is an example of that idea. For example, the modern Left believes that if we change the words (symbols) used to describe reality, we can change reality. I would argue that symbols, to be credible, can only reflect reality.

----

In Europe, if you want to go to the washroom, you have to pay. In Canada, the cost of using a restaurant washroom is indirectly included in the price of a meal. Does it matter? I don't really care how we charge for the use of the environment but we have to find a way to do it. This pissing and shitting into a public area without any fee or cost can't continue.

[Argus]

I disagree again. The oil sands is a major consumer of fossil fuels, in natural gas. They'd pay a ridiculously high share of any introduced carbon tax.

That's correct, Geoffrey. The burden of a carbon tax will fall largely on fossil-fuel consumers - including makers of synthetic (tar-sand based) fuels. But this makes sense. It is up to the Syncrude people to devise ways to use less natural gas or to capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions.

That's one way to look at it. Suppose instead we say "It's up to the people who make aircraft and cars to devise ways to use non-polluting fuels."

Sounds fair. Of course, it would drive Quebec's aircraft manufacturing industry into the toilet, and destroy Ontario's automotive manufacturing too. But hey, it's perfectly fair, right? If they can't "devise" ways to cut pollution, oh well, tough titties to them, eh?

That is what you're saying about Alberta's syncrude. It's up to them to "devise" ways to use less energy or else they go out of business. And if they do, oh well, big shrug, right? Won't bother Quebec.

[Charles Anthony]

For example, the government could impose a carbon tax on consumers at the pumps but the true cost would be borne by producers since competition would force them to lower the retail price.

I do not get it. What do you mean? Both lose.

Consumers get less oil for the same price. Producers sell less oil for the same price.

But what government has the guts to put something this unpopular right in front of the consumer's face? Mulroney had the guts to put something this unpopular right in front of the consumer's face... and look how that turned out.

That's why a carbon tax has to be revenue neutral, and revenue neutral by province.

What exactly do you mean by revenue neutral?

Do you mean the collected tax is returned to where it was collected?

[geoffrey]

That's one way to look at it. Suppose instead we say "It's up to the people who make aircraft and cars to devise ways to use non-polluting fuels."

Sounds fair. Of course, it would drive Quebec's aircraft manufacturing industry into the toilet, and destroy Ontario's automotive manufacturing too. But hey, it's perfectly fair, right? If they can't "devise" ways to cut pollution, oh well, tough titties to them, eh?

That is what you're saying about Alberta's syncrude. It's up to them to "devise" ways to use less energy or else they go out of business. And if they do, oh well, big shrug, right? Won't bother Quebec.

Exactly why Canada doesn't work in it's current arrangement. People in Quebec have not even the foggiest understanding of what a carbon tax means to Alberta, yet they think they should impose policies upon us.

Let's do that Argus, have Ontario's and Quebec's industries devasted by punishing those that provided the means to use the fuel as well.

And instead of pretending to impose an environmental tax, describe it accurately and just take a large chunk out of middle class paycheques.

Let's tax the devices that use the fuel, not the fuel itself. Makes sense to me. Same revenue, taken from other provinces, providing the same effect on the environment.

What say ye?

[kimmy]

We were discussing this in another thread recently, and I again have to ask: why is the producer, rather than the consumer, being made the target of the carbon tax?

You are referring to something called tax incidence or the idea that the person legally required to pay a tax is often not the person who bears the cost of the tax. (Incidentally, the wikipedia article is not very good. Someone should improve it.)

For example, the government could impose a carbon tax on consumers at the pumps but the true cost would be borne by producers since competition would force them to lower the retail price.

How does competition force them to lower the retail price, when all of their competitors prices would be equally affected?

Competition doesn't force them to absorb the cost of the supply fluctuations that mysteriously precede summer long weekends... why would competition force them to eat the cost of a carbon tax? I doubt they would, particularly when the government is providing a well-publicized reason for the price hike and the gas companies could claim truthfully that it's not their fault.

Sorry, August, their track record disputes the argument you're making.

In this particular case, I feel safe in arguing that whoever is legally required to pay a carbon tax, consumers would bear the burden of the tax. Of course, "consumers" would include Torontonians buying gas for their Hummers and Syncrude buying natural gas to melt tar sands.

(Why do I think this? The world oil price creates a benchmark and any Canadian carbon tax would simply move the domestic retail price away from this benchmark.)

Sure. Either way, this is ultimately coming out of the wallet of Canadian consumers.

It's not a pie chart decal plastered on a pump that makes people change their behaviour (only Leftists believe purely symbolic advertising can effect change). No, it's Bob and Mary with squirming kids at the dealership doing the calculations as they negotiate a lease on a new SUV, and then add in how much it'll cost in gasoline. We've all been there, done that. At a certain point, you look the other in the eye and say "It's too much." Only nerds notice the decals; everyone else looks at the out of pocket price.

I've never purchased a new vehicle, so I can't actually relate to what details go through your head as you're negotiating the lease. I do know that when I purchased my own car (the late, unlamented Reliant...) the operating costs were not a primary concern. While I had a vague awareness that I would have to pay for gas, I had the feeling that I could manage gas costs by just driving less if need be. Purchasing my car with the proceeds of a summer at a minimum wage job, the larger obstacle was the initial purchase price of the vehicle, not the operating costs. I have a hunch that the same kind of logic applies when people are purchasing their SUVs. People who can afford to shell out $70k to $100k or more for a Hummer or an Escalade probably don't have to sweat gas prices too much either, and it's probably not a factor in their purchasing decision.

I've always had the sense that part of the reason people choose to drive a vehicle like that is to show other people that you're a successful person. "I can afford a car like this!" and in the past couple of years the footnote has been added: "...and I can afford to buy gas for it!"

Ethanol-blended fuels would have a lower environmental surcharge per litre because ethanol-blended fuels produce less emissions per litre of fuel burned. I would have to dig out my highschool chemistry notes to figure out exactly how much, but the cost should be linked directly to the amount of C02 that gets put into the air. Propane and natural gas fuels likewise create less emissions per litre of fuel, so the environmental surcharge should be lower.

Ethanol would be lower because it is CO2 neutral. In growing, corn stalks take CO2 out of the atmosphere and then burning the ethanol puts it back in.

An excellent point.

I have a suspicion that propane, benzine, butane, gasoline and diesel all have similar CO2 profiles. Unlike particulate, sulphur or CO emissions, butane is not "cleaner" than diesel when it comes to CO2.

On a grams-of-CO2 (and other emmissions) produced per litre burned, I think it still provable using highschool chemistry that propane and natural gas come out ahead of gasoline, if only marginally.

A carbon tax would have to apply to all locally produced oil and all imported oil (unless the oil came from a place like Norway where a tax had already been applied). People don't need to know that a carbon tax is included in the price. [see below.]

Doesn't this sound like a bureaucratic nightmare, though? Keeping track of which oil has already been taxed? For as long as I've been on MLW, you've been pointing out that governments don't know how to do anything cheaply. Why would this oil-tracking bureacracy be any different?

We already have efficient and easy to administer means of applying a carbon tax at point of purchase, whether from utility company or your corner gas station. Why wouldn't you want to use them?

I agree with Charles above. Ideally, the tax should apply at the moment of CO2 emission into the atmosphere. In practice, any purchase (and burning) of fossil fuels leads directly to easily predicted CO2 emissions. A carbon tax could apply when the oil comes out of the ground or gets offloaded from a ship.

The same can be said for the purchase of fossil fuels. If somebody's buying gasoline or propane or natural gas in Canada, we know darned well they're going to burn it. There's precious little else they can do with it, whether they're putting it into their car, or a jerry-can, or whether it enters their house through a pipe connected to their furnace. (I guess there might be situations where somebody buys gasoline to use as a cleaning solvent or killing head-lice... but by weight of fuel sold I'm sure that those applications are pretty insignificant...)

A question your approach raises: should the carbon tax be applied on oil we export?

You make a good point though. The issue becomes more complex in terms of incentives to create CO2 sinks or sequestration. If you design a car engine that burns gasoline but captures the CO2 from the exhaust and magically turns it into diamonds and pure oxygen, then drivers of your car should not have to pay the carbon tax.

One thing that occured to me as I read Ignatieff's plan is, don't a lot of tax-grabs lately seem to be justified with a statement that it'll make Canada a world leader in this or that? I believe in last election it was claimed at various points that applying taxes could make us world leaders in emissionless automobiles, alternative electrical generation, healthcare innovation, advanced manufacturing, and pharmaceutical research.

-visibility and transparency. August speaks of creating a market for a service called environmental protection. If the goal is to create an understanding of the environmental costs of our behavior and to use market forces to discourage the waste of fossil fuels, then why (other than political expediency or cowardice) would we hide the cost from the consumer? Why implement the carbon tax in a way that invites the consumer to blame the high cost of fuel on greedy oil companies rather than on a community decision to apply an environmental charge?

I have argued elsewhere that the modern Left confuses symbol and reality. Your final point is an example of that idea. For example, the modern Left believes that if we change the words (symbols) used to describe reality, we can change reality. I would argue that symbols, to be credible, can only reflect reality.

I don't understand what you're saying. Why isn't a carbon tax applied to consumers a credible symbol of the real issue? Requesting that people pay a fee for the privilege of putting emissions into the air seems justifiable and credible based on standards that we already accept.

A carbon tax is based on two fundamental ideas, which I think are both very defensible: if you're buying fuel, you're going to create emissions when you use the fuel. And, the government has the power to regulate the use of the air.

It's an undeniable scientific truth: for each litre of fuel you buy, you will put X amount of emissions into the atmosphere.

And we've already established that the government has the power to regulate vehicular travel through the air, and we've established that the government has the power to regulate electromagnetic and sonic emissions into the air... and I believe it's also the case that the government is able to impose fines and penalties for large-scale production of atmospheric pollution (can a factory pump poisons or carcinogens out of their smoke-stacks with impunity? I don't believe so.)

The idea that the government has the right to regulate emissions into the air seems to be based on precidents that nobody seems to take issue with. You say that the government needs to claim ownership of the air; I think that the government has already established ownership, but isn't very active in applying this ownership yet.

-k

[gc1765]

Let's tax the devices that use the fuel, not the fuel itself. Makes sense to me. Same revenue, taken from other provinces, providing the same effect on the environment.

What say ye?

So, you're saying that someone who drives their car only once or twice a week to get groceries should pay the same amount of tax as someone who drives a lot everyday? Both are driving the same vehicule, but one uses much more gas than the other.

[Charles Anthony]

For example, the government could impose a carbon tax on consumers at the pumps but the true cost would be borne by producers since competition would force them to lower the retail price.

How does competition force them to lower the retail price, when all of their competitors prices would be equally affected?

The same market force that keeps them from being able to raise the price too high. Just consider the tax as if it was an extra production cost.

If somebody's buying gasoline or propane or natural gas in Canada, we know darned well they're going to burn it. There's precious little else they can do with it, whether they're putting it into their car, or a jerry-can, or whether it enters their house through a pipe connected to their furnace.

No. They can re-sell it.

Let's tax the devices that use the fuel, not the fuel itself. Makes sense to me. Same revenue, taken from other provinces, providing the same effect on the environment.

So, you're saying that someone who drives their car only once or twice a week to get groceries should pay the same amount of tax as someone who drives a lot everyday? Both are driving the same vehicule, but one uses much more gas than the other.

Excellent example!

[Black Dog]

Geoffery:

Oil companies don't pay carbon taxes, consumers do.

The oil sands is a major consumer of fossil fuels, in natural gas. They'd pay a ridiculously high share of any introduced carbon tax

Which is it?

None the less, this form of taxation will reduce investment in Alberta oil sands development and hinder the provinces prosperity

I don't buy the idea that taxation or increased royalties will deter investment in the oil sands. There's just too much money to be made right now.

[AndrewL]

From the horses mouth: http://www.michaelignatieff.ca/en/news_info.aspx?id=254

The Liberals have continued to show their disconnect with the average Canadian today, with their front runner, launching a campaign against middle-class people and Albertans.

-Disguised as a "tax-shift", middle-class car drivers would pay more money in gasoline excise taxes to subsidize ethanol fuels used in more expensive vehicles. You'll pay more for groceries too, any everything else shipped via car. Ignatieff also proposed increasing the GST. There is a plea for assistance from the middle class in Canada right now, a group stuck with skyrocketing inflation in some areas and what's the Liberals' answer? Raise their taxes!

-What is described as "a cap on maximum aggregate emissions for major industrial emitters that puts a price on the cost of emissions;", which is simply a carbon tax against Alberta gas producers will compound the problem by dramatically increasing cost of in Canada produced fuels. Oil companies don't pay carbon taxes, consumers do. None the less, this form of taxation will reduce investment in Alberta oil sands development and hinder the provinces prosperity. All while doing absolutely nothing about the toxic cancer cloud that hangs about Toronto, because we know a Liberal can't touch that manufacturing core and win an election. So the proposal can be summarized as paying more taxes and dying faster in Toronto.

-He continues his attack on Alberta with the statement: "a carbon sequestration standard to shift the burden for greenhouse gas emissions management to the fossil fuel industry." So shift the cost of Canada's welfare system to Albertans, like we don't pay enough to fund the rest of the country. Shift the cost of cancer causing agents and asthma causing toxins from the manufacturing core that creates them to an industry that just produces health harmless CO2. It's not even logical.

If Ignatieff is elected to the PM job with that agenda, my time with this country is done. And I'd prefer to stay in Alberta, so hopefully another NEP would cause enough disdain that I could stay here and be done with Canada.

He's shown his admiration for Trudeau by outlining a policy that includes an aggressive tax and spend mentality and assaults on Alberta prosperity. Just remember though Liberal members, when you cast your leadership ballot, how awful economic life was in Canada under Trudeau. Also, think about how poor Canada would be without Alberta's equalisation dollars.

Im from alberta, directly benefit from the destruction of the landbase and the pollution of the planet, (who doesn't besides ingigeneous pesoples) and I fully support Ignatieff on this issue. Although he probably wont do enough to stop the destruction of my land. How is this anti-alberta? I could just as easily say alberta is against the protection of a viable ecosystem, which would be true.

Andrew