Some BC Environmental Groups Criticize NDP Plan to Scrap Carbon Tax; Part 2
Continued from here
I consider myself to be a poor person and I (family of 4) have received just over $600 in carbon rebates so far. ($400 of that I received up front before the tax even kicked in). At 1.5 cents per litre these rebates compensate me for 40 000 litres of fuel! Even as rural people with 2 adults driving to work I couldn't use this much!. By my calculations I am WAY ahead.
Ah, but you ae being very short sighted, plus your math is wrong. perhaps you dshould revisit your calculations?
How much has your grocery bill gone up from last year? How much has your hydro bill? How much has your clothing costs? All of these things have been impacted by the carbon tax, and not just gas for your vehicle consumption. Again the rate was created to rebate what you pay, there is no net gain of income. Moreover, the rebate will NOT increase with increases in the carbon tax. Nor does it appear that the rebates will continue past a certain deadline.
And I see there is still no comments about how wrong privatizing lakes and rivers is..
Comments
And brookemere no people do not get the same rate, a family of 1 does not get get what a family of 4 does, and it is geared to income, and not a flate rebate rate.
A famlily of 4 is not a person. It is more than one person, 4 people actually, so I don't quite get your point.
As far as I know everyone got $100 last year, perhaps you could fill us in on how it is geared to income.
And while NRTREE did argue against the effectiveness of carbon taxes...
Did you read the report. Because nowhere in it does it say that a carbon tax is less effective. Infact, they designed the cap and trade system to include desirable elements of the carbon tax.
They are the same policies. They both put a price on carbon and it's the price signal that achieves the reductions.
You are WAY too loose about that. The mecanisms effects are not remotely the same when it comes to effecting emissions. And that is what this is supposed to be about.
You sure about that? Here's what achieves reductions in the cap and trade scenario. Emissions are capped creating scarcity, which means that emissions now have a value. They are now a factor of production for firms. Firms will purchase emissions permits to the point where the price of the permit equals the price to making an in-house investment or change in production will achieve the same reduction as a permit represents.
In a carbon tax a firm will pay the carbon tax to the point that the payment on the tax equals what it would cost for it to invest in emissions savings technology or practices. It's the same thing. There is no difference. You just come around putting a price on the emission in a different way. In a tax you just put the cost on the emission, in a cap and trade system you limit the quantity of emissions and let the price reflect the quantity.
This passage makes absolutely no sense. The tax will be passed to the consumer based on the elasticity of demand for the good that each producer supplies. Regardless of if they pass the tax down or not, producers still have incentive to avoid carbon tax payments through reducing fossil fuel consumption. You seem to believe that because the firm passes the cost down it has no incentive to reduce its own costs. Silly.
Successful carbon taxes in Europe have been coupled with ambitious and comprehensive green spending initiatives. That doesn't happen here, and it never will with the fiscal Trojan Horse that comes in with promises of bogus revenue neutrality.
Since cap and trade has a significant time lag when price increases reach consumers, that gives time to compensate low income households only. Which leaves fiscal room for green spending initiatives that enable consumption reduction tools to be in place before the increased costs hit the majority of consumers who are going to have to pay them.
Since you're so keen to reference cap and trade in Europe you should have known that the costs of the EU ETS phase I and II were passed down almost immediately to consumers. There was a very small lag time.
Really, are you seriously contesting that Vancouver greater area and suburb developmemnt, has not had significant environmental impacts beyond any reckoning of the small community I live in? Or indeed Victoria?
Rural settlements have provided the life's blood of this province and country since conception. As long as we are a resource extraction based economy, and need food and commodities to live, this will continue to be. Do you think cities are stand alone functionaries? Where the hell do they get their food from, and where would they get their food from if there were no rural communities providing it? Where to they get their raw materials from to exist, where would they get them from if rural communites did not exist? Seriously you need to think, actually think, instead of existing in some distopia, that has no place in reality.
If I take my carbon footprint and move to a city, I am still taking it with me, it does not cease to be, nor does it lessen by any significant amount. In fact, it would most likely increase do to my inability to provide food for myself and having to have more shipped in to compensate.
As I stated, your thinking is short sighted, at best.
I consider myself to be a poor person and I (family of 4) have received just over $600 in carbon rebates so far. ($400 of that I received up front before the tax even kicked in). At 1.5 cents per litre these rebates compensate me for 40 000 litres of fuel! Even as rural people with 2 adults driving to work I couldn't use this much!. By my calculations I am WAY ahead.
You have an amazingly condescending tone about you. It is unbecoming because all you are able to to use as arguments are ideological socialist rants. You have not once adequately addressed any of the points that I've made.
With respect to privatization, I was clarifying an error that you made, which you have not yet addressed. So the people own it and not the government great. The government is, by law, sanctioned to steward and manage publicly owned lands and yes, by law, the government owns that land. Deal with it.
With respect to licensing, why is a license necessary? Because I want companies using public resources to be properly vetted and approved. The licensing process helps to achieve that end. Why do we want companies using our water resources to produce power? Well that apparently is an ideologically charged question. I am a believer that climate change represents a severe threat to my family and to this Earth. I also have seen first hand that run-of-river hydro can be extremely environmentally benign. If we can approve relatively benign hydro projects and produce power that will displace fossil fuel fired energy then that is a win-win. Why should we use private companies? Because they're pretty good at finding the sites and using the least-cost methods to produce the power. Provided that they adhere to all existing environmental regulations great. Win-win.
Wow. Thanks for that. Yes clearly I am the one devoid of rational thought. Billionaire capitalists who have inherited their wealth are destroying our environment thanks to a conspiracy by a capitalist government to give money to their friends and destroy the environment. You should listen to yourself. This is just utter garbage.
Nowhere have I said Vancouver has not had significant environmental impacts. Vancouver is not perfect. However it has had, on the scale of geography a much smaller environmental impact that BC's myriad of rural communities. That is my point. Sure when you compare one city to one town the city has the higher impact. But if you compare a city to the population equivalent of as many towns the towns have a much higher environmental impact. I dare you to prove me otherwise. You wont be able to.
Nowhere do I think that we should get rid of rural communities. I just think we should densify, to reduce our impact on the land and on the atmosphere. We have a ton of people living in rural communities, alienating land and using up more resources proportionately because of distances to travel. Urban people by contrast can use x percent less land, less roads, less power lines, less freight. They also treat their sewage, have centralized landfills that are able to capture their gas, and can be incredibly more efficient through integrated energy systems like cogenaration and smart grids. The future of environmental stewardship is in cities. We will always need rural communities, I just posit the question of whether we need as many and whether we should be factoring in the full cost of living in a rural community?
See above.
I don't think your analysis is 'anti-intellectual' at all.
Like so much of what goes on in this thread, there is in my opinion a touch of the overwrought- but less than has been the rule here.
I'm certainly with you on criticism of any climate change policy that relies too much- let alone entirely- on just the carbon pricing end. That was the biggest problem with Dion's plan. As noted just above, not only was there nothing for green initiatives, but the tax cuts that were the cornerstone of the 'Green Shift' were a Trojan Horse that would have fiscally/politicaly kneecapped the ability of any government to mount green spending initiatives.
But I wouldn't go so far as to say initiaives first, then pricing. Without carbon pricing, behaviour of neither businesses or households will change anywhere near enough. We have tons of experience in how initiatives alone don't do enough. Because we have almost never deliberately hooked pricing with green initiatives, we don't have as much experience... but all of it we have is very positive.
Another reason we need carbon pricing at the same time is that fiscaly and politicaly we need a new source of revenues to be able to mount ambitious green initiatives. Ultimately, we can and will explicitly sell citizens on them having to put something out [which is only partialy money] to get the emission reductions we need. But it is politicaly impossible to start out that way: "we need to raise taxes so we can do the green spending we need." There is nothing progressive about dooming yourself to failure.
Briefly: the federal NDP program was crafted to thread that needle. Carbon taxes hit people with price increases immediately- before there are emission reduction benefits and before people have a chance to adopt broad ranging green incentives [because we don't have them yet]. Cap and trade price increases are slower to come in. You promise low income households they will be sheltered- which is credible beause the fiscal cost of protecting only low income households is modest.
I believe that takes about a third of the new revenues collected under cap and trade, the other 2/3 are available to fund green initiatives. You can promise those ambitious green initiatives immediately [spending takes a while and can be funded out of general revenues until the new cap and trade revenues start coming in], while the cap and trade pricing effects are taking a few years to percolate through to consumers. That way the vast majority of households who are not protected from the price increases have had ample time to make energy consumption reducing changes... with substantial assist from the ambitious green initiatives.
Thanks for that Ken, makes good sense to me.
It sounds to me like the BC Liberal position is to use only carbon pricing, and the BC NDP position is to abolish existing carbon pricing. Surely there's a flaw here?
All I can see in the BC "debate" is political posturing. I don't see either party attempting to come up with the best possible environmental policy. That's been left to CCPA and the environmental groups among others, it looks to me. Yet more reason for people to be disillusioned with all political parties....
A famlily of 4 is not a person. It is more than one person, 4 people actually, so I don't quite get your point.
As far as I know everyone got $100 last year, perhaps you could fill us in on how it is geared to income.
Did you get anything beyond the initial 100.00 bucks? Others of lower incomes did. i wish we could still access the thread that had all the info on this and the break downs.
I don't think the government is privatizing lakes or rivers. They are issuing water licenses, of which the Ministry of Environment has the right to revoke at the Minister's request upon breach of the license or in the worst case scenario, because no license can be issued for longer than 25 years you simply deny a new license upon the termination of the previous.
Privatizing means you sell something and the property right is transfered to the owner. Licensing means you license the use of it but you still own it.
Then you are being insincere and myopic. Forty year renewable contracts are nothing less then sales. Look at the BCR absurdity - 990 years with extensions. Corporate profits are front end loaded in case you have not noticed.
How much $$ did Berman or others in their latest transfiguration receive in "donations" from these corporate entities? How about Gordo and his Liberals? This is my province and I want its successes built on, not ignored and undermined. ROR may be fine in some places and may not - but I want a full, public review and public ownership. We do better collectively as even Gordo has admitted when the Port Mann twinning came home. Less cost and a better schedule (whether you consider the end result a good thing). I say get these pricks out of my pocket and let a real and accountable scrutiny return.
I'm criticizing the Environmental Groups first for the lossy job they have done influencing British Colombians as the NO Tax and Spend Party adds a deadly tax to the consumption on the poor while British Colombians come in last for their part in keeping the earth an environmentally friendly through composting and recycling. Who is hurt when you punish with money? The Rich. the Middle class or the Poor?
Who is going to be hurt if your are penalizing children for not having a enough money and for wanting to eat and live in a home that isn't filled with bed bugs and no heat while eating stale bread or what ever else they could scrape up. "Don't cry Sweetie because mommy can't afford to feed you as we have to wait three months to get back money that we needed three months ago to help pay the bills as Government takes GST+PST+HIGHEST GAS PRICES+CARBON TAX along with high rents and high food prices mommy is forced to pay.
I'm getting kinda sick of seeing all those advertisements with kids as I know how BC treats its kids along with Coastal Mental Health whose little commercial sure is a big joke. As its a common occurrence for these professionals to drug up the mentally impaired with a shot and then put them to the streets so they can get real cracked up despite knowing she lives on the street. While social services dish's out the little cash weekly as patient isn't responsible enough to know what to do but BC Housing and Social Services has no problem with it as look all the rent they save $375.00 by keeping them on the streets.
Its no wonder kids are on the streets and are forced to prostitute along with their moms as more and more find themselves on the streets and into drugs. Whats that going to do for BC's reputation because its the truth as we can met up and I'll take you on a stroll called kiddie stroll and its sure has gotten a lot longer thanks to Liberal British Colombians and there NO TAX and SPEND on the Rich party. What can the elderly and the disabled do nobody wants their old broken down bodies as they are left to the streets to be beaten or stabbed or raped or robbed or slashed or shot or mutilated or kicked or spat at or tasered or frozen or poisoned. All the norm for Vancouver's homeless.
Oh thats right the taxes you took are coming in the mail three months from now for $30 despite it being one of the coldest seasons in a long time and families have been really hit hard with heating bills and don't forget those high rents that are also passed on to purchases another killer to the economy. BC IS GOING TO BE HARDEST HIT OF ALL THE PROVINCES AS WE MOVE OVER TO STAGFLATION AS THE NO TAX AND SPEND PARTY SURE TAXES THE LIVE OUT OF THE POOR KIDS and moves over to the middle class who really are in the poor house as the poorest in the land now live on the streets or in slums.
OBAMA IS GOING FOR CAP AND TRADE, Maybe.
And its kinda like telling those looking for something to eat that lunch is in the mail but you just got to go without quite a few before it gets here. But by all means help yourself to all the garbage you can eat as long as you can pay for it as Quest sells garbage to the poor as its government approved garbage. And its garbage no doubt as the poor find themselves on a steady diet of old sugar and starch thanks to Liberal British Colombians.
The same poor kids the NO TAX AND BIG SPENDERS ON THE RICH took the Children's Hertiage fund and not only is there nothing to compare the treatment to anymore other than inhuman as going on six years in a row means these kids are not doing well indeed as things only get worse. As costs continue to inflate and the middle class will experience loss of homes and hunger also as BC will have highest unemployment. And I'm off to tell the world as I'm certain there are those who would ponder as Mr. Harper was going on about Afganastan women having to perform sex for their husbands. How about women and children in BC having to perform sex for their daily bread or starve as they are forced to sleep with strangers as at least these Afgan women have a familiar face? I was going to say friendly face but thought better of it.
Flames, do you intend to answer and deal with reality? Remind gives her REAL experiences, you spout nonsense. I take it you are a Liberal/Greenie who would sell our province to anyone who may meet your agenda. Very narrow vision, partner, very narrow.
Its reality as its what going on check out the kiddie stroll, check out women forced to the streets, check out Quest for garbage, check out your social services office because its reality for the poor as its on our streets for all to see. What do you do when you are faced with low wages and high rents and lots of taxes and high food prices and day care? As clearly if your penalizing with money those that don't got much are going to be hurt when it comes to consumption and waiting for a cheque will not cut it when prices are inflated. So starve a child get a tax break as you truly do have the worst treatment of children out there 6 years in a row and its FACT and its what Liberal British Columbians want!
Munroe, forget about Flames, he obviously has no understanding of the real world, facts, and no life experience, or is just a propagandist. And it is no damn wonder the NDP in BC want no contact with people such as him. They are not environmentalists, they are just frightened non-thinking people, who would turn BC into a fascist state. Their total rejection of publically owned water and land is the first indication of this reality.
Corporations have never looked after the environment, nor do they plan to, which makes their contentions even more silly and absurb. In some cases, I have seen corporations actually have 75 year "leasing options", and they can sublet too, for even less environmental accountability. This is particularily dangerous when we have a government that does not believe in environmental regulations, like the Campbell government and Harpo.
Apparently the Green Party cannot be gone from the face of Canada soon enough, before they damage the environment in its entirety, and it is no wonder that thinking people have left the GP for the NDP.
Right on remind as they go for further tax breaks siting the unfairness of it all? So lets see you rape and pillage the land use her educated work force, along with all the country has to offer to make a bundle thanks to this wonderful country who has made you so prosperous and then cry unfair why should I pay all these taxes? Because you made all that money and when it comes to resources that are limited there is no doubt you should be putting back and more. But thats what you get when you have Greedy Guts as their Greed Consumes them as they sit glued to their useless fortunes that would demand a child starve or work the streets before payng their fair share.
You pay for what you get or you would think but its not that way is it because what the wealthy do is pay for their political party to give them what they want. And it looks like this political party has no problem taking what they want also and it has nothing to do with the environment as BC's Gateway project is no friend and neither is TILMA. And the NO TAX and SPEND on the RICH party isn't good for the economy is it? The poor are the ones that spend everything they got and the Rich bank on it.
This divorce of people from their government and land base, is nothing more than corporate fascist propaganda geared to exploit the environment and people more. No true environmentalist would buy into the nonsense of corporations controlling the enviroments and doing a better job than governments, which actually work for the people they represent, unlike the Campbell government which represents those who fill their greedy pockets. And apparently the GP just wants to follow their suit. But then of course, the same people are funding them, so...what can people expect, we just need to realize they are pretendy environmentalists and act accordingly towards them.
Wanting to flood huge tracks of "rural" land does nothing to protect the wildlife, nor the environment. Those who want to dam the Fraser in order to "save" the environment, are insane, at best.
Nor do I believe cities have a lower carbon footprint than rural communities, I can just imagine what short sighted reports were created to try and foster this notion and I also know about "peers" in the pretendy environmental movement. Nothwithstanding of course is the fact, that they apparently overlook, is that cities could not exist without rural communities. They also do not apparently acknowlege people's human rights to move and live freely where they choose and would like that human right trashed..
Could you post some links or info about these studies? Thanks in advance.
Oh you're saying the rebate is progressive?
OK. 
Could you post some links or info about these studies? Thanks in advance.
David Suzuki says urban concentrations like Toronto are not natural. The temperature inside the city itself is a few degrees warmer than rural areas due to the massive concrete structures alone. It's no wonder city people increasingly want central air conditioning in their swanky new homes and condos. McGuinty's Liberals will spend billions and billions on nuclear power expansion to feed Southern Ontario. Meanwhile rural, less populated areas like Northern Ontario tend to be supplied with power from falling water, co-generation, and some new wind farm projects in a few northern cities and towns.
Oh you're saying the rebate is progressive? OK.
Tis is a sad state of affairs when so called, environmntally concerned people, think water privatization is good, and that doing nothing for the environment, but pretending you are, is well... considered doing something for the environment.
As I stated before, it is obvious why the smart and actual environmentalists left the GP and moved to the NDP.
From part 1 of this thread:
The actual report from the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is at:
http://www.nrtee-trnee.com/eng/publications/carbon-pricing/carbon-pricing-eng.php
I'm not sure how this helps the anti-carbon tax crowd. What NRTEE is proposing here is essentially a carbon tax. They are capping ALL fossil fuel based emissions from industry and from end-use fuels. What does that mean? Gasoline, natural gas, and other end-use fuels are capped at the point of distribution. Expanding coverage of the cap and trade to 85% of the economy. This is actually broader coverage than the BC carbon tax.
The effect of this system would be exactly the same as a comparable carbon tax.
For example, if the cap and trade system caps equated to roughly a $25 per tonne carbon price then a carbon tax of $25 per tonne would achieve the same emission reductions. Both systems would impose the same costs on consumers.
That point is lost on most people in this forum. The two systems are essentially the same. Carbon tax is more transparent and easier to implement, cap and trade allows for a little more dynamic efficiency and futures trading. I would trend toward a carbon tax just because there's no likelihood of gaming and arbitrage as has been evidenced in other cap and trade systems to-date.
This point is not lost on anybody who understands the relative merits of the various options for pricing carbon, it is just understood to be wrong.
On the emissions front, cap and trade is a much more direct method of capping emissions (hence the cap part of the name). Carbon taxes rely on that old invisible hand of the market to get the job done through economic feedback. Cap and trade goes at the problem directly. Various people have observed that cap and trade provides greater certainty on emission levels and tax policy provides greater certainty on pricing. With a number of significant caveats, this is a more or less reasonable chracterization.
Where the two deviate most importantly is in their collateral effects outside the realm of emissions. The BC carbon tax legislation led to a massive structural realignment of taxation in the province along lines that have been proposed by conservative economists for years. These changes were strongly opposed in the past by a broad cross-section of society who believed that progressive taxation was an important social policy instrument and a fundamentally important tool for reining in the tendency for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. I still believe these things to be important, as do many others.
Cap and trade, for all the policy infrastructure it requires, does not restructure taxation in regressive ways. The suggestion put forward by some that a carbon tax is more transparent is a bit of a laugh; the various income-dependent credits introduced to compensate for the tax's regressiveness are both subject to manipulation and vulnerable to erosion. If you think it won't happen, recall what happened to health care support and income tax basic personal exemptions during the Paul Martin years.
The proposition that is put forward by the Tzeporah Bermans and David Suzukis of the world that those of us who see the BC carbon tax as a policy wolf in sheep's clothing are political opportunists and anti-environment is both anti-historical and intellectually dishonest. I take no solace in knowing that this is more likely a manifestation of incompetence than malice.
Control greenhouse emissions or face trade scantions
http:/www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2009/04/16/9136921.html
"I take no solace in knowing that this is more likely a manifestation of incompetence than malice."
Perhaps it is both in some cases?
Successful carbon taxes in Europe have been coupled with ambitious and comprehensive green spending initiatives. That doesn't happen here, and it never will with the fiscal Trojan Horse that comes in with promises of bogus revenue neutrality.
Since cap and trade has a significant time lag when price increases reach consumers, that gives time to compensate low income households only. Which leaves fiscal room for green spending initiatives that enable consumption reduction tools to be in place before the increased costs hit the majority of consumers who are going to have to pay them.
Since you're so keen to reference cap and trade in Europe you should have known that the costs of the EU ETS phase I and II were passed down almost immediately to consumers. There was a very small lag time.
I didn't reference cap and trade in Europe. That's you muddling things up again so you can make your claims that cap and trade and carbon tax are the same.
There are a number of reasons nobody in North America is talking about repeating how the Europeans organized cap and trade. The means of starting are fundamentally different.
But the central issue here is the one in the quote above you ignored about the fiscal Trojan Horse of the BC and proposed Dion carbon taxes. And that was at least the second time I brought it up yesterday.
And it is worth calling attention here to what Peter3 just said along similar lines:
Where the two deviate most importantly is in their collateral effects outside the realm of emissions. The BC carbon tax legislation led to a massive structural realignment of taxation in the province along lines that have been proposed by conservative economists for years. These changes were strongly opposed in the past by a broad cross-section of society who believed that progressive taxation was an important social policy instrument and a fundamentally important tool for reining in the tendency for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. I still believe these things to be important, as do many others.
Cap and trade, for all the policy infrastructure it requires, does not restructure taxation in regressive ways. The suggestion put forward by some that a carbon tax is more transparent is a bit of a laugh; the various income-dependent credits introduced to compensate for the tax's regressiveness are both subject to manipulation and vulnerable to erosion. If you think it won't happen, recall what happened to health care support and income tax basic personal exemptions during the Paul Martin years.
I would just add that there isn't anything inherent to carbon taxes that links them to tax restructuring that is not progressive [as claimed], and carries a fiscal Trojan Horse that adds to the already well advanced neo-con project of tying the hands of governments for mounting progressive initiatives.
Thats not what happened in Europe. But it is because the North American experience and expectation is totally different that context means everything.
When carbon taxes were brought in in Europe they came with massive green spending initiatives. It is carbon pricing PLUS green initiatives that brings emission reductions. Carbon taxes without substantial green initiative spending at the same time is nothing more than an unwarranted blind faith in the magic of markets. Of course there will be some emission reductions, but that is not remotely sufficient.
In Europe "revenue neutrality" means that the revenues from carbon taxes are plowed back into green initiatives. Which means people are paying higher taxes. That is fairly easily done in Europe.
Not so in North America. Carbon taxes are simple to implement. But the other side of the coin of that simplicity, plus the fact they hit all competitors in an industry at the same time, means that the taxes are passed on to consumers immediately. And the only way North American politicians will countenance that is by turning "revenue neutrality" to mean for individuals.
"Yes, you will be the one actually paying for the carbon taxes. But you will get the money back through lower income taxes [and credits if you don't pay taxes]." Leaving aside even the dubiousness of those claims of revenue neutrality for individuals, and/or of progressivity of ultimate outcomes.... the giving back of carbon tax revenues means there is nothing for green initiatives.
And worse than that: no funds now for green initiatives, and none in the future.... because the scope of green spending we need requires new revenue sources... which come from where when you've promised everyone this isn't going to cost them?
From mybabble's url
The report, by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, has been a year in the making and gives a detailed road map for meeting Ottawa’s greenhouse gas targets in a manner it says is the most efficient and least costly.
The report says so-called intensity targets, which the Harper government has recommended as the way forward until at least 2017, won’t work and that Canada should put in place a hard cap regime on emissions by 2015, with auctioning of carbon permits to businesses by 2020.
It also rejects the controversial carbon tax proposed by former Liberal leader Stephane Dion, and now in place in British Columbia as an interim measure, as less effective than cap-and-trade, although both involve putting a price tag on carbon.
Bolding and Itlaics mine.
Notice the 2015 date? Which the BCNDP would have cap and trade in place by then, or before, but was mocked by pretendy environmentalists, as not being enough, when it is carbon taxing that is not enough, nor the correct way to go about it, as Peter3 and kens have clearly shown. Notice the Roundtable too rejects carbon taxing and basically states it is doing nothing?
All I can see in the BC "debate" is political posturing. I don't see either party attempting to come up with the best possible environmental policy. That's been left to CCPA and the environmental groups among others, it looks to me. Yet more reason for people to be disillusioned with all political parties....
I don't find the debate very useful either, but I have a different take on it.
The partisan NDP criticism is of the substantive flaws of the Campbell policies. I largely agree with that. Some of the substantive criticism is very good. What isn't- that isn't a big deal: politics is messy, and its not like the issue is an easy one for following all the twists and turns.
Conversely- most of the substantive defenses of the Campbell program I see miss the point- and I think that includes everything here that comes to mind. That would include defenses of carbon taxes that I find removed from the realities of the situation we live in.
Its how they responded to the Campbell initiative where I don't agree with the BC NDP. It's the political choices I don't like, not the policy choices give.
And I don't think the NGOs are any more useful. I don't think the way that BC NDP activists go after Suzuki and the foundation is deserved. And while that is arguable given the role they are now playing- the way Dippers go at is unprocuctive and unhelpful.
But I think the Suzuki positioning is at least as flawed as is the BC NDPs. Nor do I think most of the other NGOs are any more useful even if they aren't fanning the flames like Suzuki.
And the problem comes in how NGOs operate: one instence of pressure politics after another.
They are all well aware that we need green initiative spending as badly as we need carbon pricing. But they go at it one issue at a time.
"After we get the carbon tax, we'll go after getting the green initiative spending." And they just don't stop to think about the implications of that fiscal Trojan Horse of building in more substantial tax cuts, that go with every program of carbon taxes.
Really sad article - as sad as the partisan politicking of Suzuki and Berman. Does Tieleman (and/or The Tyee) think you can score points in an environmental debate by exposing your opponents as "liars"!? Such as, the utterly irrelevant "exposé" about when Berman quit the NDP, whether she had ever talked to the Liberal Party, etc. Cheap U.S.-style character assassination. And the infamous Gerry Scott as the "researcher" digging up the dirt.
US-style dirty politicking rule#1: Those who sling mud win. And the NDP has lots of catching up to do as far as slinging of mud goes.
Well kens, seeing as how you are not out here in BC, facing the privatization of rivers and lakes, I find your comments against NDPers and true environmentalists being pissed off less than helpful. We have a right to react anyway we damn well please, and it is high time people got outraged actually, instead of writing "calm" "safe" little exposures.
Try reading Loretta's Tyee link to see the lies and anti-environmental BS that is going on, by Berman and the other pretendy environmentalists concerned only with lining their pocket books!
What kind of environmentalists support a B.C. Liberal government that radically expanded fish farms that are devastating wild salmon, promotes offshore oil and gas drilling, privatized rivers and streams for power projects, slashed wildlife protection, ended a ban on trophy hunting for grizzly bears and offers hundreds of millions in tax incentives for fossil fuel exploration?
Meet David Suzuki, Tzeporah Berman and friends.
~snip~
Berman even claimed she was a "long-time" NDP supporter who "quit" over the gas tax and had no connection to the B.C. Liberals -- two quickly disproved statements.
Berman's one-year NDP membership expired more than two years ago...
As to B.C. Liberals, Berman told the Tyee: "I never talk to them. I have no ties to the Liberal Party, anyone can see that."
But in an April 15 e-mail obtained by the Tyee, Berman told a group called the "BC Energy and Climate Leaders": "I just spoke with the Minister who said that given our concerns that we have been raising etc they have committed... to creating a new green energy advisory task force..."
Berman continued: "I think this is a great step and a result of our work. He is open to recommendations on who should sit on it but names will not be announced until after the election."
Donors to the Suzuki Foundation, PowerUp, the Pembina Institute and ForestEthics might want to send those groups a clear message about what they think of charitable organizations working hard to re-elect a government with the worst environmental record in the province's history.
And there is much more at the Tyee link.
Here is the letter of Alexandra's
BS unionist, it is an excellent article, and it is about damn time these pretendy environmentalists were exposed, for the greedy corrupt individuals that they are.
AND it is not about scoring political points, it is about exposing what their plans are and what impact it will have on the environment and wildlife, when they privatize BC rivers, all apparently for their personal gain.
But I also have to say here, I am not surprised with your hypocrisy from afar.
But I also have to say here, I am not surprised with your hypocrisy from afar.
Remind - isn't it possible to post your opinion without calling someone names?
Let me repeat. Even if Berman is a mass murderer, and Suzuki is a child molestor, and they both lied on their tax returns, it does nothing to advance the discussion about carbon tax, cap-and-trade, etc. Tieleman's article is pure partisan scandalmongering.
And you are a naughty nasty... whoops, just kidding! I like you.
Let me repeat. Even if Berman is a mass murderer, and Suzuki is a child molestor, and they both lied on their tax returns, it does nothing to advance the discussion about carbon tax, cap-and-trade, etc. Tieleman's article is pure partisan scandalmongering.
Except that the carbon tax and cap-and-trade are not the only environmental issues at play in this election. If they were, that might be worthy of discussion but, in balance, this issue could sway people to vote for the BC Libs, who are wreaking havoc, environmentally and in every other way, in this province.
Didn't call you names, stated that your words are hyprocritical, IMV, you can sling mud all you want, but pooh pooh it when others do. And I am not going to get into a further side distraction with this, other than to say the article is an expose that is worth gold to the actual environmentalist movement in BC, it has nothing to do with partianship.
The real issue here is the cover up of the privatization of rivers and lakes, by covering it with partisan BS about the carbon tax and the BCNDP's correct refusal to support it. There is no scandal mongering, only exposure of what is really going on, as Canwest Global sure as hell won't.
We KNOW the carbon tax is useless, there need to be no debate about it. We KNOW there needs to be cap and trade, and Gordo won't do it, there is no debate needed.
More importantly than all of that, and perhaps even the economy , is the bid to privatize water in BC and further destroy the environment, by pretendy environmentalists, who are actually capitalists bent on lining their own pockets at the expense of the environment, wild life in BC, and BCers.
The story about Berman is not character assasination, nor in this case is whether she is lying irrelevant.
The trades on, she is traded on, she is in the media, NOT for the content of what she says, but because of who she claims to be.
And I beleive Tielmann has also criticised the BC NDP on the issue.
I didn't read them. But when I told friends my thoughts on how the BC NDP had handled the politics of this from the beginning- they said Teilmann had said similar in commentaries.
BC politics aint no seminar. There are so many inflated claims made about the government agenda, and so much bullshit spewed. The Tyee does an incredible job. And a lot of it is really good journalism. But given the circumstances, some of it has to be just plain expose muckracking.... or else people get away with spewing absolute bullshit.
This point is not lost on anybody who understands the relative merits of the various options for pricing carbon, it is just understood to be wrong.
On the emissions front, cap and trade is a much more direct method of capping emissions (hence the cap part of the name). Carbon taxes rely on that old invisible hand of the market to get the job done through economic feedback. Cap and trade goes at the problem directly. Various people have observed that cap and trade provides greater certainty on emission levels and tax policy provides greater certainty on pricing. With a number of significant caveats, this is a more or less reasonable chracterization.
Where the two deviate most importantly is in their collateral effects outside the realm of emissions. The BC carbon tax legislation led to a massive structural realignment of taxation in the province along lines that have been proposed by conservative economists for years. These changes were strongly opposed in the past by a broad cross-section of society who believed that progressive taxation was an important social policy instrument and a fundamentally important tool for reining in the tendency for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. I still believe these things to be important, as do many others.
Cap and trade, for all the policy infrastructure it requires, does not restructure taxation in regressive ways. The suggestion put forward by some that a carbon tax is more transparent is a bit of a laugh; the various income-dependent credits introduced to compensate for the tax's regressiveness are both subject to manipulation and vulnerable to erosion. If you think it won't happen, recall what happened to health care support and income tax basic personal exemptions during the Paul Martin years.
The proposition that is put forward by the Tzeporah Bermans and David Suzukis of the world that those of us who see the BC carbon tax as a policy wolf in sheep's clothing are political opportunists and anti-environment is both anti-historical and intellectually dishonest. I take no solace in knowing that this is more likely a manifestation of incompetence than malice.
I highlighted some of the important points you make P3. I also like to thank remind for speaking my mind as well.
Logging some of the atrocities of what has actually taken place in the backrooms of BC poitics with regard to the LIberals is part of understanding what the Liberals actually represent. Do you want uniformed voters voting just becuase they want some political party or because you want them better informed?
This agenda of the Liberals and any party that advocates this trend toward privatization is a loss respectively to all citizens of this province of BCand our country.
What makes you think that?
Cap-and-trade will put a burden on lower-income earners just as much as the carbon tax. Unfortunately, since cap-and-trade proponents appear unwilling to recognise this fact, it's highly unlikely they have any plans to correct for it.
What sneaky opportunists like to do while holding a idea about taxation process that should be given to the populace rather then the corporate elite. It's why this process was tied too, in my mind, privatization with which to prepare one for loosing the distinction of that social hierarchy on taxation, over to an capitalist agenda.
Just imagine BCHydro being prepped for a transition to an "open market" while it sought the structure of kilowatt hrs rates above our allocation to be adjusted "internally by a standard reduction policy"(adjusted for the poor?) while you think this governance was in your best interest. If the price is close to the open market then such a transition to privatization will make this seem "a viable business for attainment" wouldn't it? You defintiely have to know what shills are.
Does any of this seem familiar to you in relation to BC Hydro? It is a trend "of operation that lies below the system and surface of operation for that politcal party that must be look for, so that you can say indeed I understand the policies this party represents. You want to be empowerwed as a voter to make the right choice, and not to be decieved as has been done over the years that I have been logging those atrocities of back room deals.
Cap-and-Trade: a Tested Method that Works
Meanwhile, in other news...
Hefty Carbon Tax Raised Norway's Emissions
There's only one problem with a 'revenue neutral' carbon tax - Like those political parties advocating the tax, it's not proven to achieve the intended results.
Iow's, if Canadians dont mind this country being turned into an environmental equivalent of Guantanamo, then by all means, keep voting for the old line parties who sold Canada's environment to Exxon-Imperial and friends in 1989, 1994 and continuing to do so.
The story about Berman is not character assasination, nor in this case is whether she is lying irrelevant.
Ken, as you know, I respect your views and generally agree with them - which is why I would like you to read this short excerpt and tell me if you agree that it is "journalism" of the lowest kind, which discredits and calls into question any legitimate points the author may actually be making:
But in an April 15 e-mail obtained by the Tyee, Berman told a group called the "BC Energy and Climate Leaders": "I just spoke with the Minister who said that given our concerns that we have been raising etc they have committed... to creating a new green energy advisory task force..."
She denies "ties to the Liberal Party", and then the brilliant investigative journalists catch her confessing that she spoke with the Minister!
I guess my union had better stop talking and writing to and lobbying Harper and Charest and others, for fear that the fearless Tieleman will be exposing our true colours!
Cost of transportation goes up do to inflated prices do to carbon tax while severely disabled British Colombians who receive a transportation allowance which was equivalent to 3zone bus pass so they can take taxi fare savers, train, handi dart, vehicle as unable to get around without it. The amount they receive is from 20 years ago as they left to figure it out themselves. As BC housing and farewell services ensures its disabled don't get the help they need as they are always willing to stick their foot in the way ensuring the disabled trip up and don't get the care they need.
Its like the story a health worker was telling me how she gets referrals for severally disabled clients from their doctors and then she will put her recommendations into BC House and farewell services. She said they are real dirty down at BC house as she says despite the fact that she does up these recommendations they will turn around and deny directly to client who knows nothing and not inform health agency about decision. They promised but two years had gone by and it was only getting worse as she said we are really on them and they promised we would be informed so could help the crippled and elderly out. On that note the next case she had was refused and of course they failed to inform her.
Oh yes did you hear the news this morning about Bank of Canada? Historic rate cuts Canada's economy down the tubes and BC will be hit the hardest as Olympics expenditures along with many getting rich being on the Liberal payroll. And its the Bank of Canada that is saying the economy is a whole lot worse than anyone antiscipated as projects it will continue on a down ward spiral at least for the next couple years.
What makes you think that?
Cap-and-trade will put a burden on lower-income earners just as much as the carbon tax. Unfortunately, since cap-and-trade proponents appear unwilling to recognise this fact, it's highly unlikely they have any plans to correct for it.
As I pointed out, neither cap and trade or the carbon tax in themselves require restructuring taxation in themselves. In themselves they only add costs/taxes. And in Europe that is it. But we live in North America, and that means that for political viability reasons the carbon tax comes with substantial income and other tax restructuring- more tax cuts on top of the ones we already have. That does not come with cap and trade- [Peter3's point.]
You all like to pretend that "cap-and-trade proponents appear unwilling to recognise that it will put a burden on lower-income earners just as much as the carbon tax."
But it is recognised and it is dealt with. Low income households are promised direct compensation. The rest get what everyone gets: major expansion of green initiatives so people can lower there costs as they lower their emission footprints.
Liberal plans- federal or BC- promise to compensate everyone. This only might happen. In the case of the Dion proposal it was pretty spotty. And to the degree it does protect [some] people from price increases, it does so by spreading the bribes far and wide leaving nothing in the coffers for expanding green initiatives, and the tax cuts hobbling spending initiatives by furture governments.
I've yet once to see one of you Liberal cheerleaders address that little detail.
The obvious way to do it would be to provide evidence that market incentives alone will prvide in the appropriate time range anything like the emission reductions we reequire.
The article doesn't prove your point like you think it does, sorry:
Greenhouse-gas emissions have actually risen 15% . . .
Except Norway was one of the few countries (along with Iceland and Australia) actually allowed to increase emissions under Kyoto. The rise in emissions should also be compared to that elsewhere: 50% in Spain, 40% in Portugal, 25% in Australia 27% in Canada.
Factoring in land-use change (which is provided for under Kyoto), Norway's net emissions are actually down more than 18%.
. . . industries deemed vital to the nation’s economy or image were spared the tax or given sweet deals.
Can't really blame the policy itself if it's implemented poorly. You could just as easily exempt certain industries from a cap-and-trade scheme.
Cap and Trade did you not read Government does not want to go there until the economic climate is stable unlike Mr. Campbell who despite the economy showing real signs of a weak economy and a recession puts a cost on energy that will cripple this economy. Industry and Government just need to scrape reducing taxes to big polluting corporations and business and let them big up the slack. While essential services go untouched as ambulances and buses and trains and and police cars and handi dart and school buses all feel the pinch as not only is there talk of reduced services they also have to deal with inflated costs. And the tax started out at 2.4 but has doubled and is set to triple by 2012.
So not only do the NDP want to repeal the carbon tax, they actually have no intention of bringing in cap-and-trade anytime soon? Splendid. No, the carbon tax on its own is not a solution. Know what's even less of a solution - the NDP's do-nothing plan.
Opponents of the carbon tax seem to always be making two contradictory arguments: "the carbon tax is too little to make a difference for the environment . . . but it's still going to 'cripple the economy'".
You can't have both - which is it?
You all like to pretend that "cap-and-trade proponents appear unwilling to recognise that it will put a burden on lower-income earners just as much as the carbon tax."
But it is recognised and it is dealt with. Low income households are promised direct compensation.
There are two important points here, as set out in the `Open Letter to the Leaders of Canada's Federal Political Parties' circulated last year:
8. Policies that impose costs on producers (big or small) affect consumers. Some voters seem to think that policies like cap and trade, which apply directly to producers, have less impact on the prices they face than carbon taxes, where the impact can be seen immediately. In fact, voters would do better to assume that all such policies would, ultimately, affect the prices they pay. Indeed, since the goal of these policies is to change what we buy, policies applied to producers must affect the prices faced by consumers if they are to meet environmental goals. The argument that a policy capable of reducing carbon emissions will only affect producers is without economic merit.
9. Price mechanisms can be regressive and our policy should address this. Like most taxes on goods and services that are widely consumed, carbon pricing will have a larger negative effect on lower income Canadian families than others. As we have stated, the same is true of regulation since regulation also raises costs of production and those increased costs will ultimately show up in higher prices. Thus, whatever policy is used, a complete policy should include some element of redistribution to address the impacts it will have on the least well off in our society. Not only will the costs to consumers ultimately be lower under a carbon tax or auctioned emission permits, these latter policies also have the potential to bring revenue into the government that can be used to help offset any inordinate hardship experienced among the least well-off. This is not true of regulatory approaches, or of a cap and trade system in which the allowances are allocated without charge to emitters.
Yes, I'm on the list of people who signed it.
Here's the BC NDP platform. I've just gone through it, and I can't see any reference to either point. Nor did I ever see anything like those points being made in the federal NDP platform.
If you want to keep on claiming that the NDP has acknowledged these issues, you're going to have to come up with some sort of evidence to back it up. Because otherwise, I've going to feel free to repeat the point.
NO THE DO NOTHING PLAN BUT GET YOUR HANDS ON SOME QUICK CASH was the carbon plan which wasn't need and is the worst thing in a recession as I was talking about the Federal Government plan to implement a Cap and Trade by 2015 along with America who is just waiting for the economic climate to stabilize while lookiing at ways to ensure vital services are not affected. So Canada is going to do it one way and BC is doing it another way or both I guess.
Now I see this juxtaposition being made because one does not know the players, the history of the players, in respect to what is going on in BC politics and the environmentalist movement, and the pretendy environmentalist movement, within that framework. The pertinent part of that point was actually her telling, but not telling, her contacts, that they and apparently her would be sitting on the "green commission" and it would be announced after the election.
But hey, thanks for having an uninformed opinion, now what do you think about the privatization of rivers and lakes?
I think it is an excellent topic for another thread.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
But hey, thanks for having an uninformed opinion, now what do you think about the privatization of rivers and lakes?
I think it's a good idea. Campbell's Liberals haven't done very well as stewards of publicly-owned waterways. Can you suggest a nice little river I could invest in? Preferably stocked with salmon.
I think it is an excellent topic for another thread.
It's called: "Hey, look over there!!"
As such, your point below makes absolutely no sense
The NDP have a clear policy on the implimentation of cap and trade and the development of green enegry sources and building the economy with it, while Gordo has NOTHING, nadda, only plans to privatize rivers and lakes and to allow trophy hunting of grizzlies. Policies which the Green Party apparently backs up.
Compare that to rural communities which alienate vast tracks of wild land for their own pleasure and purposes. Rural people thin trees on their property, flush untreated waste into the watershed, and require bisecting infrastructure such as roads and power lines to cut off connectivity between wildlife areas. Couple that with the immense driving distances and emissions, reliance on fossil fuel backup generation, and on extended freight transport to satisfy them, there is no doubt that rural living has a much higher environmental impact than cities. There are numerous peer-reviewed studies to back this claim up.
If we are serious about reducing our environmental footprint than a key long-term policy goal is to densify and urbanize and end subsidies to rural living.
Thanks for indicating again how short sighted and lacking in wits, some so called "environmentalists" are today.
Again the rate was created to rebate what you pay,
No it wasn't, becuse everyone gets the same rebate. If your total carbon consumption is below average, you come out ahead. And the converse of cousre.
I don't think the government is privatizing lakes or rivers. They are issuing water licenses, of which the Ministry of Environment has the right to revoke at the Minister's request upon breach of the license or in the worst case scenario, because no license can be issued for longer than 25 years you simply deny a new license upon the termination of the previous.
Privatizing means you sell something and the property right is transfered to the owner. Licensing means you license the use of it but you still own it.
Flames you are seriously lacking in thinking skills, awareness and knowlege.
And brookemere no people do not get the same rate, a family of 1 does not get get what a family of 4 does, and it is geared to income, and not a flate rebate rate.
Flames you are seriously lacking in thinking skills, awareness and knowlege.
No.
Explain why you think this.
Go back to the original thread and read my post on what "water licensing", aka privatizing, will do, think about no environmental regulations on corporations/business, think about what corporations have done and want to, realize that licensing it means you do not own it, no more than BC people owning the BC Rail system that has been leased for 99 years, or the BC Hydro system. Just simply think, as opposed to regurgitating propaganda that you have been fed.
Not even going to go into your false beliefs that; rural communities are subsidized living, and are unnecessary to society, and indeed dangerous to the environment, Nor the fact that a good many cities in Canada dump their raw sewage into lakes, rivers and oceans without treatment. Nor their incroding onto agricultural land and nature reserve spaces, nor their paving and putting up parking lots, ornamental lawns and gardens that require pesticide and herbicide use. Nor the erroneous belief that wildlife is hurt by hydro lines and road allowances in rural areas. Trucks still have to haul goods across the country to cities, more people in cities means more trucks, trains and boats and still the same amount of roads.
Blamming rural people for environmental problems is completely irrational frankly.
And if you remove people from rural areas, no one will see what corporations are doing in the "wilderness", say nothing of the fascist desire to congregate people into cities for cheap sources of labour and social control.
Flames, thats a pretty damn formalistic view of 'privatizing a resource'. But not like we need more tangents around here.
I'm not sure how this helps the anti-carbon tax crowd. What NRTEE is proposing here is essentially a carbon tax. They are capping ALL fossil fuel based emissions from industry and from end-use fuels. What does that mean? Gasoline, natural gas, and other end-use fuels are capped at the point of distribution. Expanding coverage of the cap and trade to 85% of the economy. This is actually broader coverage than the BC carbon tax.
The effect of this system would be exactly the same as a comparable carbon tax.
You are WAY too loose about that. The mecanisms effects are not remotely the same when it comes to effecting emissions. And that is what this is supposed to be about.
For example, if the cap and trade system caps equated to roughly a $25 per tonne carbon price then a carbon tax of $25 per tonne would achieve the same emission reductions.
Elaboration of the point above. The only thing that is "equated" / equatable would be a direct carbon price placed on actual emissions. That isn't feasible. So we have a variety of quite different ways of getting their. There is certainty about price with the carbon tax, and virtual certainty in most actual programs put into place that the tax will be quickly passed on to the user. When and to what degree that results in actual emission reductions is the very big uncertainty- because producers having already passed on the cots it depends on when they will take up the opportunity of cost and emission reduction, which in the real world comes in very small marginal increments.
Both systems would impose the same costs on consumers.
That point is lost on most people in this forum. The two systems are essentially the same.
They both impose costs on consumers. The fact some cap and trade advocates act as if there is no cost does not mean you can run the pendulum all the way the other direction and say they are the same.
Its debateable whether they have essentially the same effect in the end. But thats really and endless argument that bogs down in hypotheticals. Even assuming they produce the same end result... the timing of when those cost increases happen provide different public policy options.
The easy way to compensate for carbon taxes is give consumers back the money in other ways. The downside is that politicaly you almost have to do that... so you are getting only a faith-in-markets-alone based hope there will be actual emission reductions, and you sacrifice revenue and fiscal manouvering room needed for ambitious green initiaves that are a necessary complement required for any form of carbon pricing to be sufficiently effective.
Successful carbon taxes in Europe have been coupled with ambitious and comprehensive green spending initiatives. That doesn't happen here, and it never will with the fiscal Trojan Horse that comes in with promises of bogus revenue neutrality.
Since cap and trade has a significant time lag when price increases reach consumers, that gives time to compensate low income households only. Which leaves fiscal room for green spending initiatives that enable consumption reduction tools to be in place before the increased costs hit the majority of consumers who are going to have to pay them.
Carbon taxes provide more economic certainty (we know the effect on prices), but not on emissions.
And are we at all surprised that a federal agency run by a federal govt that just won an election by campaigning against a carbon tax will find fault with a carbon tax?
Nobody expects certainty about the amount of emission reductions there will be- but silence as the answer to questions about effectivess of the carbon tax plans offered [not canbon taxes in general] just doesn't cut it.
And while NRTREE did argue against the effectiveness of carbon taxes and preferred cap and trade- they much more unequivocally criticised the governments intensity based cap and trade. As much as Gordon likes to equate the Cons and the NDP, cap and trade systems differ from each other as much as they differ from some carbon taxes... the only thing in common is the use of some kind of trading mechanism. They differ greatly as to the importance of the 'cap' part of cap and trade, as is definitely the case in comparing the NDP and Cons cap and trade programs.
Go back to the original thread and read my post on what "water licensing", aka privatizing, will do, think about no environmental regulations on corporations/business, think about what corporations have done and want to, realize that licensing it means you do not own it anymore than BC people owning the BC Rail system that has been leased for 99 years. Just simply think as opposed to regurgitating propaganda that you have been fed.
I do alot of thinking. I know what privatizing means, it means selling something that the government owns to a private entity. A water license is not that. Sorry.
I also seem to think that there are considerable environmental regulations applying for a water license. I know that corporations must accumulate 2 years of water flow and ecosystem data before they can be successfully approved for a water license. Do I think it's ideal to have corporations stewarding our rivers? No. Do I think that I don't own it anymore? I never really owned it in the first place so I don't think that's really a salient issue. So long as the river can run, live can still there and we can produce earth-saving renewable energy I'll be happy.
Are cities perfect? No, clearly not. But it is undeniable that urbanization has less environmental impacts than rural settlement. I will leave that to you to prove otherwise (which you have failed to do as of yet).