Carbon Tax?

[Bert]

Short answer is: because it is. ...

The bottom line is Carbon taxes and other "Green" initiatives are mostly driven by a desire to expand the powers of government for the self aggrandizing of politicians and bureaucrats. They cannot create wealth, but they can certainly take wealth and enjoy the powers of directing other people's wealth to satisfy their and their client or patron's aims.

I quite agree.  The difficulties of peak oil, supply and demand, and resource competition are here.  We've
known about these issues for decades however.  The carbon tax appears to be a ambiguous reaction rather
than real action to confront the issue of energy transition.  

Its hard to fault the government as any action to promote a direction of energy use or alternate technology
will be highly criticized by those with their own agendas including the public.   Note the recent auto
eco-rebate program http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/02/27/4880561-cp.html  , the debate over
the "hydrogen highway" and associated technologies, bio-fuels, etc.   Governments seem allow the marketplace
to determine the future and waffle by adding a potential carbon tax.  It seems to add chaos to the mix when
people want to know what will happen to oil, when there may be a stable transition to something else, and what
should they do.  

Not a lot of leadership right now.

 

[Old and Tired]

Kirkhill

Your premise is not bad, but the underlying math doesn't take the burning of complex hydrocarbon compounds into account or the fact that the tax isn't based on the amount of carbon contained in the fuel, but rather how much carbon. and related compounds are produced by burning that fuel.

1 litre of Gasolene does contain appro 64% carbon compounds by mass, however it produces approx 5 times that mass in direct and indirect associated carbon compounds.  Thats what you would be paying the carbon tax on.

 

[Kirkhill]

So is it a Carbon Tax or a Carbon Dioxide Tax?  12 vs 44 (CO2) or 12 vs 26 (CO)?

Having said that, even at a 5:1 exchange rate .64 cents becomes 3 cents and 2.5 cents becomes 12 cents.  My local gas station is bouncing by more than 20 cents a liter on a daily basis.

Having said that though, I fully agree with those that say it is all about generating funds to play with while Harper goes out of his way to reduce the amount of "monopoly money" to play with.

And I don't like paying taxes.

 

[GAP]

This whole scheme of Dion's has little if anything to do with the environment, he could care less......but it sure creates a 15 Billion pocket to fund all the daycare/pharmacare/social poverty programs and et al that he can base he election campaign on....

 

[Kirkhill]

This whole scheme of Dion's has little if anything to do with the environment, he could care less......but it sure creates a 15 Billion pocket to fund all the daycare/pharmacare/social poverty programs and et al that he can base he election campaign on....

Agreed

 

[Flip]

Was there ever any doubt?  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Was there ever any doubt?  ;D

Nane at a' ye cheeky blighter.

 

[Edward Campbell]

IF you feel there is a need to change Canadians’ behaviour with regard to how much carbon they burn and how much CO2 they put into the atmosphere then a carbon tax is a good tool.

It is a ’good’ tax in the sense that it is a consumption tax so:

• Many Canadians have some personal discretion re: how much they pay (that’s the changed behaviour bit); and

• It does not penalize savings and investment.

Like all consumption taxes there has to be some mechanism to provide relief (normally refunds on income tax and/or periodic rebate cheques à la he GST) for the working poor – unfortunately that means the idle, counterproductive and undeserving poor get a rebate too, but that’s another issue.

But a carbon tax is only a ’good’ tax to the degree that it is universal – everyone pays the same tax every time they cause some carbon to be burned or some CO2 to be pumped into he atmosphere – that means that gas, for example, gets taxed over and over and over again – when it is pumped (especially when it is tar sands oil) when it is refined, when it is transported (either by pipelines (which use power which might be generated by burning carbon) or by tanker or truck) and, finally, when it is burned to produce electricity or to power a car.  It is possible, à la the GST, to rebate the tax to everyone except the end user after the fact – doing that only makes the tax moderately not-so-good.

In that regard Celine Stéphane Dion’s proposal is for a ’bad’ tax – Stephan Harper is not too far of base when it calls it insane. Dion’s tax has little to do with changing behaviour with regard to carbon/emissions and everything to do with creating a (false) green image and buying the votes of SUV drivers and soccer moms living East of Saskatchewan by suggesting that he will “screw” Alberta (and Saskatchewan) because they are ‘rich.’ That always goes down well with a substantial minority of Canadians that, broadly, ought not to be allowed to reproduce itself- but that’s another topic, too.

In any sensible system a big, broad carbon tax, needed because you believe there is a pressing need to change Canadians’ behaviour regarding carbon/emission, needs to be accompanied by some sort of emissions trade system – to allow industrial sectors that cannot change heir behaviour cheaply, easily and/or quickly to buy ‘credits’ from those who can, and by some R&D spending and subsidies to find or implement ways to avoid e.g. CO2 emissions.

Dion’s proposal has a bit about R&D but next to nothing about emission trading – it is weak and ill-conceived and badly targeted because it is full of exemptions which make it nothing but a vote buying mechanism. Just the sort of thing we have been used to with Liberals for 45 years now.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Run the hypothetical of a company looking to set-up a new refinery in Canada or the USA for oil sands bitumen and you'll start to see the abject stupidity of said tax proposal.


Matthew.

 

[a_majoor]

No need to look at hypotheticals:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/267171.php

Carbon tax: Letting Halifax airport crumble away
Sunday, June 22, 2008 at 08:20 AM Comments: 11Previous Post
Peter Duffy, writing in The Chronicle Herald, suggests that keeping the runways at Halifax's international airport in good condition is a waste of time.  Fuel prices means fewer flights.

What's the point of having an airport?

If Stephane Dion gets to implement his carbon tax, I wonder just what else we can just throw away as being unnecessary.

It's funny how people don't see the connections somehow.

Or maybe they do, but they know better than to point them out.

In case, Peter Duffy of The Chronicle Herald paints a grim picture for Halifax.  An airport falling apart, essentially abandoned:

Talk about a waste of money. Officials at the Halifax airport will spend millions this summer to upgrade the main runway. Someone should remind them that, with the cost of jet fuel out of sight and airlines, including Air Canada, cutting routes and grounding equipment, there aren’t going to be many aircraft to use it anyway.

Just so that it's clear, the "upgrade" is really maintenance:

Runway Restoration Program Continues at Halifax Stanfield International Airport

Halifax, N.S. – The 2008 portion of the Runway Restoration Program at Halifax Stanfield International Airport is underway.

Halifax International Airport Authority (HIAA) is in the fourth year of its six-year runway restoration program. This year’s work focuses on the longer of the Airport’s two runways, Runway 05/23, as well as some taxiway and apron areas. The work is vital to maintaining the integrity and operation of runways that have now reached the end of their lifecycle.

As Duffy suggests, extending these runways past the end of their lifecycle is a waste of time.  With jet fuel prices rising, flights are being scaled back.

So what does Duffy think ought to happen?  Let the runways crumble?  Shut down the airport to large aircraft?  Limit flying to small craft that can use small lightly constructed runways?  Let flying become the sole domain of the wealthy while for the rest of us the world ends at how far we can pedal a bike in half a day?

Perhaps he does.  I wish he would just go and say so.  I mean, in the same column, but under a different section heading, he praises Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion for promising to raise fuel taxes even higher:

As well, the man is naïve if he honestly believes consumers won’t be on the losing end before this is over, no matter which party is in power. Guaranteed, food, fuel and electricity will cost us more than today’s already-onerous prices. (Just ask motorists in B.C. who start paying a provincial carbon tax on fossil fuels next month.)

Even so, full marks to Dion for having the courage to open a very dangerous door, politically. It was long overdue and had to be done — despite the pain that awaits within.

So there is pain coming with Stephane Dion's plan.  The shifting is just nonsense.  It's a tax and we're all going to pay.  It's going to hurt.

How much?  Peter Duffy doesn't say.  But Peter Duffy thinks the airport runways ought to be allowed to crack and crumble and be overgrown with weeds.  Halifax doesn't need an airport, not at the fuel costs the way they are today.  So what else will crack and crumble and be overgrown with weeds should Stephane Dion be given the chance to tax all fuel?

Peter Duffy doesn't say.

If a major city, indeed a Provincial capital is going to be abandoned, its transportation infrastructure crumbling and access to markets and resources circumscribed, how will that work out for the vast majority of Canadians who dont live in major metropolitan regions. For that matter, how will the workers in the major cities (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouover) get access to their markets and resources if the hinterlands become fallow like the future version of Halifax?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This scheme will give Canadians a personal tax break in the same way that the tire tax and the gas taxes have given us better roads.......

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I must admit that I am rather more in favour of consumption taxes than income taxes.

This carbon tax, however, is a shambles.  It will institute a consumption tax that will filter to every consumer (probably multiplying at each level); will affect exporters ability to export competitive and to boot, we will still have an income tax (just slightly less of one...).  If Dion came out and said that the Liberals would altogether abolish income taxes of all type and focus only on consumption taxes (of which which a carbon tax is one), I might be interested.  In the mean time- I intend to vote Conservative.

Stegner- are you going to defend this mess?

 

[ScottSA]

Well, given that Liberals are promoting this nonsense with the claim that the tax is designed to "change behaviours," and that it's either pain now or more pain later, I think this will sound just peachy on an election brochure:

"We promise pain and behaviour modification through higher taxes.  Elect us!"

Good timing too...wait till gas prices go through the roof, and then ride to the rescue by hiking them some more, just as serious scientific questions about the validity of Anthropomorphic Global Warming claims begin to bubble up through the grant funding lock.

 

[YZT580]

Want to see the future with Dion's plans then come to Europe.  The ability to pay bills such as daycare etc. suddenly vanished with carbon credit schemes. People are scrambling to find alternative sources of income and it aint purdy.  I think it was Linda from the Toronto Sun who stated that in the long run there is only one person paying taxes: that's you.  Whether it comes out of your front pocket, your jacket pocket or your hip pocket it is still your pocket.  If a corporation is paying a carbon tax, it isn't coming out of his profit, it is added to the price.  Now how does your CDN widget with a 5% carbon tax compete with the one from Beijing, made with labour that costs only 20% of our costs and without another 5% carbon tax.  Goodbye CDN widget.  Vote NO!

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is a report of a survey conducted on the ‘Good Grey Globe’s’ behalf by the respected Gartner Group:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080623.wrcsuite23/BNStory/Business/home?cid=al_gam_mostview

Green begins to fade
As costs rise, business cools to carbon tax, such as that outlined in Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's plan

RICHARD BLACKWELL

From Monday's Globe and Mail
June 23, 2008 at 3:57 AM EDT

Canada's corporate executives have cooled in their enthusiasm for carbon taxes or "cap-and-trade" systems, as high oil prices and economic concerns make them leery of policies that will boost the cost of doing business.

The latest quarterly C-Suite survey of top executives shows that decision-makers are still keen on combatting climate change, but investing in new technologies is much preferred to government-imposed regulation.

The survey was conducted by the Gandalf Group for Report on Business and Business News Network.

"A carbon tax obviously would discourage the consumption of [carbon-based] products," said Peter Gillin, chief executive officer of Tahera Diamond Corp., "but with $140-a-barrel oil, to add to the cost over and above that clearly would be a significant burden."

Tahera, which is now under court protection from creditors, was severely hit by a 40-per-cent rise in fuel prices, Mr. Gillin said. While there were other factors in the firm's decline, high fuel costs "came right off the bottom line," he said.

Mr. Gillin's sentiments are reflected in the survey of CEOs, chief financial officers and chief operating officers.

The survey shows about 47 per cent support a carbon tax, down significantly from the 63 per cent who said it was a good idea in a C-Suite survey in February, 2007.

Fifteen months ago 21 per cent of executives "strongly" supported carbon taxes. That number is now down to 10 per cent.

Carbon taxes could emerge as a central issue in the next federal election, especially after Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion last week unveiled his proposed "carbon shift" - a carbon tax combined with broad-based tax cuts. The Conservatives, who have proposed a federal cap-and-trade system, have labelled his plan "crazy."

The C-Suite survey shows that executives are also less enthusiastic than they were 15 months ago about cap-and-trade systems that would set up a market for carbon credits.

Support has declined from 57 per cent to 47 per cent, in a little over year. This quarter's survey was conducted among 152 executives between May 27 and June 11.

The picture is similar when it comes to an endorsement of "cap-and-trade" systems that would set up a market for carbon credits. Support has declined from 57 per cent to 47 per cent in a little over a year.

There was the same drop in support - 57 per cent to 47 per cent - for Canada's abiding by the Kyoto accord, which would set strict limits on carbon emissions.

The numbers also show a regional divide when it comes to enthusiasm for carbon-reduction initiatives. In Quebec, support for these kinds of programs is far higher than elsewhere in the country.

Two-thirds of Quebec executives like the idea of a carbon tax, for example, with one-quarter "strongly supportive," the C-Suite survey showed. By contrast, less than 40 per cent of executives in the West approve of a carbon tax, with only 6 per cent expressing strong support.

"Generally Quebeckers are very environmentally-conscious" and they like to be perceived as "green," said José Mathieu, CEO of Montreal-based hybrid locomotive maker RailPower Technologies Corp. That general sentiment is shared by business executives in the province, he added.

Mr. Mathieu said cap-and-trade systems are crucial, because they force companies to measure and improve their emissions. "Carbon trading is like a speed limit on the road. If there is no limit, you can say to people 'Be prudent, don't drive fast, and be nice' but in the end it doesn't work."

Reasonable carbon limits won't kill the economy, but they will at least force some change, he said. "If we just say we are going to be greener, it means nothing and does nothing. Once you start to measure, it shows up and you can do something."

Other top executives are less enthusiastic than Mr. Mathieu.

Paul Langston, CEO of printed circuit-board maker Coretec Inc. in Toronto, described cap-and-trade systems as "a bit gimmicky."

As for carbon taxes, "people are smarting already from the inflation that is creeping into just about everything we buy and everything we do, as a result of the ramp in oil prices," Mr. Langston said.

At Coretec, "we've seen massive inflation on plastics, film and specialty chemicals," he said.

Nationally, almost 60 per cent of C-Suite respondents said a carbon tax would have a negative impact on their business. Only 7 per cent said it would have a positive impact.

Mr. Langston said governments should be putting more money into solar and wind power, to try to catch up to Europe. "We're laggards in that regard in Canada, that's for sure. You go anywhere in Europe and they are dealing with gas prices that are twice ours, and the use of solar energy and wind power is [much higher]."

The C-Suite survey showed very widespread support, from 89 per cent of respondents, for government-backed investments in emission-reduction technology. Eighty-five per cent of executives surveyed said they support building new nuclear plants, while 78 per cent backed major investments in wind and solar power.

Mr. Langston said one area where government could have a significant impact on the environment, at little incremental cost, would be to more tightly enforce existing regulations.

Businesses and communities need to be supervised much more aggressively, he said. "There are all sorts of opportunities to clean up the environment with what already exists," Mr. Langston said. "There are a lot of poorly governed businesses and enterprises out there that are polluting like crazy and never ever pay the piper. We could start cleaning that up first."

While most executives are supportive of some kind of government action on environmental issues, a few individuals still express skepticism about the links between carbon emissions and climate change.

Doug Rowe, CEO of Calgary-based Birch Mountain Resources Ltd., which sells limestone to companies operating in the oil sands in northern Alberta, said he's "on the fence on the effect of carbon emissions on climate change."

He said he's not sure a link has been "conclusively proved" and "I think there are other issues way beyond our control that more dramatically affect climate than carbon."

A far more pressing environmental issue, Mr. Rowe said, is the number of people on the planet, and the impact that over-population is having on the worldwide resource base, and on the global supply of food.

Other countries should follow China's example in limiting the number of children that its citizens can have, he said.

C-SUITE SURVEY

The quarterly C-Suite Survey was conducted for Report on Business and Business News Network by Gandalf Group, and sponsored by KPMG.

The survey interviewed 152 executives across the country between May 27 and June 11. Respondents were split evenly by company size, and represent all parts of the country.

The margin of error in the survey is plus or minus 7.3 per cent.

Executives in service industries represent 39 per cent of the sample, resource industries 39 per cent, and manufacturing industries 22 per cent. Each quarter, a charitable contribution is made on behalf of a survey participant.

Economy

Executives are slightly more optimistic about the Canadian economy than they were three months ago, but there is still much caution. Pessimism over the U.S. economy has tempered a little, although the vast majority of respondents expect a decline during the next year. Human resources issues remain the No. 1 corporate concern, followed by the high value of the Canadian dollar. Commodity prices have moved into third place.

Q: What are your expectations for the Canadian economy over the next 12 months?

          Strong decline   Moderate decline Moderate growth    Strong growth
June, 2008     1%               39%                   57%                     1%
March, 2008     2%             43%                 52%                       1%

Q: What are your expectations for the U.S. economy over the next 12 months?

          Strong decline   Moderate decline Moderate growth    Strong growth
June, 2008     20%                 61%                     18%                 -
March, 2008   28%                 66%                     6%                   1%

Q: What is the biggest challenge facing your company right now?

Human resources: 18
Currency issues: 12
Commodity prices: 8
Cost of capital: 7
Managing growth: 6
Economic issues: 3
NOTE: CHARTS MAY NOT ADD UP TO 100 DUE TO ROUNDING

Politics

Business leaders' impressions of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty have slipped slightly during the latest quarter, mainly because of a dip among Ontario executives. Support for the Kyoto accord has decreased during the last 15 months, and executives think non-environmental issues should be higher on Ottawa's list of priorities. Maintaining a balanced budget is the most crucial issue, they say, followed by health and education.

Q: What is your impression of Jim Flaherty in his role as minister of finance?

Very unfavourable:
June, 2008: 9%
March, 2008: 11%


Somewhat unfavourable:
June, 2008: 22%
March, 2008: 19%

Neither
June, 2008: 28%
March, 2008: 19%

Somewhat favourable:
June, 2008: 31%
March, 2008: 45%

Very favourable:
June, 2008: 7%
March, 2008: 5%

Q: Do you think Canada should abide by the Kyoto Accord?

Don't know:
June, 2008: 7%
February, 2007: 1%

Strongly oppose:
June, 2008: 32%
February, 2007: 23%

Somewhat oppose:
June, 2008: 15%
February, 2007: 18%

Somewhat support:
June, 2008: 24%
February, 2007: 35%

Strongly support:
June, 2008: 23%
February, 2007: 22%

Q: What are the most important priorities for the federal government?

Balanced budget: 87
Health care wait times: 79
Labour force education: 79
Ease border constraints: 78
Increasing skilled immigrants: 72
Adequate supply of energy: 67
Improving the environment 67
Cutting corporate taxes: 65
Stimulating job creation: 60
Fighting climate change: 50
Controlling energy costs: 38

Carbon

Close to two-thirds of executives say oil prices have been a problem for their businesses. Almost as many feel a carbon tax would hurt them. They are more favourably inclined toward a cap-and-trade system. Better options, they say, include support for investments in emission-reducing technologies such as solar and wind power, building new nuclear plants, or helping Third World countries cut emissions.

Q: What is the impact of high oil prices on your business?

Don't know: 7%
A major problem: 20%
A major opportunity: 13%
A minor opportunity: 18%
A minor problem: 42%

Q: How would a cap and trade system impact your business?

Don't know: 5%
Very negative: 10%
Somewhat negative: 22%
No impact: 47%
Somewhat positive: 13%
Very positive: 3%

Q: How would a carbon tax impact your business?

Don't know: 3%
Very negative: 15%
Somewhat negative: 44%
No impact: 30%
Somewhat positive: 6%
Very positive: 1%

Q: Do you support these measures to combat climate change?

Investments in reducing emissions: 89
Building new nuclear plants: 85
Investments in wind and solar power: 78
Regulations to limit carbon 61
Investing in third world countries: 53
A cap and trade system: 47
Carbon tax: 47
Restrictions on oil sands growth: 33

KATHRYN TAM/THE GLOBE AND MAIL; SOURCE: GANDALF GROUP

 

[old medic]

Read this yesterday and thought I would post a link here:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/06/22/5953001-sun.php

t's about votes, not Mother Earth
Politicians care about elections, not global warming

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Over the past 18 months I've written scores of columns on global warming.

I've read nine books on the subject so far (six by authors supporting the theory of man-made global warming and the Kyoto accord, three by skeptics).

I've watched three documentaries, including Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and two by skeptics.

I've read hundreds of articles and now spend at least two to four hours each week researching this issue alone.

The best journalism, pro and con, is coming out of the United Kingdom and Europe, where carbon taxes and cap-and-trade are already adversely affecting millions of people because of skyrocketing energy prices.

When Stephane Dion or the David Suzuki Foundation or the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy put out a paper advocating carbon pricing, I don't read their press releases. I read their papers. I would recommend this technique to more journalists.

I'm not an expert. But I am an engaged lay person who now knows enough that I can tell when someone is bullsh****** us.

Here's what I've figured out so far.

First, Canadians care about this issue, passionately. I've never had as strong a response from readers as I've had to these columns in more than 20 years of column-writing.

Second, most politicians, regardless of party, don't know what they're talking about.

They don't understand the theory of anthropogenic global warming, or what is known with confidence and what isn't.

They don't know the difference between the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

They don't realize the economic dislocation involved in moving from a carbon-based to a carbon-free economy.

Most care about the issue only in so far as it can help them get elected, which, given the implications and what's at stake for ordinary citizens, is recklessly irresponsible.

Most politicians don't know what the Kyoto accord says.

Economic treaty

They think it's an environmental treaty. It's not. It's an economic treaty.

Its purpose is not to reduce GHG emissions -- under it GHG emissions are guaranteed to rise.

Kyoto is a United Nations treaty designed to transfer wealth from the developed world to the developing world by charging the developed world for the right to emit carbon.

That's hardly surprising given that wealth redistribution from rich nations to poor ones is the goal of most countries belonging to the UN.

The main drivers of Kyoto were, ironically, the U.K. and Europe, along with the developing world, led by China, now the world's largest GHG emitter.

Last year, China alone, exempt from reducing its own GHG emissions, was responsible for two-thirds of the total global increase in these emissions, although its per capita emissions remain well below that of the United States, the second-largest emitter.

In any event, the developing world, the U.K. and Europe each saw in Kyoto (although it's now backfiring on the U.K. and Europe) not a way to save the planet, but to hobble the U.S. economy to their advantage.

For the developing world, Kyoto, if ratified by the U.S., would place severe restrictions on American industrial activity from which developing nations are exempt.

Europe and the U.K. crafted Kyoto to give them an undeserved economic advantage over the U.S.

The key was the retroactive selection of 1990 as the base year to reduce carbon emissions for 37 developed countries, including us, as opposed to 143 nations required to do nothing.

Base year

By using 1990, a year before the Soviet Union disintegrated and its carbon emissions dramatically dropped because its economy collapsed, Europe was able to claim much of this emissions drop for itself, as major parts of the former Soviet empire were absorbed by it. It was an accounting trick. Nothing more.

The selection of 1990 also gave an undeserved bonus to the U.K., which was moving, for reasons unrelated to Kyoto, from coal to natural gas as an energy source, which emits less GHG than coal.

The Americans, wisely, refused to ratify Kyoto, even when Gore was their VP and lobbying for it.

Unfortunately, we did, either because the previous Liberal government didn't understand that the economic penalties Kyoto aimed at the U.S. would also apply to us, or because Jean Chretien, in his rush to craft himself an environmental legacy, didn't care.

 

[a_majoor]

The author nails the real problem of the so called Carbon Tax: who controls the money:

http://www.lfpress.com/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?x=letters&p=18602&s=letters

'Revenue neutral' not the issue
Since it's going to keep coming up, let's clarify what a "revenue neutral" carbon tax means.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion says if he gets into power, the carbon tax he imposes will be "revenue neutral."

No doubt he means it.

That is, should a future Liberal government raise $15 billion from its carbon tax, its books will show at the end of the fiscal year it gave $15 billion back in related tax cuts and credits to Canadians.

Similarly, if the Liberals were to raise carbon taxes in future to, say, $20 billion, or $50 billion, this would no doubt be "revenue neutral," too.

That means as much money would come in to government coffers because of the carbon tax as would then go out again to all taxpayers, presumably aimed at helping them reduce carbon emissions.

That's the first thing to remember about a "revenue neutral" tax.

It can be increased and still be revenue neutral.

Dion also says he'll have the auditor-general confirm his carbon tax is "revenue neutral."

Uh . . . OK. But so what?

"Revenue neutrality" for the government isn't the issue. It's that it won't be revenue neutral for individual taxpayers.

The Liberals will decide who will be the economic winners and losers among taxpayers. Who merits being reimbursed for their carbon tax and who doesn't.

Indeed, a carbon tax could cost one Canadian $5,000 a year more in taxes, or $500, or $50.

By contrast, someone else could get $5,000 more in tax cuts and credits than they paid in carbon taxes that year, or $500 more or $50. A third person might break even.

In each case, the global amount collected by the carbon tax would be "revenue neutral," as long as the total tax money coming in matched the total tax money going out.

Problem is, the Liberals will decide who deserves to benefit from a carbon tax, who deserves to break even and who deserves to be punished.

And do you really trust that job to a politician?



POSTED BY: Lorrie Goldstein, london
POSTED ON: June 23, 2008

 

[YZT580]

www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/Weston_Greg/2008/06/24/5967561-sun.html  Greg Weston is not particularly noted for supporting anything that the tories say.  But in this case, he appears to demonstrate rather convincingly, who is going to produce the 15 billion and who is going to collect.  Can you say "mon Dieu"

 

[GAP]

It's a tax grab.......and people are excited about it, thrilled even......................stupid.

 

[Flip]

This popped up in the Globe and Mail.

Carbon cuts are just a fantasy
MARGARET WENTE

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
June 24, 2008 at 8:36 AM EDT

VANCOUVER — I have bad news for Stéphane Dion. Out here in B.C., the people are revolting. Gordon Campbell's much-applauded carbon tax was pretty popular in February. But now, as people are being hammered by record gas prices, the enthusiasm has cooled. A new poll says a whopping 59 per cent of British Columbians now oppose the tax - and it hasn't even kicked in yet.

Beware the fickle voters. Everyone loves carbon taxes, until they have to pay them. But there's a much bigger and more serious reason for people to be skeptical of carbon taxes, cap-and-trade plans, green shifts, offset schemes and all the other policy proposals that have fuelled such mind-numbing debate. The reason is that they won't work. And you don't have to be a climate-change denier to see why.

I know, I know. Mr. Dion likes to tell us the planet's fate is in our hands. Sorry! It's not. It's a big old world out there, and most of the six billion people in it are scrambling to use more energy, not less.

The dimensions of the problem are hard to overstate. As we demand more wind, solar, geothermal and biofuels, the other five-odd billion demand more oil, coal and natural gas. As we debate the niceties of carbon taxes versus cap-and-trade, global energy demand is projected to increase another 60 per cent by 2030.

Related Articles
Recent

Globe editorial: Mr. Harper, speak to the merits of Dion's plan 
Poll: Dion's green plan could 'shift' votes to Liberals, poll finds 
News: Dion challenges PM to 'green' debate 
Lawrence Martin: Let's have Mr. Dion's green debate 
Avrim Lazar: Great green debate misses the mark 
Discussion, noon ET: Who leaves the biggest eco-footprint? 
Despite our good intentions, we can't do anything about it. Last year, China clearly overtook the United States as the world's biggest CO2 emitter. It now accounts for two-thirds of the yearly increase in global emissions. China and India will build a new coal generator roughly once a week for the next 25 years. As we ditch our gas-guzzling SUVs, the Chinese are buying 20,000 new cars every day. Two billion people still lack access to electricity. If we try to tell them they can't have it, they'll just laugh at us.

Could we reduce our carbon footprint enough to compensate for all this furious growth? Not a chance. We'd have to repeal air travel, cars and the rest of the 20th century. Global warming is really hard to fix. But don't take it from me.

A recent commentary in Nature, titled Dangerous Assumptions, argues that reducing CO2 emissions over the next century will be far more challenging than we've been led to believe. The authors - climate policy expert Roger Pielke Jr., climatologist Tom Wigley and economist Christopher Green - contend the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has badly overstated our technological ability to cut emissions. The idea that we can regulate our way to a completely new economy is, in Nature's words, "a fairy tale."

A lot of big scientific guns agree. Vaclav Smil, distinguished environment professor at the University of Manitoba, comments, "The speed of transition from a predominantly fossil-fuelled world ... is being grossly overestimated: All energy transitions are multigenerational affairs. Their progress cannot substantially be accelerated either by wishful thinking or by government ministers' fiats." Stanford's Christopher Field writes, "It is hard to see how, without a massive increase in investment, the requisite number of relevant technologies will be mature and available when we need them."

In other words, it will take a massive technological revolution to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions, and anyone who says otherwise is kidding you. It's all very well to say that we ought to lead by example, and do what we can. It's a good thing to start figuring out how we can eventually wean ourselves off fossil fuels. But if all our efforts to regulate carbon amount to scooping sand from the Sahara with a teaspoon, shouldn't we face facts?

"We may have set ourselves down the wrong path when we framed the challenge of mitigating greenhouse gases in terms of reducing emissions," says Mr. Pielke. He says only massive long-term investments in carbon-neutral technologies will do the trick. Keep that in mind during the next eye-glazing round of green debates.

Gap - I think I disagree.....Activists are excited about it. Why not? They "win"  :

There is a pattern emerging of a carbon tax revolt, or at least a political backlash. Dion has placed himself on the wrong side of this one for sure.  ;D