The report argues that making polluters pay a fee for every tonne of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere could raise between $50-billion and $100-billion in revenue annually by 2020.
The report argues that most of that revenue could be used to greatly reduce personal income taxes.
Because manufacturers would never pass on the costs to consumers, right?
And income taxes would come down, of course except for that wee bit would be "put toward renewable energy projects such as wind and solar power." Most of the windfall would reduce personal income taxes though. Uh-huh. Just don't forget your charitable donations to the
Well, if you can't scare them to death with Armageddon scenarios, and once you finally realize that jailing them doesn't work either in a democratic society, then I guess the old snake oil tour is worth a try.
* * * *
Update: Tories reject latest carbon tax proposal - Post.
Steve Janke - David Suzuki and uncomfortable warming.
Tuesday Update: GLOBE POLL!!
Record - Suzuki makes carbon-tax pitch.
Steve Janke - David Suzuki and uncomfortable warming.
Tuesday Update: GLOBE POLL!!
Do you consider yourself a fan of the work David Suzuki is doing?
Record - Suzuki makes carbon-tax pitch.
21 comments:
What surprises me most is that he's making economic sense, i.e. he seems to understand the incentives that underpin taxation. So my question is, why didn't he propose this two decades ago?
looks like Mr. Suzuki has finally seen things the conservative's way.
Doesn't Baird's plan already include fining the polluters?
Where's Suzuki been?
Suzuki surely is kooky when he thinks that the revenue from a horrific carbon tax will make us a more prosperous nation. Yup, take the revenue from his proposed carbon tax, less the administrative costs which would be enormous, less the reduced profitability of industry which in some instances may put them out of business and in any case will reduce the amounts that they can put back into said business by way of modernization; and you will end up with a much less prosperous nation. Suzuki may be a few things (including a communist sympathizer) but for sure one thing he is not, is an economist. He doesn't have a clue and in mouthing off on the subject, has removed all doubts as to his understanding and knowledge.
Lewis
What a load of crap!
Economics 101 - Every dollar taxed out of the economy is a dollar that is unavailable for investment. Economic growth results from the use of capital ie; investment. Taxes kill economies..... PERIOD.
Governments DO NOT make economies grow. The ONLY thing they can do is get in the way. Or NOT.
Well, I can agree with some tax incentives for moving towards a greener lifestyle such as not charging any GST or PST on canvas bags and composters and that type of thing.
But I agree with Lewis that the fines in some cases would put Canadian companies out of business that are already right on the edge.
On the other hand, I think we need to differentiate between companies that cause air pollution, etc. vs. companies that are leaving more than their share of a carbon footprint - and there is a difference.
The higher prices will be curtailed by consumers who will get their products from foreigners that have lower costs. Our companies would have an even harder time trying to compete. This plan sounds like protectionist policies would have to be put in place, but that would likely go against the free trade agreements we have already signed. The end result would be Canadians losing their jobs as businesses are forced to close. As a result, taxes would have to increase to make up for the shortfall.
Are the people complaining here the same ones that oppose corporate welfare? Because if they are, has it escaped consideration that imposing carbon taxes is really just eliminating the free-rider problem? It’s not a tax so much as it eliminating a subsidy.
I don’t think anyone would suggest it would be okay for companies to drive around town and dump their solid industrial waste anywhere they please, for free. So I am not sure why they should be permitted to do so when it comes to air pollution. If someone can think of an appropriate property-rights solution to air pollution please, let me know - but in the absence of that, would it not be smarter to attempt to build in the cost of what you are doing into the price?
I never dreamed I’d find myself defending David Suzuki in any way, shape, or form, but I’m trying to wrap my head around Terrence Corcoran’s complaint. If you don’t believe rising carbon emissions are a problem, fine. But if you do, and you want to do something about it, what should be done?
ALW, are you suggesting that only companies that get subsidies will get hit with the carbon tax? Besides, the subsidies for Alberta's oil companies have been set to diminish if not end.
The article is about getting Ottawa to, "... implement a carbon tax or other ways of forcing polluters to pay for their environmental impacts." That is why I only mention the oil sands development subsidies. Suzuki is talking about green house gas pollution and not toxic waste or VOC air pollution that contribute to smog.
Pollution, like sulpher dioxide that had ravaged my city for decades, should be fought. Mining companies that operate here were hit 15 years ago with provincial restrictions, but the damage has already been done. Lakes as far as North Bay are more acidic from mining operations in the Sudbury Basin. Fighting pollution is one thing, but CO2 is not a pollutant.
“We now know that taxation is a very powerful incentive to discourage things that we don't want and relief of taxes can encourage the things we want,” said Suzuki. Things that we want must mean larger governments while the things we don't want must be lower prices.
ALW, are you suggesting that only companies that get subsidies will get hit with the carbon tax?
No, I’m saying that CO2 emissions are externality not captured under the normal cost of doing business, and hence has the same effect as a subsidy. Thus, if I pay a certain amount to send my garbage to a landfill, I have to incorporate that cost of that into my overall cost of doing business. When polluters dump into the air, currently they don’t have to do it. Or, imagine everyone was getting electricity for “free” and then suddenly complained when someone suggested that we price electricity out in order to better control its consumption. Isn’t the carbon tax essentially the same thing?
I agree that CO2 is not a pollutant, but it does have some effect (though I disagree with Suzuki about the scope/extent of that effect). If we can all agree that prices are the best way to influence the behaviour of free actors, why the knee-jerk opposition to carbon taxes? All taxes have detrimental effects, but if we are going to have some taxes, shouldn’t they be the most efficient and effective ones?
So I guess that means Air Canada should be hit with huge carbon taxes for all the emisiions it's planes put out. Coal-fired generating plants should also pay the tax. And while Suzuki focuses on the air, what about the destruction of marine life/surroundings by oil companies working out of Danny's NFLD?
What about all those transport companies spewing emisiions from their tractor-trailers delivering our food to the supermarket?
This is nothing more than a Kyoto warm-and-fuzzy-feeling idea that does nothing except give a false impression. If Suzuki, Gore, or whoever can get all countries to sign onto this, including the U.S., China, India, etc., any Canadian government would be committing economic suicide.
And could someone please point out to Suzuki that China's INCREASE in ghg emisiions last year were more than Canada's TOTAL emisiions.
"I agree that CO2 is not a pollutant..." Great. We agree. About the second half of your sentence, "...but it does have some effect," that is where we may disagree. It has been shown that CO2 helps trees grow.
http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/2008/02/why_the_house_hugger_ad_is_wro.html
Why tax companies for helping trees and plants grow? The knee jerk opposition to keeping taxes low and government small is unjustified. Suzuki's plan will not keep taxes low nor will they help businesses remain competative.
This brings to mind BC's newly minted carbon tax. The government claims to keep the tax revenue neutral by cutting taxes elsewhere. The first relief will be in the form of $100 cheques for every citizen. A poll asked how people would spend the money. Most, sensibly, said they'd use it to help keep the gas tank full.
To me the whole thing is a sign that the government has completely swallowed the climate change kool-aid. Things will only get worse with the government meddling in ever more complicated and inevitably destructive ways(to the economy).
ALW said: ...why the knee-jerk opposition to carbon taxes? All taxes have detrimental effects, but if we are going to have some taxes, shouldn’t they be the most efficient and effective ones?
Suggest you take a peek at this recent article on the BC tax:
B.C. launches CO2 planning nightmare
Why have a carbon tax when AGW is a hoax?
"In 2007, their last theoretical bastion crumbled. Climatologists announced that a fundamental signature of greenhouse gases, predicted by all U.N. climate models, is missing. There is no 'hot spot' from CO2 -induced warming at tropical latitudes. Satellites and weather balloons show normal temperature profiles. The climate models are fundamentally flawed. (Douglass, et al., International Journal of Climatology, Royal Meteorological Society, October 2007.)In 2007, their last theoretical bastion crumbled. Climatologists announced that a fundamental signature of greenhouse gases, predicted by all U.N. climate models, is missing. There is no 'hot spot' from CO2 -induced warming at tropical latitudes. Satellites and weather balloons show normal temperature profiles. The climate models are fundamentally flawed. (Douglass, et al., International Journal of Climatology, Royal Meteorological Society, October 2007.)"
-- http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1203731757171220.xml&coll=7
The whole article is a good read.
I was at an event this past weekend where a farmer was telling a group about how the production biofuels is actually worse for the environment than the environuts are touting.
Sited ethanol and how much extra things like water, engery, landusage that used to be for other crops, it takes, not to mention fuel for machines, trucks to transport etc.etc.
Thanks for that link, JR. I had missed that one.
Maybe a few cdns have done something to conserve energy, but not this family. Every time I hear Suzuki talk his garbage I turn up the furnace to 75 and turn on a few lights.
How much energy could he have saved if he had not gone to Ottawa.
And where will the 53-100 billion come from. You, the consumer, that's who. So instead of paying 40 dollars a ton what if those industries just close up. How many jobs will be gone. Anyone that thinks turning food into fuel for vehicles instead of energy for yourself has got to be crazy.
When I see Suzuki walking everywhere, even to Ottawa, maybe I will believe he is sane and really want to save the planet.
For the record Joanne, I just finished reading the report in question. The report never suggests manufacturers would not pass on the tax, and very specifically states that getting consumers to decrease carbon intensive purchasing is the point of a carbon tax.
The report further states that, under all six redistribution scenarios they studied, there would be negative GDP. However, they calculate it at, depending on the structure of the tax, between .5 and 1.5%.
Lastly, the suggestion is that revenue raised from a carbon tax could be redistributed into the economy, and they test various forms of this (payroll tax decreases, income tax decreases, combination tax decreases and investment in renewable plus home retrofitting).
It has it's flaws, not the least is as ommag stated, "Governments DO NOT make economies grow." However, it's a serious economic study that's being very poorly reported by the MSM, or at least the Globe.
The report never suggests manufacturers would not pass on the tax, and very specifically states that getting consumers to decrease carbon intensive purchasing is the point of a carbon tax...
Good points, Brian. Colour me skeptical though. When you say "the suggestion is that revenue raised from a carbon tax could be redistributed into the economy", I can't help thinking that yes, that's the theory, but would it actually happen?
When you say "the suggestion is that revenue raised from a carbon tax could be redistributed into the economy", I can't help thinking that yes, that's the theory, but would it actually happen?
Well yea, that's one of the problems. Not to mention that redistributing money has it's own costs. The inherent inefficiencies in bureaucracy is not calculated in into the the report.
Not to mention that redistributing money has it's own costs. The inherent inefficiencies in bureaucracy is not calculated in into the the report.
Yeah, that's the last thing we need - another Gun Registry type fiasco.
But I'll admit that Suzuki's latest approach at least veers towards a sane proposal.
Speaking of a registry, this article:
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/26/pg-and-e-buys-some-hot-air-in-california-trees/
mentions the "California Climate Action Registry." According to their website, "[t]he California Climate Action Registry is a non-profit public/private partnership that serves as a voluntary greenhouse gas (GHG) registry to protect, encourage, and promote early actions to reduce GHG emissions." I wonder for how long it will remain voluntary.
Post a Comment