May's full of it......Carbon tax ideas from Green Party.

[Canuck E Stan]

Green Party-A New Energy Revolution to Avert Global Catastrophe.

May argues that the money carbon taxes would generate could be used to progressively reduce other taxes, and to offer Canadians tax incentives to reduce their own emissions, she argued.

"We will use those carbon taxes to reduce taxes elsewhere. We will reduce income taxes. We will reduce payroll taxes."

The Liberals and Green party share the same goal of reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, but the Liberals would take a different approach, said Dion.

Rather than a carbon "tax," the Liberals would instead charge large industries for polluting, but return all or portions of the money if they reduced their emissions, he said.

"What we propose . . . is a carbon budget," Dion explained.

Carbon tax,carbon budget.....never heard of a government that gave back the tax money to those it took it from.

Are Canadians going to open up their wallets for the May or Dion plan?

Somehow I don't think so.

[cybercoma]

Sounds like a scam waiting to happen. Charge large corporations and give the money back to some good behaving (Liberal-friendly perhaps?) ones...

What an asinine idea. It just opens the door for corruption, regardless of which party decided on it. I'd say the same would apply when the CPC are in power. They'd just find loopholes to give money to their buddies, too.

[Mad_Michael]

I'm all for innovative ideas for combatting global warming and greenhouse gas emissions.

But how come all the plans call for giving the government massive amounts of money?

1) That makes me very suspicious of the motives for this carbon tax. Indeed, if this carbon policy turns out to be useless for reducing greenhouse gases, we can never get rid of the tax because the government will never cut the tax since they are always addicted to tax revenues (remember that income tax was introduced as a temporary tax to fund WW1 - the war ended, the tax didnt').

2) Governments have a long track record of encouraging greenhouse gas emissions (with subsidies and favorable tax treatments for big-scale polluters). So why is the government to be rewarded with a massive tax increase for helping to create a huge problem?

3) Governments cannot be trusted with money. Don't give them any more than we have to. I'd put money on the Government taking a huge chunk of this carbon tax revenue and then using it to fund a big 'rising gas prices rebate' to the voters just before the next election. Governments can't be trusted with money. They like to use it to bribe voters to vote for them.

[speaker]

Looking at the overall plan by the Greens I like what I see from reducing subsidies to fossil fuel producers, I think that would go a long way, to helping establish world wide standards for carbon credits and sequestration, conservation, and some of the other points the greens are making. I agree about the carbon tax though because I think it would be counter-productive in as much as many people will look on it as a tax grab, at least it is an unsustainable tax in that as the usage drops and we run out of oil and gas the government income will drop.

The reasons carbon taxes are so prevalent in politicians and economists thinking is at least twofold, we can't seem to get ourselves motivated to clean up our act unless it's going to be cheaper than the present system, thus you tax the present system to encourage change. The second thing is that politicians of any stripe don't want to tackle the core economic plus in rampant consumerism, meanwhile it is the negative side of our lifestyle that is causing global warming, pollution, waste, etc.

It is interesting that the same paper had this piece by David Suzuki and the foundations volunteering to participate in an ad campaign for Ontario Hydro encouraging people to cutback on electricity use. If Ontario Hydro is successful maybe our politicians will look on that as a sign that we have moved beyond the need to be punished for our destructive habits.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/Suzuki...4220429-ca.html

[Canuck E Stan]

If Ontario Hydro is successful maybe our politicians will look on that as a sign that we have moved beyond the need to be punished for our destructive habits.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/Suzuki...4220429-ca.html

More than half of Ontario's power actually comes from nuclear energy, which is generally perceived as having a smaller carbon footprint than fossil fuels. But nuclear power plants are enormously complex and expensive, and they still suffer from waste storage and safety concerns. And although they don't release greenhouse gases when generating electricity, they certainly do "upstream," since mining the fuels, building the power plants and disposing of the waste are all tremendously energy intensive. Another 18 per cent of Ontario's power comes from fossil fuels - largely coal.

That won't happen overnight. In fact, at first glance, the focus of the ads may seem like pretty small potatoes - changing lightbulbs and getting rid of old beer fridges, for example. But we have to start somewhere and, when millions of people make small changes, they really add up. That's why I, and my foundation, volunteered to help with the ads. We want to help people in Ontario, and ultimately the entire country, to start down a road to conservation.

Really, the ads are just a beginning. But the small steps they represent will start a new way of looking at things and a new way of thinking about electricity. We certainly can't stop at these small steps. But even small steps can take you a great distance if you make enough of them.

Amazing, when the politicians want to do the "small steps" thing Suzuki rants on about not doing enough.

How come Ontario's coal fired generators doesn't get the condemnation it deserves from Suzuki?

And how much $$$$ is Ontario Hydro contributing to the Suzuki foundation for this "volunteer" work?