Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax

[Saipan]

For example, let's see what the cost would be to use natural gas to take over a good chunk coal's previous energy generation. What are the costs? Can the plants be retrofitted easily

I say use coal more - just like China. It's WAY cheaper. And everyone is supporting it by buying Made in China.

I wish it really cause some warm up, which it doesn't, it could benefit us by longer growing season and less waste in heating fuel..

Scientists were telling us pollution creates equivalent of "nuclear winter" thus the cooling. But that was the fashion of the 70's. We are into "global warming" now.

[Alta4ever]

Scientists were telling us pollution creates equivalent of "nuclear winter" thus the cooling. But that was the fashion of the 70's. We are into "global warming" now.

No, now the idiots are calling it climate change, they have to cover off all out comes.

[YEGmann]

Simply because CO2 is a necessary by-product (so are other pollutants for a lot of industries) doesn't mean it cannot be reduced effectively and economically.

Oh! The same liberal crap again!

CO2 is not a polutant. It is a clean harmless substanse. It is not a byproduct. It is an ideal final product of any combustion process. Along with H2O. Why don't you suggest limiting production of H2O?

In the real world as anyone with minimum scientific education knows both CO2 and H2O are extrimely useful for life on the Earth.

[GostHacked]

The pollution in the ground will kill us before the pollution in the air. And way before any global warming.

[GostHacked]

Oh! The same liberal crap again!

CO2 is not a polutant. It is a clean harmless substanse. It is not a byproduct. It is an ideal final product of any combustion process. Along with H2O. Why don't you suggest limiting production of H2O?

In the real world as anyone with minimum scientific education knows both CO2 and H2O are extrimely useful for life on the Earth.

I would not put it past them to charge individual humans for CO2 emmisions. All of you stop breathing right now !!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I look forward to the introduction of another tax, a carbon tax at that, with great hope. I hope the morons that proposed the damned thing realize that there are those of us who don't like the idea.

[Smallc]

The pollution in the ground will kill us before the pollution in the air. And way before any global warming.

Don't be so sure of that.

[Michael Hardner]

In the real world as anyone with minimum scientific education knows both CO2 and H2O are extrimely useful for life on the Earth.

Thousands of scientific papers dating back over a hundred years have accurately correlated CO2 and H20. That's not even in doubt, except in the realm of crackpot conspiracy theories along the lines of 9/11 truth etc.

[Slim]

Holy smokes, I was having a good discussion here yesterday; I come back and the belligerents have invaded!

[August1991]

Every so often, I read a column of such utter nonsense that it's an invitation to respond. In this case, the response is more than worthy because it raises a little known fact (that the column entirely missed).

Today, Im going to play Devils Advocate.

Im going to propose what I think an honest system of pricing carbon dioxide emissions would look like.

This means it wont look anything like what Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, NDP Leader Jack Layton or the Blocs Gilles Duceppe have proposed in this election.

....

My carbon tax wouldnt exempt anyone. It would be a sales tax added to the cost of virtually all goods and services, similar to the Harmonized Sales Tax, with one condition.

Every penny raised, every year, would be returned to Canadians through income tax cuts, or cash rebates to low-income earners who pay little or no income tax.

Lorrie Goldstein

If Goldstein's proposal is intended to deal with CO2 emissions, it is stupefyingly dumb because it would just mean imposing a tax on all forms of consumption - regardless of CO2 content. We have that now through the GST or TFSA/RRSP.

So in effect, Goldstein is just urging the government to rescind Harper's GST cut. Anyway...

-----

Nevertheless, Goldstein raises a good question: what would a carbon tax look like?

Well, we have one now. All gasoline sold in Canada has a 10 cent per litre federal excise tax. Burning a litre of gasoline puts about 2.4 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere. Burning 400 litres of gasoline would put about one metric tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere, and you'd also be paying about $40 in the federal excise tax. In Europe now, the current price of one unit of CO2 emission (equal to one metric tonne) is about 20 euros or about $30 Cdn.

So in effect, we have now in Canada a carbon tax at least on gasoline. I would suggest that the federal government change the name of the "federal excise tax" to the "federal carbon tax".

----

What I find interesting is that jet fuel (kerosene) sold for international travel is generally not taxed at all. It seems to me that if international organizations were serious about reducing CO2 emissions, they would start with taxing jet fuel.

Edited April 26, 2011 by August1991

[mikedavid00]

I would suggest that the federal government change the name of the "federal excise tax" to the "federal carbon tax".

Great idea.

August1991 has grown over the years and is someone 'in the know' of how the country operates. That is a very rare achievement for most Canadians.

Edited April 26, 2011 by mikedavid00

[Roger Steele]

Only someone who has spent their entire life in one of our major cities would compare us to Europe and that is only because they do not know any better.

As Canadians we are in a very unique and taxing (pun intended) situation. We live in one of the largest countries in the world with likely the lowest population per 100 square kilometers of most countries in the world. Our resources are spread out across this vast land and because of this some of our population must also be spread out. We are located at a Latitude that causes most of us to endure many months of cold harsh weather. This results in our transportation systems leaving a very large carbon footprint. Because we are so spread out and sparsely populated, rapid transit is not economical for 99% of the country. Smaller more densely populated European countries have the opportunity to develop high speed rail systems to economically transport their populace to work, to shop, to visit and vacation leaving a very small carbon impact. That would only work for Canada in a few of our larger cities, while the other 99%+ of our country is relegated to the humble automobile. While hybrids and Electric vehicles will work for those in the major cities, again the rest of Canada is 100 - 200km away from essential services and for the foreseeable future must rely on old fashioned automobiles to get around. I have been ill for over 5 years and I would love to be able to hop on a high speed train and shuttle off to the nearest city to visit my Doctors, but instead I must endure a 2 1/2 hour drive in the dead of our Canadian winter to visit the specialists, as do Canadians all across this great land.

Yes the excise tax could be called a Carbon Tax but we will be saddled with it until someone invents a vehicle that can traverse long distances in -30 to -40 C weather without having to stop to plug in every 90 minutes, or a fuel source that can keep us warm while we travel across this great country without producing CO2.

[PIK]

Only someone who has spent their entire life in one of our major cities would compare us to Europe and that is only because they do not know any better.

As Canadians we are in a very unique and taxing (pun intended) situation. We live in one of the largest countries in the world with likely the lowest population per 100 square kilometers of most countries in the world. Our resources are spread out across this vast land and because of this some of our population must also be spread out. We are located at a Latitude that causes most of us to endure many months of cold harsh weather. This results in our transportation systems leaving a very large carbon footprint. Because we are so spread out and sparsely populated, rapid transit is not economical for 99% of the country. Smaller more densely populated European countries have the opportunity to develop high speed rail systems to economically transport their populace to work, to shop, to visit and vacation leaving a very small carbon impact. That would only work for Canada in a few of our larger cities, while the other 99%+ of our country is relegated to the humble automobile. While hybrids and Electric vehicles will work for those in the major cities, again the rest of Canada is 100 - 200km away from essential services and for the foreseeable future must rely on old fashioned automobiles to get around. I have been ill for over 5 years and I would love to be able to hop on a high speed train and shuttle off to the nearest city to visit my Doctors, but instead I must endure a 2 1/2 hour drive in the dead of our Canadian winter to visit the specialists, as do Canadians all across this great land.

Yes the excise tax could be called a Carbon Tax but we will be saddled with it until someone invents a vehicle that can traverse long distances in -30 to -40 C weather without having to stop to plug in every 90 minutes, or a fuel source that can keep us warm while we travel across this great country without producing CO2.

Very good post.

[RNG]

And another hard reality is that even with our evil oilsands going full blast, Canada contributes 2% of the world's CO2. Admittedly we are less than 2% of the world's population but see above.

[blueblood]

Only someone who has spent their entire life in one of our major cities would compare us to Europe and that is only because they do not know any better.

As Canadians we are in a very unique and taxing (pun intended) situation. We live in one of the largest countries in the world with likely the lowest population per 100 square kilometers of most countries in the world. Our resources are spread out across this vast land and because of this some of our population must also be spread out. We are located at a Latitude that causes most of us to endure many months of cold harsh weather. This results in our transportation systems leaving a very large carbon footprint. Because we are so spread out and sparsely populated, rapid transit is not economical for 99% of the country. Smaller more densely populated European countries have the opportunity to develop high speed rail systems to economically transport their populace to work, to shop, to visit and vacation leaving a very small carbon impact. That would only work for Canada in a few of our larger cities, while the other 99%+ of our country is relegated to the humble automobile. While hybrids and Electric vehicles will work for those in the major cities, again the rest of Canada is 100 - 200km away from essential services and for the foreseeable future must rely on old fashioned automobiles to get around. I have been ill for over 5 years and I would love to be able to hop on a high speed train and shuttle off to the nearest city to visit my Doctors, but instead I must endure a 2 1/2 hour drive in the dead of our Canadian winter to visit the specialists, as do Canadians all across this great land.

Yes the excise tax could be called a Carbon Tax but we will be saddled with it until someone invents a vehicle that can traverse long distances in -30 to -40 C weather without having to stop to plug in every 90 minutes, or a fuel source that can keep us warm while we travel across this great country without producing CO2.

You forgot to mention our best friend time. Rapid transit works on their time not mine, which means people have to adjust their schedule to accomodate mass transit. Who knows how much that costs, then we have transfers on top of it. The only place where mass transit works is in aviation because of the distance vs. Time factor. There's a reason why so many people own cars, they can get around quickly on their own time, which is something mass transit can't do.

[RNG]

You forgot to mention our best friend time. Rapid transit works on their time not mine, which means people have to adjust their schedule to accomodate mass transit. Who knows how much that costs, then we have transfers on top of it. The only place where mass transit works is in aviation because of the distance vs. Time factor. There's a reason why so many people own cars, they can get around quickly on their own time, which is something mass transit can't do.

In London, and much of the UK, as well as much of Europe, mass transit is great. Given their population densities, the service is great because the demand is great. It's all a matter of population density, as RS said.

[August1991]

Yes the excise tax could be called a Carbon Tax but we will be saddled with it until someone invents a vehicle that can traverse long distances in -30 to -40 C weather without having to stop to plug in every 90 minutes, or a fuel source that can keep us warm while we travel across this great country without producing CO2.

Roger, I think you misunderstand my OP.

Canada has in effect a carbon tax now, at least on gasoline. The current federal excise tax amounts to the equivalent of a tax on CO2 emissions if we use the price of a carbon unit in the European market as a measure.

IOW, the federal excise tax specifically targets CO2 emissions from gasoline usage. People are inclined to buy less gasoline and spend their money on other goods/services that produce less CO2. For example, people are encouraged to spend their money on rapid transit rather than fill their car with gas.

Moreover, this federal excise tax is in addition to any specific provincial or municipal gasoline taxes as well as the GST/PST/HST applied to all purchases.

For all intents, the federal excise tax on gasoline is a federal carbon tax and I see nothing dishonest in renaming the tax. If anything, the tax is a little too high.

----

There are other sources of CO2 emissions that could be taxed. I mentioned for example jet fuel for international travel. To my knowledge, no country imposes a tax on this source of CO2 emissions. International organizations are precisely the place to negotiate such a tax.

Edited April 27, 2011 by August1991

[eyeball]

Yes the excise tax could be called a Carbon Tax but we will be saddled with it until someone invents a vehicle that can traverse long distances in -30 to -40 C weather without having to stop to plug in every 90 minutes, or a fuel source that can keep us warm while we travel across this great country without producing CO2.

Wouldn't they just go back to calling it an excise tax?

[Ang]

Great point brought up with regards to population density re: clean mass transit in Europe. So how do we combat the population density issue? I think Canada's geography creates a few problems that people just overlook eg: "Canada's cell phone services cost too much."

[Bonam]

Great point brought up with regards to population density re: clean mass transit in Europe. So how do we combat the population density issue?

Same way as humans have always done: have kids

[sk1d]

You guys do realize that 2/3 of Canada, that's 20,000,000 people, live in the 1,100 km between Windsor and Quebec City right?

[cybercoma]

Same way as humans have always done: have kids

Federal subsidy for people to have more sex?

[Bonam]

Federal subsidy for people to have more sex?

I'll vote for it.

[cybercoma]

I'm guessing the candidate with the 70's porn-stache is most likely to support such legislation. Just sayin...

[Roger Steele]

August 1991

On average in Canada 1/3 of the price of gasoline is tax. The Federal Excise Tax is a set tax of 10 cents per liter. The Provinces and some Municipalities, Montreal, Victoria and Vancouver, also add excise tax to fuels. Only the City of Vancouver adds enough excise tax to gasoline (15 cents/L) that would suggest they are encouraging people to use mass transit. However even the majority of Canada's cities, including Vancouver, do not have transit systems that would encourage regular use by a large percentage of their population.

The Federal Government and Provincial & Territorial Governments have been applying these taxes at the pumps far longer than any global discussions of CO2 emissions. I'm not sure exactly when Canada applied the tax to our fuels but I do remember back in the 60's there was discussion on these taxes and at that time it was stated that these Federal and Provincial Taxes were collected to help pay for the building and maintenance of our road systems.

During the Trudeau era the Federal Government applied a Carbon Tax on the Petroleum producers which caused a severe reduction in drilling and exploration, many smaller oil companies in Alberta and Saskatchewan collapsed. It was called the National Energy Program, which stripped an estimated $50 billion to $100 billion in provincial GDP from Alberta's economy from 1980-1985. At the time inflation was running at 9 and 10% annually and unemployment was high in the Liberal stronghold of Eastern Canada. The liberals instituted the tax to "...redistribute revenue from the [oil] industry and lessen the cost of oil for Eastern Canada...". The program essentially backfired. The producers neither were charged full world prices for the resource, nor were the consumers. These subsidies had a number of side effects, including larger trade deficits, larger federal budget deficits, higher 'real' interest rates and higher inflation.

Here is an excerpt from the Canadian Encyclopedia

"The National Energy Program (NEP) was introduced on 28 October 1980 as part of the first Liberal budget after the 1980 election. Coming in the wake of the 160% increase in world oil prices in 1979-80 and the prolonged stalemate between the federal government and Alberta over energy pricing and revenue-sharing, the NEP was a unilateral attempt by the federal government to achieve 3 objectives: energy security, by which was meant oil self-sufficiency; a redistribution of wealth towards the federal government and consumers; and a greater Canadian ownership of the oil industry. To reach these objectives, the government adopted a wide-ranging set of measures. Among these measures were grants to encourage oil drilling in remote areas; grants to consumers to convert to gas or electric heating; new taxes on the oil industry; an expanded role for the Crown Corporation PETRO-CANADA; and a 25% government share of all oil and gas discoveries offshore and in the North. These measures were all promised on the expectation that the world oil price would continue to rise indefinitely. When it did not (the price started to fall in 1982), any justification for these interventionist policies evaporated and the NEP itself was shown to have been ill conceived."

Ignatieff and the Liberal Party are ready to apply a similar tax if they come to power.