Carbon Pricing is Not Enough
Sat, 2008-05-31 16:17
#1
Left Turn
Carbon Pricing is Not Enough
Sat, 2008-05-31 16:17
#2
Left Turn
quote:
“The European Union’s carbon emissions trading scheme got off to a shaky start due to over-allocation of permits, but has now established a price of about 20 euros a tonne of carbon dioxide.“There is also the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol on cutting global carbon emissions, under which developing nations effectively get paid for emissions foregone.“Together, these two have generated a global carbon trade worth billions of dollars and handed vast profits to some key players, but had little measurable effect on carbon emissions. ….
“’The price of carbon has had virtually no effect on the market so far and virtually no effect on climate change,’ said Oxford University economics professor Dieter Helm.”
[url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=201]Carbon Pricing Problem: It Doesn't Work[/url]
quote:
Articles asserting that putting a price on carbon will cut emissions appear frequently in the business press — in last Friday’s Financial Times, for example. Canada’s liberal left agrees — check out the environmental programs of the New Democratic Party (”A cap and trade carbon market”) and the Green Party (”Expand the proposed National Emissions Trading System”).
Capitalism is to blame for the climate change crisis. Carbon Markets and Carbon Pricing cannot solve this problem. Far more drastic action is needed, involving the overthrow of Capitalism, and public ownership of the means of production, with a view to drastic reductions in carbon emissions.
[ 31 May 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]
Sat, 2008-05-31 16:39
#3
I agree, that putting a price on carbon, carbon trading, and carbon offsets do the exact opposite of what they claim to do - they encourage the worst polluters to use MORE carbon if they can afford it.
I think this is related and along the same lines - although it's about carbon taxes.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=71993]The carbon tax conundrum[/url]
quote:
The ability of our economy to produce income gains for the wealthy, and take income away from the poor is not in doubt. The recent census only confirms what the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) growing gap project has been documenting: for the last 25 years, low-income people have been losing ground.May, Suzuki and Dion say there is no reason to worry about introducing a new carbon tax that will accentuate growing income inequality, because it can be fixed later with income tax credits.
But, if we have not made an effort to redistribute revenue from rich to poor over the last 25 years, indeed have done the opposite, why are we now to believe that bringing in a carbon tax will suddenly transform corporate Canada, and the wealthy into practicing social democrats?
Company shareholders, and the wealthy want more income not less. The people with economic power in this country understand the threat of global warming, and see it as a profit-making opportunity. The cost of going green is to be passed on to consumers just like every other business cost. People at the bottom will just have to do without, as has always been the case.
Sat, 2008-05-31 16:45
#4
M. Spector
From the same article:
quote:
What is needed is to tax the gain away from the fuel providers, and, first, compensate those distressed by the fuel increases; and, second invest in ways to reduce fuel consumption. But that requires a plan, such as the NDP under Layton has put forward...
I assume Cameron wrote this before Layton came out with his hare-brained cap-and-trade scheme this week.
Sat, 2008-05-31 16:46
#5
Left Turn
This was written back in September 2007. However, it was the arrival in my inbox of an NDP e-mail about said hare-brained cap and trade system that prompted me to start this thread.
[ 31 May 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]
Sat, 2008-05-31 16:48
#6
Left Turn
[url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/6448]Layton's Hare-Brained Cap and Trade System[/url]
Sat, 2008-05-31 16:49
#7
Marc Lee at the [url=http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2008/05/27/responses-to-high-gas-pri... Economics Forum[/url]:
quote:
There is an [url=http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2008/05/27/responses-to-high-gas-pri... relationship[/url] between prices and consumption. I have trouble when people say there is NO effect of carbon taxes. It’s just that the elasticities are rather small (and probably not stable over large changes in prices). So some fairly large price increases are needed to effect behavioural change.
Small price changes will have small effects.
Sat, 2008-05-31 16:49
#8
I was just going to ask you for a link, because I'm kind of horrified. OMGWTFBBQ. Lordy.
Sat, 2008-05-31 16:59
#9
Left Turn
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Marc Lee at the [url=http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2008/05/27/responses-to-high-gas-pri... Economics Forum[/url]:Small price changes will have small effects.[/b]
Stephen, this article is not really related to the topic of this thread, which is the ineffectiveness of putting a price on carbon emissions by major polluters. In other words, corporations with factories, saw mills, pulp mills, oil refineries, tar sands operations, ect. Nothing to do with driving habits in relation to the price of fuel.
[ 31 May 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]
Sat, 2008-05-31 17:03
#10
Why is it different? When an input becomes more expensive, firms will try to cut back. If they can't cut back, they'll pass it on to the consumer. And if that happens consumers will do what they always do when prices go up: they reduce demand, and production and emissions fall.
The question is how much of a price increase we need to get the reduction we want.
[ 31 May 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
Sat, 2008-05-31 17:06
#11
quote:
Originally posted by Left Turn:
[b]Stephen, this article is not really related to the topic of this thread, which is the ineffectiveness of putting a price on carbon emissions by major polluters.[/b]
Ah, okay. That was probably my fault then - I thought that a carbon tax (which would affect individuals, not corporations) was somewhat related to this topic. Should I start another thread?
Sat, 2008-05-31 17:08
#12
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]The question is how much of a price increase we need to get the reduction we want.[/b]
Let me rephrase that.
The question is, how far can we use taxes to grind the working class into abject poverty so they can't afford to buy hydrocarbons, and we can have them all to ourselves to run our factories, SUV's and limos?
Sat, 2008-05-31 17:09
#13
Left Turn
Stephen, the problem is that any cuts in emissions by companies that can't afford the price in carbon will be undone by companies that will pollute more because they can afford to. The effect of this will be the increased dominance of multinational corporations who can afford to pay for increased carbon emissions (or can afford to pay for technologies to reduce their carbon emissions), over smaller companies which cannot. That leads to greater inequality, and as progressives, we're supposed to oppose that.
[ 31 May 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]
Sat, 2008-05-31 17:10
#14
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Left Turn:
[b]This was written back in September 2007.[/b]
Actually, the article I was referring to was the one Michelle linked, written last week.
Sat, 2008-05-31 17:14
#15
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]...Layton came out with his hare-brained cap-and-trade scheme this week.[/b]
The NDP has been talking about cap-and-trade since long before this week. For that matter, the Liberals were too. It was [url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/5091]part of the revised Bill C-30[/url].
[ 31 May 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]
Sat, 2008-05-31 17:16
#16
quote:
Originally posted by Left Turn:
Stephen, the problem is that any cuts in emissions by companies that can't afford the price in carbon will be undone by companies that will pollute more because they can afford to.
Even if they can afford to, why would they sacrifice profits by buying [b]more[/b] of something whose price went [b]up[/b]?
Sat, 2008-05-31 17:18
#17
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:
[b]The NDP has been talking about cap-and-trade since long before this week.[/b]
Well then I guess Duncan Cameron was talking out of his ass if he likes Layton's hare-brained cap and trade system.
[ 31 May 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Sat, 2008-05-31 17:33
#18
Left Turn
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Even if they can afford to, why would they sacrifice profits by buying [b]more[/b] of something whose price went [b]up[/b]?[/b]
Buying more carbon emissions will allow highly profitable multinational corporations to keep expanding, which will increase their profits. The European experience has been that the price of carbon credits has not gone up enough to offset the increased profits that multionational corporations make when they expand. At least not enough that they cannot pass the cost of the carbon credits to consumers in the form of price increases.
Yes, the increased price of carbon will cut into the profits of large corporations, but only in relation to the profits they would make without any need to buy carbon credits. There will not be any absolute reduction in the profits of these corporations, ergo, these corporations will pay to buy increased carbon credits.
[ 31 May 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]
Sat, 2008-05-31 17:37
#19
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Well then I guess Duncan Cameron was talking out of his ass...[/b]
I don't presume to speak for either Mr. Cameron or his ass. I just know that emissions trading has been part of NDP policy for a while.
Sat, 2008-05-31 18:57
#20
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]From the same article: I assume Cameron wrote this before Layton came out with his hare-brained cap-and-trade scheme this week.[/b]
What. specifically, is hare-brained about Layton's CAT scheme?
Sat, 2008-05-31 19:46
#21
M. Spector
There's [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=007286]al... a thread[/url] on that topic, and I have contributed to it.
Sat, 2008-05-31 21:50
#22
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]What. specifically, is hare-brained about Layton's CAT scheme?[/b]
There's an actual precedent for CAT working in North America with SO2 emissions reductions since the 1980's. People were having anxiety attacks over acid rain.
American Fred Krupp of of the EDF says there is no example in the world where a carbon tax has worked significantly to reduce air pollution of any kind.
Sun, 2008-06-01 02:33
#23
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]There's [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=007286]al... a thread[/url] on that topic, and I have contributed to it.[/b]
Thanks. I went back and read your one post in that thread. So, if, in your words, [b]Climate solutions that depend on the magic of the marketplace are no solutions at all[/b], then what would you propose or what would you like to see to reduce carbon emissions?
Sun, 2008-06-01 05:42
#24
Caps. No trades.
Sun, 2008-06-01 06:36
#25
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Caps. No trades.[/b]
Hell no. Opposition to an unrestrained free-market is one thing, opposition to sound economics is something else entirely.
Hard caps are an extremely inefficient way to reduce total GHG emmisssions. A cap and trade system allows for the same reduction in GHG emmissions for less economic cost, which makes it easier for make deeper emmissions cuts.
Sun, 2008-06-01 06:39
#26
Who gets capped? How are the permits allocated?
Under this scheme you can't auction permits, so there is no money for energy savings projects coming from energy users.
Sun, 2008-06-01 09:12
#27
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Caps. No trades.
Why would a firm who owns a permit want to develop cleaner technologies if it can't make money selling the permits it would no longer need?
Why would a firm who [i]doesn't[/i] own a permit want to develop cleaner technologies if it can't enter the market?
Sun, 2008-06-01 10:34
#28
quote:
Originally posted by Left Turn:
[b]Buying more carbon emissions will allow highly profitable multinational corporations to keep expanding, which will increase their profits.
[/b]
Which is reason enough to have a system that prevents them from getting any more emissions. Growth is the real problem. Carbon emissions are a symptom.
quote:
Boom Boom:
....what would you propose or what would you like to see to reduce carbon emissions?
Hard caps, rationing and severe penalties for violations with liabilty extending personally to corporate officers and shareholders.
quote:
WCG:
Hell no. Opposition to an unrestrained free-market is one thing, opposition to sound economics is something else entirely.
The problem is environmental not economic, it requires direct environmental measures, not imprecise, speculative economic fiddling.
quote:
JR:
Who gets capped? How are the permits allocated?
Everybody gets capped. How much each one gets capped is a good question to be worked out by the agency responsible for enforcing caps.
quote:
JR:
Under this scheme you can't auction permits, so there is no money for energy savings projects coming from energy users.
\
That is why we have taxes.
quote:
SG:
Why would a firm who owns a permit want to develop cleaner technologies if it can't make money selling the permits it would no longer need?Why would a firm who doesn't own a permit want to develop cleaner technologies if it can't enter the market?
Firms would develop cleaner technologies so that they could either expand production within their carbon limit, or just reduces production costs.
Turning the carbon emission problem into yet another area of financial speculation is not an environment centered solution.
[ 01 June 2008: Message edited by: Jerry West ]
Sun, 2008-06-01 12:55
#29
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
[b]Hell no. Opposition to an unrestrained free-market is one thing, opposition to sound economics is something else entirely.[/b]
Without enforcement, nothing will work. And as Duncan Cameron and others here have mentioned, there has been little to no political will for cracking down on the largest polluters and sources of pollution: big, mostly foreign-owned and controlled energy companies with their bottom line-driven pursuits of profit. Not since NEP have they known any incentive to sell less of our finite fossil fuel reserves.
Fossil fuel and massive energy exports is old world economy nurtured by old world politicians in Ottawa and Alberta who are clueless as to what is happening to our environment and to the changes underway in other countries more economically competitive than our own. We have to stop electing fossil fools to government.
Sun, 2008-06-01 13:01
#30
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Caps. No trades.[/b]
So which part of the economy do you wish to cap? I say, lets stop making cars and trucks.
Sun, 2008-06-01 13:32
#31
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:
[b]
So which part of the economy do you wish to cap? I say, lets stop making cars and trucks.[/b]
Spoken like a true advocate for the fossil fuel industry.
Similarly when I saw that gas guzzler burning oil all over the road infront of me this morning, my first instinct was to yell at the pedestrian at the traffic light to stop smoking his cigarette. Second-hand smoke kills, and I probably saved millions of polar bears and pengawins from extinction because of my heroics.
Sun, 2008-06-01 14:20
#32
scott
Here is a scheme for carbon rationing (and trading) from the UK, a place well familiar with rationing.
[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021983/Every-adult-Britain-forc... adult in Britain should be forced to carry 'carbon ration cards', say MPs[/url]
quote:
HOW THE SCHEME WOULD WORKEvery adult in the UK would be given an annual carbon dioxide allowance in kgs and a special carbon card.
The scheme would cover road fuel, flights and energy bills.
Every time someone paid for road fuel, flights or energy, their carbon account would be docked.
A litre of petrol would use up 2.3kg in carbon, while every 1.3 miles of airline flight would use another 1kg.
When paying for petrol, the card would need to swiped at the till. It would be a legal offence to buy petrol without using a card.
When paying online, or by direct debit, the carbon account would be debited directly.
Anyone who doesn't use up their credits in a year can sell them to someone who wants more credits. Trading would be done through specialist companies.
quote:
Mr Yeo, chairman of the committee said personal carbon trading rewarded those with a low carbon footprint with cash.'We found that personal carbon trading has real potential to engage the population in the fight against climate change and to achieve significant emissions reductions in a progressive way,' he said.
'The idea is a radical one. As such it inevitably faces some significant challenges in its development. It is important to meet these challenges.
'What we are asking the Government to do is to seize the reins on this, leading the debate and coordinating research.'
The Government is committed to cutting CO2 emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010.
Sun, 2008-06-01 16:16
#33
Boom Boom
Meanwhile, [url=http://www.anglicanjournal.com/issues/2008/134/jun/06/article/canada-sub... subsidizes fossil fuels at expense of environment: Kairos[/url]
excerpt:
The federal government will spend $1.5 billion in additional subsidies to tar sands companies that emit greenhouse gases harmful to the environment, far more than it will spend on initiatives to promote energy efficiency, conservation and renewable alternatives, said Kairos, a Canadian ecumenical justice organization.
[b]The government confirmed the tax break figures in response to a formal petition that Kairos filed with the auditor general of Canada last November.[/b]
Sun, 2008-06-01 20:23
#34
Left Turn
quote:
Originally posted by Left Turn:[b]Buying more carbon emissions will allow highly profitable multinational corporations to keep expanding, which will increase their profits.[/b]
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry West:[b]
Which is reason enough to have a system that prevents them from getting any more emissions. Growth is the real problem. Carbon emissions are a symptom.[/b]
I would say that capitalism is the problem, not just growth. The solution is to overthrow capitalism, nationalize the economy, and have the government make the emissions reductions. It is next to impossible to tinker with the market to create conditions under which private industry will reduce carbon emissions by the ammount required to mitigate the worst effects of the climate crisis.
[ 01 June 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]
Sun, 2008-06-01 20:56
#35
You really think that this won't be resisted by enough people to make it fail?
Sure, there will be some people who go "Great, I'm helping reduce carbon". What percentage of the population is that?
It's also a pretty heavy bureaucratic load. Credit cards cost 3-5% of sales, this system would cost at least that.
quote:
Originally posted by scott:
[b]Here is a scheme for carbon rationing (and trading) from the UK, a place well familiar with rationing.[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021983/Every-adult-Britain-forc... adult in Britain should be forced to carry 'carbon ration cards', say MPs[/url]
[/b]
Mon, 2008-06-02 02:42
#36
Carbon rationing comes straight from George Monbiot's "Heat", and it is the great leveller as far as effect on the population goes.
Adoption will be the somewhat tricky part; possible, in fact, only in a wartime, command economy. And it will have to come to that, so do the world tour now. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2008-06-03 08:27
#37
scott
Maybe it is time to look at lowering the speed limits to reduce GHG emissions. A side effect of the 55mph limit that was in place in the US between 1974 and the early 90s is a dramatic reduction in traffic fatalities.
[url=http://drive55.org/content/view/39/1/]55 mph Speed Limit to Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Washington State[/url]
quote:
Transportation causes almost half of Washington's greenhouse gas emissions. Lowering the speed limit to 55 mph would cut vehicle emissions by at least 10%. According to the Governor's Climate Action Team, most cars and light trucks on the road today reach optimum fuel efficiency between 45 and 55 mph. Driving slower also reduces the incidence and severity of traffic accidents. For 21 years, from 1974-1995, the speed limit was 55 mph in response to the mideast oil crisis. We can drive 55 again to address the emergency of climate change.
Sun, 2008-06-22 08:06
#38
"Biggest Firms Call for Huge Cuts in Emissions to Start Green Industrial Revolution"
[url=http://tinyurl.com/4yp7jk]http://tinyurl.com/4yp7jk[/url]
quote:
Heads of 100 of the world’s biggest companies will today call on political leaders to agree huge cuts in greenhouse gases to stimulate a “green industrial revolution”.The statement organised by the World Economic Forum calls for “at least” a halving of global emissions of the greenhouse gases blamed for climate change, intensifying pressure on the heads of the world’s largest G8 economies, who meet in Japan next month.
The chairmen and chief executives, whose companies represent more than 10% of global stockmarkets, indicate that emissions reductions by richer countries will have to be much deeper than 50%, but insist that big developing nations, particularly China and India, also have to tackle pollution. So far the G8 has only said it would “seriously consider” a 50% cut ...
Tue, 2008-06-24 02:43
#39
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/politics.shtml?sh_itm=fc3e2c6432045cb2e03daad13a9d4... real green shift[/url]
quote:
The most obvious problem with the Green Shift proposed by Stйphane Dion is that the Liberal party plan will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly, if at all. The hidden assumption is that if the new carbon tax works, it will reduce the revenues available to the federal government (i.e. for needed investments in green energy). The biggest shortcoming is that the Liberal Green Shift relies on market pricing to fix a massive market failure that threatens the extinction of the planet.Market economics relies on prices to influence quantities produced. Increase the price of emitting greenhouse gases, and at some point people will reduce their consumption of products producing greenhouse gases. The Liberal Green Shift proposes to tax consumption of carbon, technically carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions. It sets out to establish through a consumption tax (paid at the wholesale level) a market value for carbon at $10 a tonne, rising to $40 a tonne in five years.
Eventually people who do not like to pay the tax increase will find ways to reduce their consumption of energy. The tax is a disincentive to consume or, symbolically, a small stick to beat us as we heat the atmosphere.
To put the Liberal plan in perspective, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives economist Marc Lee calculates that the increase in petroleum prices amounts to a $300 per tonne price increase in the price of carbon. Lee points out that this increase has affected consumption of fuels and will eventually have a major effect on carbon emissions as people decide high oil prices are permanent.
Next to $300 a tonne, the Liberal $10 a tonne tax (moving to $40 eventually) looks to have little effect on carbon emissions. It represents an important symbolic shift, but one that is fully backed by oil companies, and major business groups, so long as new carbon taxes are revenue neutral (i.e. other taxes are reduced simultaneously).
Tue, 2008-06-24 03:38
#40
Catchfire
quote:
Lee points out that this increase has affected consumption of fuels and will eventually have a major effect on carbon emissions as people decide high oil prices are permanent.
I don't see where [url=http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2008/06/19/dions-carbon-tax-plan/]Mark Lee says this.[/url] Where is the evidence that demand for gasoline will decrease significantly over the next decade? Haven't most Canadians already 'decided that high oil prices are permanent'? Certainly, as Lee points out, Dion's feeble carbon tax won't have much of an impact on affecting demand.
Tue, 2008-06-24 03:52
#41
Tue, 2008-06-24 04:05
#42
Michelle linked the closed thread[s] on Dion's Carbon Tax to here.
I don't think they are the same kind of discussions at all.
This one looks at broadening the scope from carbon pricing- and in fact has an emphasis on whether or not ANY kind of carbon pricing is just too flawed.
The other discussion is where it belongs- in Canadian Politics forum discussing the pros and cons of plans out there on the table. That discussion can and does include contributions that all the plans on offer are too deficient... but as is usually the case in that forum the discussion is geared differently than the more free ranging approach in this thread.
I'm tired of the other discussion for the moment at least, though IMO it hasn't gone anywhere different for a while.
But if I wasn't tired of it, I would start another thread about carbon pricing plans either out on the table or that could be. If others still have the energy for it, I don't think it is a duplicate to this discussion.
Tue, 2008-06-24 04:19
#43
Catchfire
Well, he says that a 50% increase 'will generally only reduce vehicle mileage by about 5% in the short run, a change too small for most people to notice, although this will increase over time as consumers take the higher price into account in longer-term decisions, such as where to live or work.' Even if a Carbon Tax (with, I suppose, the usual increases in oil prices) reaches 50%, how long will these 'longer-term decisions' take to see results? After a family's current automobile croaks so they can buy a fuel-efficient one?
Also, where is the link between the percentage of disposable income on fuel and the real price of vehicle fuel? What's to say people won't just start paying more of their money on fuel? Why did they do so in 1981?
Tue, 2008-06-24 04:58
#44
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
Well, he says that a 50% increase 'will generally only reduce vehicle mileage by about 5% in the short run, a change too small for most people to notice, although this will increase over time as consumers take the higher price into account in longer-term decisions, such as where to live or work.' Even if a Carbon Tax (with, I suppose, the usual increases in oil prices) reaches 50%, how long will these 'longer-term decisions' take to see results? After a family's current automobile croaks so they can buy a fuel-efficient one?
Those estimates are based on a partial adjustment model, so the long run in those models is infinity. But you can still work out how much if the effect will take place within a given time frame. For example, if the long-run effect is 3-4 times stronger than the short run (that's roughly where the range of estimates I've seen is centred), then 75%-85% of the long-run effect will take place in the first five years.
Tue, 2008-06-24 10:46
#45
MCunningBC said in the old thread
quote:
posted 23 June 2008 11:23 I believe the argument was over investments in abatement equipment, which will be a fixed not a variable cost. Since it's the purchase and installation of this equipment that is the desired end result of pricing carbon, one should aks if these capital purchases will be differentially impacted be taxes versus tradable caps.
1.I've already answered this with my discussion on the equimarginal principle. As the marginal cost increases are the same with both a tax and a cap and trade system the marginal decisions firms will make will be the same.
I don't mind that you don't take my word for it on this, so I suggest you wiki "equimarginal principle" for further discussion.
2.As I said earlier, the relevant marginal cost that firms will seek to reduce isn't the abatement equipment costs but the taxes.
3.Minor point since I was an accountant prior to going back to school to study economics, R&D costs are variable and not fixed costs. This actually has a practical importance because during recessions many firms tend to cut R&D costs the most.
KenS wrote:
quote:
I'm tired of the other discussion for the moment at least, though IMO it hasn't gone anywhere different for a while.
The reason for that is because you keep bringing up the same incorrect arguments after they have been shown to be wrong and I and others have to keep explaining to you why they are wrong.
[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]
Tue, 2008-06-24 14:36
#46
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]I don't see where [url=http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2008/06/19/dions-carbon-tax-plan/]Mark Lee says this.[/url] Where is the evidence that demand for gasoline will decrease significantly over the next decade? Haven't most Canadians already 'decided that high oil prices are permanent'? Certainly, as Lee points out, Dion's feeble carbon tax won't have much of an impact on affecting demand.[/b]
I think its not just that oil prices are high, but that they are climbing and will on available evidence continue to climb. I won't hazard a guess as to at what rate but suggest that rate will increase rather than decrease over time; there is something to this peak oil business after all, surely. Production seems to have plateaued and even if, under the intensification of production driven by the sort of demand we've seen in the past year, that can be raised by some increment this can only delay the inevitable encounter with a permanently declining supply. Gasoline will go the way of the dodo. Personally, I do not believe the majority of the populations in the most auto-centric cultures will manage the transition particularly well, for a number of reasons I won't go into here.
Tue, 2008-06-24 14:52
#47
Agent 204
quote:
Originally posted by George Victor:
[b]Carbon rationing comes straight from George Monbiot's "Heat", and it is the great leveller as far as effect on the population goes.Adoption will be the somewhat tricky part; possible, in fact, only in a wartime, command economy. And it will have to come to that, so do the world tour now. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
The problem is, it's a hard sell, and it will take quite a while to get the public to accept something like that. In the meantime, the choice would seem to be to do nothing, or to bring in the admittedly flawed solutions such as cap and trade and carbon taxes. Then you can always impose hard caps later, if necessary.
With regard to the carbon taxes, the regressive aspect could be mitigated if they replaced another regressive tax (such as the GST) rather than replacing income taxes. Or am I missing something here?
Tue, 2008-06-24 15:13
#48
Better to just give money to low-income households. Sort of like how the GST credit compensates for the regressive nature of the GST.
Wed, 2008-06-25 04:50
#49
Agent 204
I don't know. Why not replace the GST with a carbon tax, and tweak the rebate system to fit the new tax? Seems reasonable, and not only would high carbon goods cost more, low carbon goods might actually cost less (because of the elimination of the GST). What's not to like about that?
Wed, 2008-06-25 05:53
#50
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=72880]Carbon tax shell game[/url]
quote:
The new B.C. carbon tax takes effect July 1. The Liberals and Green Party are praising it, the NDP opposes it as a tax grab. The Federal Liberals have also put forward a carbon tax scheme which they promise to implement if they form government after the next election. Both the Conservatives and the NDP oppose the Liberal plan. Unlike the B.C. plan which is directly targeted at the consumer and raises the cost by applying the tax at the pump, the Federal Liberals say that their tax won't raise fuel prices. Apparently they are betting on the oil companies to absorb the increased cost.The question to be asking here is why employ a tax to solve this problem in the first place? Cutting back on carbon emissions is a necessity if we are to preserve our civilization, though some are now arguing that it is too late and the best we can do is perhaps salvage part of it. Using taxes as a tool for social engineering, such as this, is a haphazard method that can not guarantee any specific result. The outcome of a tax attack depends upon the willingness of people to pay the tax, not on any obligation to change behaviour.
Wed, 2008-06-25 06:06
#51
quote:
Originally posted by Agent 204:
I don't know. Why not replace the GST with a carbon tax, and tweak the rebate system to fit the new tax? Seems reasonable, and not only would high carbon goods cost more, low carbon goods might actually cost less (because of the elimination of the GST). What's not to like about that?
Sounds sensible. Not sure how the math would work out, though. The proposal on the table amounts to revenues that are the equivalent of the two GST points that the CPC cut.