Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax

[August1991]

Hardly.... China, India and the US are the major sources. I mean, compare Canada's population of 32 million with a country that has more than a billion people that's going through the equivalent of our industrial revolution on a much larger scale.

Justme, I started this thread over two years ago. My thinking has changed on the science of the question but in terms of public policy, I generally agree with the OP.

I have made this point in every one of these climate change threads and none of the fanatics who want us to go back to horse and buggy days seems to have addressed it.

Even if we all reduce carbon emissions there is nobody - NOBODY - who can say what affect, IF ANY, that will have on warming, or when it will have an affect (many decades down the line supposedly).

On the balance of probability, the evidence is that human-caused CO2 is affecting the climate. A CO2 tax, if set appropriately, would be an inexpensive insurance premium.

The wealth transfer will be huge. Make no mistake about this people, it WILL happen.

Jerry, go back to the OP. A CO2 tax is not a wealth transfer. On the contrary, teh OP suggests that CO2 tax revenues raised in a province would stay in the province. I even suggested that the CO2 tax revenue be refunded to individuals.

-----

Whatever one's opinion of global warming/climate change and the role of CO2/human emitted gases, I think that we in Canada are naive to believe that our exports in the future will not be affected by carbon-based trade policy. It seems to me that the easiest and best way to ensure that we don't fall victim to environmental trade sanctions, while at the same time taking out cheap insurance in the event the CO2 arguments prove true, would be start with a small CO2 tax that could, in the future, be ratcheted up.

Canada in effect has a CO2 tax now. It is the federal and provincial excise taxes on gasoline. We should apply a (small) federal excise tax to other CO2 sources and return all provincial revenues of this tax to the provincial governments.

It's people like you that is wrong with Canada. Canada is only 34 million people and the world population is approaching 7 Billion. Beating up on Canadians is futile. Whatever Carbon Canada emits is marginal in the grand scheme and Canadians are entitled to pollute more not less because Canada is the 2nd largest Geographical Landmass in the world and has a relatively small population compared to other countries.

Countries don't emit CO2, individuals do. It is the same logic in determining who defeated Hitler. Countries didn't defeat the Nazi army, individual soldiers did. Whowehere, don't confuse the collective and the individual.

[Riverwind]

On the balance of probability, the evidence is that human-caused CO2 is affecting the climate. A CO2 tax, if set appropriately, would be an inexpensive insurance premium.

Any plausible tax would simply be a consumption tax that would only have a marginal effect on behaviors. The reason is the tax must set low enough to ensure the energy intensive industries (i.e. trucking) are not forced to shutdown yet the people who could most easily reduce emissions are the same people that can afford to pay an extra tax (i.e. the middle class SUV drivers).

The only way to reduce emissions is to find emissions free technology that is economically viable without government subsidies.

[whowhere]

Countries don't emit CO2, individuals do. It is the same logic in determining who defeated Hitler. Countries didn't defeat the Nazi army, individual soldiers did. Whowehere, don't confuse the collective and the individual.

A countries right to pollute should be based on Land Mass.

According this site There are 239 countries in the world and the worlds land mass is

510,072,000. Pollution has to take into account the Countries Land mass.

http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm

1 Russia Moscow 140,702,000 Jul-08 144,978,573 2002 -2.95% 17075200 8.2

2 Canada Ottawa 33,213,000 Jul-08 31,902,268 2002 4.11% 9976140 3.3

3 United States of America Washington DC 303,825,000 Jul-08 280,562,489 2002 8.29% 9629091 31.6

4 China Beijing 1,330,045,000 Jul-08 1,284,303,705 2002 3.56% 9596960 138.6

5 Brazil Brasilia 191,909,000 Jul-08 176,029,560 2002 9.02% 8511965 22.5

6 Australia Canberra 20,601,000 Jul-08 19,546,792 2002 5.39% 7686850 2.7

7 India New Delhi 1,147,996,000 Jul-08 1,045,845,226 2002 9.77% 3287590 349.2

You are right individual do, and the Individuals of Canada is 33 million with a land mass of about 10 million square kilometers. Canada shares the same land mass or less, or slightly..more than Russia, the US, china, Brazil. Canada is 3 times the land mass of India. Unfortunatley for your argument the world only looks at Canada and its stats. Each countries pollution entitlement has to be correlated with its land mass. If the Country has a huge population they will have to feel the pain of adjustment. Canada is not under this contraint so trying to punish Canadians and choke Canada's growth because of it should be supressed. Canada is entitled...Alberta is Entitled to spew out whatever emissions to get the oil out of the ground because Canada has a land mass to back up these emissions.

[whowhere]

Any plausible tax would simply be a consumption tax that would only have a marginal effect on behaviors. The reason is the tax must set low enough to ensure the energy intensive industries (i.e. trucking) are not forced to shutdown yet the people who could most easily reduce emissions are the same people that can afford to pay an extra tax (i.e. the middle class SUV drivers).

The only way to reduce emissions is to find emissions free technology that is economically viable without government subsidies.

Why are trying to punish Canadians. Canada has one of largest land masses in the world and a population next to nothing. Canadians are entitled to drive like the rich with SUV's, wearing bathing suits in our heated ten bedroom homes in the middle of 20 below weather, and parkas in the summer with air conditioning cranked when the temperature is 40 degrees with the humidex. Canadians are land rich we are entitled to live like the rich.

[August1991]

Bump.

Carbon tax?

IMV, we should impose taxes according to our use of the environment. Call it conservation or stewardship, a royalty or eminent domain, we must collectively protect our Earth. Did you buy your land/house? Well, who sold it to you?

I am in favour of Pigouvian taxes, or cap-and-trade. For many reasons, I favour a carbon tax. The environment may seem free now but in the long run, our world is not a free ride. If something appears free, people now will abuse it. IMV, people should pay for using the environment. If they don't, people in the future will suffer.

In the Albertan context, a carbon tax should be seen as a provincial royalty on the use of the environment. The "royalty rate" or size of the carbon tax would be set by Ottawa but collected provincially and then possibly refunded the way Alaska refunds its oil royalties or the way Klein did it - a cheque to everyone.

Edited October 2, 2010 by August1991

[TimG]

IMV, people should pay for using the environment. If they don't, people in the future will suffer.

Pay how much? Who decides what the cost should be? What happens if the cost is so high imposing it would kill the economy? What about the fact that people in the future may be better able to deal with any problems due to more wealth and better technology? What about the costs embedded in goods purchased from countries that have no environmental regulations? Are you arguing for border tariffs?

I think the 'polluter pays' argument is too simplistic and ultimately futile because a majority of 'polluters' will be let off the hook for political reasons (i.e. the poor get exemptions).

Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[August1991]

Pay how much? Who decides what the cost should be?

These are good questions but as a start, "zero" strikes me as too low.

What do you think, Tim? What would you pay? Nothing? (If so, and thinking of your grandchildren, why have children at all... )

Edited October 2, 2010 by August1991

[RNG]

These are good questions but as a start, "zero" strikes me as too low.

What do you think, Tim? What would you pay? Nothing? (If so, and thinking of your grandchildren, why have children at all... )

Shouldn't one pay what the market determines? If not that, then what? Please tell me what you think is fair.

[August1991]

Shouldn't one pay what the market determines? If not that, then what? Please tell me what you think is fair.

In the absence of a market price, it's hard to say what is "fair".

But as a first approximation, as I posted above, zero strikes me as probably too low. No?

Edited October 2, 2010 by August1991

[maple_leafs182]

A federal carbon tax won't solve any problem.

If we were really serious about not hurting the environment we would stop abusing it. We are blinded by the dream of getting rich, we will try to achieve it at any cost.

[Slim]

I liked the idea someone mentioned of a slowly scaling-up plan to reduce GHG emissions. I think it's entirely important, however, that the short and long term plan should be decided and made public so businesses can plan ahead.

It's not feasible, of course, to spring a huge tax or carbon cap on companies immediately. No one is seriously considering that, or suggesting that.

What is feasible is a step-by-step plan to reduce emissions gradually, in many different areas. Ideally, I'd like the government to sit down with business leaders, and say (for example): 'Our goal is to cut CO2 emissions by 5% in 5 years, 15% in 10 years, etc. This fact is non-negotiable, but we ARE willing to talk about how we can help you accomplish this with us.'

The 'Us vs. Them' mentality has to be left behind if we are going to have a useful discussion about this problem.

[TimG]

What do you think, Tim? What would you pay? Nothing?

I think we should dispense with the notion that a carbon tax is morally superior to other taxes or that it will do anything to reduce fossil fuel usage. It is just a tax like the HST that raises revenue for the government. It's only virtue is the goose (i.e.the taxpayers) may hiss a little less when the feathers are plucked but I doubt that.

[TimG]

'Our goal is to cut CO2 emissions by 5% in 5 years, 15% in 10 years, etc. This fact is non-negotiable, but we ARE willing to talk about how we can help you accomplish this with us.'

Emission targets are meaningless gestures as long as we have no pratical alternatives to emitting CO2. If you are interested in making progress then the focus should be on deploying emission free technologies that are viable without subsidies. i.e. begin the construction of a hydro dam or nuclear power station.

As for the 'us vs. them' mentality: get used to it. The only job business leaders have is to make a profit. If the government pushes them too hard to reduce emissions and it undermines their ability to make a profit they will move production to places like China or India.

Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[Wild Bill]

In the absence of a market price, it's hard to say what is "fair".

But as a first approximation, as I posted above, zero strikes me as probably too low. No?

I just don't see how this could ever work! You're talking about a political attempt to institute a market system. Such an idea would always be doomed to failure.

You see, the price would either be set by the market or by politicians. Clearly, the market has no interest in carbon trading or it would have done it long ago. That means pricing must be controlled, at least initially, by governments.

Governments are incapable of running a free market system! Their problem is that they can never resist playing with the market factors. Pricing will be altered for different cases. A country would be designated as a "disadvantaged", Third World player and given a preferred price. Another country that has much political antagonism from numerous middle eastern countries, like Israel or Uncle Sam, will be penalized, under some trumped up charge that they "have had an historical unfair advantage that must be redressed".

If politics tinkers too much with a free market system it just breaks down. You may have a good idea but it is more a dream than a practical one. Where is the impartial administrator of a carbon trading scheme?

Strip away the rhetoric and carbon trading is really just one more attempt at a "planned economy". I thought everyone had seen how well that works when the USSR collapsed.

[TimG]

Strip away the rhetoric and carbon trading is really just one more attempt at a "planned economy". I thought everyone had seen how well that works when the USSR collapsed.

The problem with CO2 emission trading are the hypothetical credits. i.e. people are allowed to sell credits if they don't do something that might have released emissions (i.e. chop down a tree). This opens the door to fraud and manipulation.

[Saipan]

We need a Federal Carbon Tax

Of course we do. There was no tax liberals wouldn't love.

The more taxes the better.

Maybe El Presidente should keep all and give us $1/hr.

[Topaz]

Here's what the Australian government thinking on this and I wonder how many other countries would follow? http://www.qbr.com.au/news/articleid/69976.aspx

[Saipan]

The question is why should we "deal" with climate change?

Climate is very moderate in comparison to other times in history, 'though we could use some warm up. So what's the problem?

[Michael Hardner]

Bump.

Carbon tax?

IMV, we should impose taxes according to our use of the environment. Call it conservation or stewardship, a royalty or eminent domain, we must collectively protect our Earth. Did you buy your land/house? Well, who sold it to you?

I am in favour of Pigouvian taxes, or cap-and-trade. For many reasons, I favour a carbon tax. The environment may seem free now but in the long run, our world is not a free ride. If something appears free, people now will abuse it. IMV, people should pay for using the environment. If they don't, people in the future will suffer.

Hear hear. A very succinct and well-put rationale for making sure that we don't waste things that appear to be "free" (such as water) but are actually anything but. The more Conservatives that get on board with this, the better. These issues have been the domain of (we) left-of-centre types for too long. Everybody needs in on it.

[Michael Hardner]

By the way, the estimates I have read about economic impacts fall below or equal to 5% of the economy. We could cut *some* of the military and pay for this. So instead of paying people to march around on military bases all over the world, we could have cleaner air, water, and less CO2 emissions.

[maple_leafs182]

The question is why should we "deal" with climate change?

That isn't the question. The question is should we be polluting?

Do you guys not really see all the damage we are doing to the planet. You think with the gulf Oil spill peoples would wake up but no.

This is no way to build a sustainable society.

[Slim]

As for the 'us vs. them' mentality: get used to it. The only job business leaders have is to make a profit. If the government pushes them too hard to reduce emissions and it undermines their ability to make a profit they will move production to places like China or India.

You are going too extreme. I'm not talking about booting out industry that isn't carbon-nuetral, I'm talking about working to encourage emission improvements. This is entirely possible, as we already have pollution limits in place, which are similar to CO2 emission caps. And when pollution caps are in place, we haven't suddnely seen every business move to China or India, as you claim.

You are equating minor emission caps with EXTREME cutbacks, and how that would affect business.

Now then:

If you are interested in making progress then the focus should be on deploying emission free technologies that are viable without subsidies. i.e. begin the construction of a hydro dam or nuclear power station.

Gotta learn to walk before you run, man.

The idea is to get the process started. Get companies' heads around this concept (plenty are already on board) and force the luddites to accept the fact that CO2 emissions MUST BE CUT.

We can't expect major changes initially, especially in the energy industry (largest emitter). But we have to encourage them to start changing. Start placing additional taxes on coal-fired energy plants, and subsidies on natural-gas fired plants. Things like that (I'm just brainstorming).

Emission targets are meaningless gestures as long as we have no pratical alternatives to emitting CO2.

Unless we have a source of carbon-nuetral unlimited energy RIGHT NOW, there's no point in introducing emission caps? By that logic, we're doomed.

But I don't believe that. Alternative technologies exist, some more practical, some less. Not just the widely known (solar, wind) but others like nuclear that are definitely established around the world. Geothermal is certainly a possibility for energy production (a personal favorite of mine!) as well as all the longer-term possibilities with 2nd generation bio-fuels.

[TimG]

This is entirely possible, as we already have pollution limits in place, which are similar to CO2 emission caps.

No they aren't. The stuff we traditionally called pollution were byproducts of an inefficient process. It possible to reduce or eliminate pollution by improving the process. With CO2 those remedies do not exist because CO2 is intrinsic part of the combustion process. It is not possible to reduce CO2 emissions without finding a new process. This makes reducing CO2 emissions technically impossible for a lot of industries.

And when pollution caps are in place, we haven't suddnely seen every business move to China or India, as you claim.

They don't suddenly move. What happens is they move all of the new investment to those countries and eventually shutdown all production here. By the time it happens it is too late. We are already at a competitive disadvantage due to labour costs and lax environment regs. Imposing CO2 regulations at this time risks economic suicide.

The idea is to get the process started. Get companies' heads around this concept (plenty are already on board) and force the luddites to accept the fact that CO2 emissions MUST BE CUT.

Sorry. I don't agree. It is too expensive and there are too many better things to do with money. A lot of people agree with me and our minds aren't going to change because chicken little runs around telling us the sky is falling. It is not about "denying" the science. It is about setting priorities. Something that everyone has to do when there is a limited budget.

Unless we have a source of carbon-nuetral unlimited energy RIGHT NOW, there's no point in introducing emission caps?

Carbon caps cannot be introduced unless there is a solid business plan for meeting those caps. That means we have to know what technology will be used and the cost of that technology. Caps set before then will lead to a lot of wasted money as people try to pretend to meet the targets.

But I don't believe that. Alternative technologies exist, some more practical, some less. Not just the widely known (solar, wind) but others like nuclear that are definitely established around the world. Geothermal is certainly a possibility for energy production (a personal favorite of mine!) as well as all the longer-term possibilities with 2nd generation bio-fuels.

When these technologies are economically viable they will be used. Right now none of them are viable and require massive government subsidies. These large subsidies mean these types of energy sources will never be more than bit players because the government cannot afford to subsidize all of the energy we use. The only thing the government should do is help to reduce the cost of these technologies so they can compete without subsidies. Edited October 3, 2010 by TimG

[Saipan]

That isn't the question. The question is should we be polluting?

The answer is you shouldn't.

Do you guys not really see all the damage we are doing to the planet.

Well stop doing it. Don't buy Made in China anymore.

Heat with firewood. Bike, walk, padle and sail.

[Slim]

No they aren't. The stuff we traditionally called pollution were byproducts of an inefficient process. It possible to reduce or eliminate pollution by improving the process. With CO2 those remedies do not exist because CO2 is intrinsic part of the combustion process. It is not possible to reduce CO2 emissions without finding a new process. This makes reducing CO2 emissions technically impossible for a lot of industries.

You are painting with a really broad brush, Tim. And you are incorrect; I merely have to draw upon personal experience. I work in a chemical industrial plant. We have had to install many new abatement programs for pollutants (not CO2), due to government restrictions. These projects do NOT increase our efficiency or improve the process (other than reduce pollution and, inadvertantly, GHG emissions) but the company still went through with it, and did not relocate or shut down or anything else extreme. In fact, there are plans to expand our production.

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.

Imposing CO2 regulations at this time risks economic suicide.

Here is the crux of the debate. Too many assume that any kind of regulation will be the death of the economy. The same has been said of other regulations in the past, yet businesses survived. As long as this is approached intelligently, how is this example different than any others?

Sorry. I don't agree. It is too expensive and there are too many better things to do with money. A lot of people agree with me and our minds aren't going to change because chicken little runs around telling us the sky is falling. It is not about "denying" the science. It is about setting priorities. Something that everyone has to do when there is a limited budget.

Fair enough. This is another reason for a proper discussion.

Also, you need to consider that even if the costs of reducing CO2 emissions are too high for us (of which that is up for considerable debate) you have to consider the rest of the world.

The predictions all seem to say that the developed world will fare a lot better at first than the poorer countries. Good for us. But we are going to feel the impact when other nations start to starve, or drown. What happens when Pakistan cannot irrigate its crops because the river water has all been used by India? What happens when China is hit so hard by CC that it decides to unilaterally start geo-engineering solutions?

This isn't science-fiction stuff, it's entirely plausible.

When these technologies are economically viable they will be used. Right now none of them are viable and require massive government subsidies. These large subsidies mean these types of energy sources will never be more than bit players because the government cannot afford to subsidize all of the energy we use. The only thing the government should do is help to reduce the cost of these technologies so they can compete without subsidies.

Never more than bit players? You're speaking about Canada, I assume. Because quite a few other countries seem to be making alternative energy a heavy-weight player, even during a reccession atmosphere (i.e. Germany). Perhaps we should be looking at how they have accomplished a move to cleaner economies?

Carbon caps cannot be introduced unless there is a solid business plan for meeting those caps. That means we have to know what technology will be used and the cost of that technology. Caps set before then will lead to a lot of wasted money as people try to pretend to meet the targets.

I didn't explain myself properly, apologies. I don't suggest just throwing up caps arbitrarily. That wouldn't work. Like you say, we should know the technology to use and its costs first. That is absolutely a good idea, and the discussion needs to take place on a serious level.

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 think I read somewhere that it's not too hard)? Stuff like that.