BC Carbon Tax and Environmental Issues part 6
Hey remind, we began new threads at the same time, but I deleted yours because I made this new one have a link from the part 5 thread.
lol we started one at exactly the same time
My brain can't take it!!!! 
Double and quadruple posting!
coke's on you, we posted at the same time too observing we had started one at the same time, talk about n'sync. ;)
What will james lose if she changes her mind and keeps the carbon tax for 2 years? Well, for starters, people suddenly stop looking at the carbon tax, and start looking at the rest of the environmental platform!
People who are more concerned with the environment than politics would already be doing that.
Exactly Jerry, and thank you for indicating the truth of this.
Not true, not even close. Jerry's platform is politically impossible to impliment. He even says so!
And anything that anyone else impliments is not enough!
Cap and trade will hit poor people worse than a carbon tax cos the poor ones are going to lose their jobs first and where is the extra revinue for the government in cap and trade? Industry will not be giving it to you, and you will get less income tax cos a lot more people are going to lose their jobs.
And what happens in a couple of years when James backs off cap and trade as industry launches a pre emptive job loss round? And you KNOW that is a strong posibility especially in unionized industrys. A thousand jobs gone in a couple of days and big pressure on James to back off from her own people.
You guys are being totally disingenuous.
It sounds to me like the honorable LEFTIST NDP want to leave it up to the holy free market to decide carbon prices! Least campbell has generated government revinue from the effort. But in the joke that is the ndp right now, a tax on wasteful carbon use is a bad tax!
How is it a bad tax? You are supposedly left wingers for fuck sake. You go crying that it is revinue neutral.
Ok, how about this? Every fucken tax that was ever invented is revinue neutral. Do any of you actually think?
The money HAS to go out again unless you burn it!
What you are, boys and girls, is little puppets that do exactly what the mistress tells you.
What will james lose if she changes her mind and keeps the carbon tax for 2 years? Well, for starters, people suddenly stop looking at the carbon tax, and start looking at the rest of the environmental platform!People who are more concerned with the environment than politics would already be doing that.
Exactly Jerry, and thank you for indicating the truth of this.
Not true, not even close. Jerry's platform is politically impossible to impliment. He even says so!
My how disengenuous of you, we were not talking of jerrys plat form, we were speaking of those who were concerned with the environment, as oppoed to playing politics, would already be looking at the rest of the NDP environmental platform.
Cap and trade will hit poor people worse than a carbon tax cos the poor ones are going to lose their jobs first and where is the extra revinue for the government in cap and trade? Industry will not be giving it to you, and you will get less income tax cos a lot more people are going to lose their jobs.
You have been listening to too many BC Liberal talking points it seems. What poor people are going to lose their jobs first? Seriously name the jobs that will be lost that poor people do. For that matter name the jobs that are going to be lost, over and above the 140k that Gordo has lost already.
And what happens in a couple of years when James backs off cap and trade as industry launches a pre emptive job loss round? And you KNOW that is a strong posibility especially in unionized industrys. A thousand jobs gone in a couple of days and big pressure on James to back off from her own people.
BS, there is no way the NDP are going to back off of the environment, and again what jobs are you speaking of.
You guys are being totally disingenuous.
No actually you are, at best.
You guys are being totally disingenuous.
Actually, I am being totally honest. The problem is too much consumption. (Which itself is a subset of the bigger problem, too much growth) The solution is to definitively reduce consumption below a certain level. (Which will force a reversal of growth) Since one can not consume what is not available for consumption, reducing availability is the surest way to reduce consumption. It is also the fairest way, since it is transparent .
Who gets hurt the most, or how do we make this fact acceptable to a majority are separate issues from the main point. If we do not agree on the main point and act accordingly, all actions are probably futile in the long run.
Thinking that we can solve our problem without radically changing the socio-economic system that we now have is wistful thinking divorced from reality.
Thinking that we can solve our problem without radically changing the socio-economic system that we now have is wistful thinking divorced from reality.
I absolutely agree, Jerry.
Cap and trade will hit poor people worse than a carbon tax cos the poor ones are going to lose their jobs first and where is
the extra revinue for the government in cap and trade? Industry will not be giving it to you, and you will get less income tax
cos a lot more people are going to lose their jobs.
Cap and trade works to the benefit of the environment ,the Tax doesn't.
People will NOT lose their jobs because of Cap and Trade . People are losing their jobs now. Any serious study of Cap and trade actually shows that it will support employment and jobs. Cap and trade is a mechanism to level the playing field in a Global Trading environment that has run amuck with phony "Free" trade deals. Cap and Trade will put some fairness back.
The Campbell Carbon tax is simply a way to punish the people of BC, scoop up some government revenue and make people believe it actually does something.
The Carbon Tax could have any name. Call it the GORDO TAX and it will accomplish just as much. Infact, if Ontario harmonizes its PST with the GST they could call it a Carbon tax, because it adds another 8% onto the price of Gas and Heating oil, and Electricity.
But its not, it is a simple tax grab. Instead of using Carbon they use the word Harmony. Both are taxes, both generate revenues, and both will do SFA towards the environment.
But for someone to suggest that the Cap and Trade will cost jobs is absurd. Look around, Canada is bleeding jobs, and that Carbon Tax isn't going to save one of them.
Cap and trade could and I know of many industries that want it, in order to remain in Canada. Otherwise, they are going off shore.
People supporting the Carbon tax must be desperate for environmental attention that they feel vindicated if they have a "tax" named after an environmental need.
Dauncey's piece makes a good argument for restricting supply, not for tax.
Nothing here really makes a good case for a carbon tax. Saying that we have a problem is not the same as saying that a carbon tax like the one the Liberals have foisted on the province is a good solution.
WE NEED A PLAN FROM ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT WHERE THEY ALL COME TOGETHER AND WORK OUT THE DETAILS AND GET A CARBON BLUE PRINT. And something accountable where if money is taken off for the sake of the environment the money is put back for the sake of the environment. Because this way all Campbell has done has taken carbon dollars and is spending them on producing more carbon? Where is the logic in that? There is none except if you are trying to get your hands on some Chump's cash in a tight economy where banks have tightened their reins. A billion and a half of Chump change set to double. Who does Campbell think he is anyways he is not running the country but he sure is acting like he is? The Feds should be leading the pack with provincies and cities on board.
And where is that Jacob Two Two he is Two Two much, ha ha
http://www.earthfuture.com/econews/default.aspDauncey's piece makes a good argument for restricting supply, not for tax.
Nothing here really makes a good case for a carbon tax. Saying that we have a problem is not the same as saying that a carbon tax like the one the Liberals have foisted on the province is a good solution.[/quote]
Thanks for indicating this Jerry, however, I note that some do not want to hear it, creates too much cognative dissonance within them I suspect.
It seems to me those who are going to do nothing about the sell off of rivers and lakes, must be thinking they are going to benefit somehow.
Good article:
Good article:
Let's cut energy demand by a quarter, fast
So, let's put 2050 aside, even 2020, and focus on 2015 -- and a real reduction in energy demand by that date. How about 25per cent?
The tools are there, but where are the people? Beyond provoking an outcry over jobs and deficits, such a dramatic economic transition strategy that takes seriously the climate challenge should also provoke a debate about our real deficit -- the democratic deficit.
In this election and beyond, we must move past the half-thought-out carbon policies and the artificial divisions they sew. We need a real referendum on our collective future, and a process that gets us there with not just the usual environmental suspects but a whole host of characters -- social housing advocates and green entrepreneurs, investment gurus and tech wizards, visionary politicians and engaged citizens.
Rather that fine-tuning a broken carbon instrument, it is time to reinvent our democracy beyond carbon
Hear-hear!
Cap and trade will hit poor people worse than a carbon tax cos the poor ones are going to lose their jobs first and where is the extra revinue for the government in cap and trade? Industry will not be giving it to you, and you will get less income tax cos a lot more people are going to lose their jobs.
This is pretty much pure gibberish. You seem to understand nothing at all about how these things work, which is a little difficult to swallow given the extremity of your sanctimonious snottiness. Can you provide any shred of evidence or anything even vaguely remoniscent of a coherent argument for your sweeping claims?
On the question of where revenue will come from, it will be from the auction of credits. Once in effect the credits will be tradeable among indutries in much the same way that quotas are tradeable among fishing licencees in ITQ fisheries meaning that they will be much more targeted than any tax could be.
And what happens in a couple of years when James backs off cap and trade as industry launches a pre emptive job loss round? And you KNOW that is a strong posibility especially in unionized industrys. A thousand jobs gone in a couple of days and big pressure on James to back off from her own people.
You guys are being totally disingenuous.
Backing off from cap and trade would require a complete reversal on policy, which would happen with little or no chance of passing under the news media radar. The complexity of the tax credits and other tools brought to bear in the effort to make the carbon tax less painful and more palatable to low income BCers exist in a policy swamp where creative accounting and neglect typically erode such measures without comment from any but the most attentive commentators. Once eroded the regressive structuring of the tax system will remain.
Disingenuous? Do you even know what that means?
It sounds to me like the honorable LEFTIST NDP want to leave it up to the holy free market to decide carbon prices! Least campbell has generated government revinue from the effort. But in the joke that is the ndp right now, a tax on wasteful carbon use is a bad tax!
How is it a bad tax? You are supposedly left wingers for fuck sake. You go crying that it is revinue neutral.
Ok, how about this? Every fucken tax that was ever invented is revinue neutral. Do any of you actually think?
The money HAS to go out again unless you burn it!
What you are, boys and girls, is little puppets that do exactly what the mistress tells you.
Look, you fucking mouthbreather, revenue neutrality in the context of the BC carbon tax legislation has nothing to do with spending taxes once they are collected. If your grasp of the issue is so slight that you don't understand even that much, you should be embarrassed to be seen in public.
Left-wingers oppose the BC tax because it restructures taxation as a whole in ways that left-wingers have always opposed on principle. The so-called revenue neutrality of which Gordon Campbell is so fond is about reducing income taxes, not about spending the carbon tax. It is this meaning of revenue neutrality that makes your earlier rant about cap and trade not providing surplus funds for the use of government doubly stupid.
Cap and trade will hit poor people worse than a carbon tax cos the poor ones are going to lose their jobs first and where is the extra revinue for the government in cap and trade? Industry will not be giving it to you, and you will get less income tax cos a lot more people are going to lose their jobs.. . .
How is it a bad tax? You are supposedly left wingers for fuck sake. You go crying that it is revinue neutral.
Ok, how about this? Every fucken tax that was ever invented is revinue neutral. Do any of you actually think?
The money HAS to go out again unless you burn it!
Excellent points Brian!
About the impact on lower-income earners and people who may lose their job - at least the costs of the carbon tax are known and can be planned and budgetted for. While cap-and-trade may give some more certainty as to the cuts in emissions, there's no telling how much it is going to cost people, especially the poor, and how many jobs might be lost.
And you know the NDP will back-down as soon as cap-and-trade starts hurting key constituencies.
Further BS A-J, again just what jobs are you speaking of? Brian did not answer, and you just furthered his empty rhetoric and said SFA.
Let's hear what " low income" jobs will be lost A_J and Brian seeing as how you are claiming such?
Imagine, environmentalists who advocate a useless carbon tax, and want nothing to do with reducing emissions? Who'd a thunk it????
I guess reduced emissions will not foster income production for those who want to selll carbon credits from 3rd world countries, nor get them green washing seats and additional funding from those who want to continue to pollute, and exploit the poor in Canada and elsewhere around the world.
at least the costs of the carbon tax are known and can be planned and budgetted for.
Even if the tax is totally useless. The issue is not ease of taxation, budgeting necessary economic changes, or whatever other than significantly reducing the amount of GHGs being generated, and even that is not the main problem. The main problem is the pressing necessity to reduce consumption of energy and everything else. The most direct way is to reduce extraction and production, leaving nothing more to consume than what is determined to be the safe level of consumption. Carbon taxes and carbon trading are wastes of time designed to protect a dying economic system and mollify yuppies who want to feel like they are making a difference without really getting down to dealing seriously with the problem.
Peter3, my solar cooking research stuff was front page news on solarcooking.org a couple of times last year and probably will be again.
What are YOU doing about reducing carbon going into the atmosphere?
Where is your contribution? Mine is worldwide.
Here is a quote from you.
"Look, you fucking mouthbreather, revenue neutrality in the context of the BC carbon tax legislation has nothing to do with spending taxes once they are collected. If your grasp of the issue is so slight that you don't understand even that much, you should be embarrassed to be seen in public".
Your mummy needs a bar of soap, boy.
Your mummy needs a bar of soap, boy.
You can't seriously be using the term "boy" can you?
And quite the claim, "worldwide" eh?
There is so much more I could say but won't as it is just a useless waste upon those who would sell off rivers and lakes, in order to fill their own pockets, while making claims of helping the whole world.
The main problem is the pressing necessity to reduce consumption of energy and everything else.
Huh?
GHG-emitting activities, yes. Energy, not necessarily. But everything else? Why?
And if you want to reduce GHG-emitting activities, raise their prices: demand curves slope down.
Canada should build some more coal-fired power plants so that our NAFTA pardners can be greener. I think Manley said something to that effect a few years ago. Gawd help the environment if federal Liberals win another phony-baloney majority.
Please explain yourself.
We call twits boy all the time in Ireland. Newfies use the term too. O shit, I said "newfie".
Language police, eh?
Worldwide. I collaborate with people on that subject worldwide. And I have won prizes for it in international competition.
Have you?
Your mummy needs a bar of soap, boy.You can't seriously be using the term "boy" can you?
And quite the claim, "worldwide" eh?
GHG-emitting activities, yes. Energy, not necessarily. But everything else? Why?
Because humans in total are over consuming the ability of the planet to sustain us. That is the real problem and one reason we are producing too much GHG. If total human consumption was far less than it is today, we would not be having the environmental problems that we are.
And if you want to reduce GHG-emitting activities, raise their prices: demand curves slope down.
But how much? What price on fuel reliabley drops consumption by 50% for example? (and 50% probably isn't enough) The solution lies not in sloping down the demand curve, but in making demand beyond a certain level impossible to fill. Rather than worrying about what price we have to raise things to to adjust demand adequately, we should be trying to figure out how to deal with the prices that will occur when we reduce supply to the safe level.
Your mummy needs a bar of soap, boy.You can't seriously be using the term "boy" can you?
And quite the claim, "worldwide" eh?
There is so much more I could say but won't as it is just a useless waste upon those who would sell off rivers and lakes, in order to fill their own pockets, while making claims of helping the whole world.
Please do refer to this comment of mine Brian.
Because humans in total are over consuming the ability of the planet to sustain us.
Ah. Are we now back to the Billions Must Die meme? Because even if the entire population of British Columbia committed suicide, that would be a drop in the bucket.
But Exxon-Imperial, Syncrude, Encana etc arent shipping people to the states in those Canadian taxpayer funded pipelines. They're siphoning off Canada's fossil fuels along with the profits!
Because humans in total are over consuming the ability of the planet to sustain us.
Ah. Are we now back to the Billions Must Die meme? Because even if the entire population of British Columbia committed suicide, that would be a drop in the bucket.
A non sequitur, Stephen.
In any event, it is a fact (if one believes the statistics and their interpretation presented by the WWF) that humans are consuming at a rate that the planet can not sustain. This does not equate to a position that billions must die, or that we should evaporate the population of BC, those are disingenuous arguments meant to side track the facts with fear.
So, back to more pertinent items. Tell us, Stephen, what price on fuel reliabley drops consumption by 50% for example? Can you give us an exact price to consumption ratio that guarantees meeting any desired target?
Restricting supply can give us a fairly exact figure for achieving a desired target.
But Billions Must Die! If 2/3 of the world's population must be sacrificed, then why should BC be spared?
Tell us, Stephen, what price on fuel reliabley drops consumption by 50% for example?
The short-run demand elasticity of demand is something like 0.1 - 0.2, and the long-run-elasticity is about three times as big, so I'll let you do the arithmetic.
But where did you get that 50% number from?
Wow amazing to see such simple minded "I wanna make profits for me" worrying about the NDP getting in.
Heh. Because "I want cheap gasoline" is the rallying cry of All True Environmentalists, right?
Peter3, my solar cooking research stuff was front page news on solarcooking.org a couple of times last year and probably will be again.
What are YOU doing about reducing carbon going into the atmosphere?
Where is your contribution? Mine is worldwide.
Well la-de-da. You designed a solar cooker. If I had only known... Oh, wait a minute, that has the square root of SFA to do with tax policy. I guess I'll stick with my original conclusion that you're a self-important gas bag with no grasp of anything whatsoever to do with the implications of the various market-based measures proposed to act as disincentives to greenhouse gas emissions. Given that that's a conclusion based on the volumionous data you have provided on this site, it seems more defensible than your self-agrandizing appeals to authority.
Here is a quote from you.
"Look, you fucking mouthbreather, revenue neutrality in the context of the BC carbon tax legislation has nothing to do with spending taxes once they are collected. If your grasp of the issue is so slight that you don't understand even that much, you should be embarrassed to be seen in public".
Your mummy needs a bar of soap, boy.
And here is one from you:
How is it a bad tax? You are supposedly left wingers for fuck sake. You go crying that it is revinue neutral.Ok, how about this? Every fucken tax that was ever invented is revinue neutral. Do any of you actually think?
The money HAS to go out again unless you burn it!
What you are, boys and girls, is little puppets that do exactly what the mistress tells you.
I make that 2 fucks to my 1.
My mummy told me that hypocrites are nauseating. Yours apparently missed that lesson.
And let's not forget:
Language police, eh?
Your mummy needs to give you a swift kick in your hypocritical arse.
Worldwide. I collaborate with people on that subject worldwide. And I have won prizes for it in international competition.
Have you?
You really have no sense of how pathetic this is, do you?
For the record, in common with others on this site who do not share your weird, egocentric world view, I am actively involved in environmental politics at the local, national and international level. Coincidentally, I am also professionally involved. None of that is relevant to the discussion on carbon taxation. If there is anything that I have learned through my activist or professional experience, I will present the information here on its own merits, in the belief that anybody who believed me just because I have a degree or work experience and not because my arguments made sense would be an inexcusable idiot.
But Billions Must Die! If 2/3 of the world's population must be sacrificed, then why should BC be spared?
Tell us, Stephen, what price on fuel reliabley drops consumption by 50% for example?
The short-run demand elasticity of demand is something like 0.1 - 0.2, and the long-run-elasticity is about three times as big, so I'll let you do the arithmetic.
But where did you get that 50% number from?
Blatant fear mongering, Stephen. Who said that 2/3 of the world's population must be sacrificed? Of course if you consider reducing the birth rate significantly a sacrifice of people, then you may have an argument, like the anti-choice people.
Actually, you are the professional with these kinds of formulas, so tell us what the price is that guarantees an 50% drop in consumption and allows for the fact that many people will just buck up and pay more rather than cut consumption. (And how many more variables are there to deal with?)
The 50% figure is just an example. If my memory serves, I think the figure that gets bandied about the most of how much we need to reduce GHG out put is 80%, but I could be wrong and no time to check right now. It isn't important to the demonstration of the method, anyway.
Wow amazing to see such simple minded "I wanna make profits for me" worrying about the NDP getting in.
Oh the anti-NDP pro-carbon taxers dont even mention the fossil fuel companies. Shhhh They dont factor into it, just us greedy car drivers and those of us with gas and electric furnaces and billing addresses.
What they should say but dare not:
Besides, if Canadians could just learn to wrap a few blankets around them and sweaters around the cat and dog in winter, they could sell even more of our precious fossil fuels to American home owners and industries, and continue fueling expansion in the world's most energy intensive and most unsustainable capitalist economy in the world!
Peter3,
If you were charged more for oranges in the store, would you buy some local fruit instead or would you still buy the same amount of oranges?
And if you chose to buy the local fruit instead, wouldn't it mean that less oranges were being bought?
(and more local jobs created)
With fuel, the little extra tax allows people to inform their decision to buy a small car or a suv. To do insulation or to buy extra heating fuel. To burn wood or to burn fossil fuels. What is your objection?
Lets here more about your record. Sounds like a resume without the details.
You are a professional environmentalist? Do you go on lots of foreign trips? By plane? Are you big on carbon offsets for travel?
I have some problems with the rich environmentalists setting agendas about carbon offsets and the like just to relieve their guilt about their incredible carbon use.
Perhaps you can tell me why so many other professional environmentalists, like daunsey, sazukki etc and so many professional economists disagree with you about the carbon tax? O golly gosh, you think for yourself. I forgot. duh!
Are you a professional economist too? Of course you are!
Me, I am just a stonemason.
What you want to make out of that? I should not comment because I am not a professional environmentalist?
You get paid for your contribution, mine is unpaid. Who is showing more committment?
Are you sure it is just me being egocentric?
You really have no sense of how pathetic this is, do you?
For the record, in common with others on this site who do not share your weird, egocentric world view, I am actively involved in environmental politics at the local, national and international level. Coincidentally, I am also professionally involved. None of that is relevant to the discussion on carbon taxation. If there is anything that I have learned through my activist or professional experience, I will present the information here on its own merits, in the belief that anybody who believed me just because I have a degree or work experience and not because my arguments made sense would be an inexcusable idiot.
[/quote]
The issue is not ease of taxation, budgeting necessary economic changes, or whatever other than significantly reducing the amount of GHGs being generated, and even that is not the main problem. The main problem is the pressing necessity to reduce consumption of energy and everything else. The most direct way is to reduce extraction and production, leaving nothing more to consume than what is determined to be the safe level of consumption. Carbon taxes and carbon trading are wastes of time designed to protect a dying economic system and mollify yuppies who want to feel like they are making a difference without really getting down to dealing seriously with the problem.
Jerry, as always, you leave out the real "main problem", which is how to get the drastic rationing and centralized control of all GHG emissions you are advocating actually implemented in a democratic society. Your "direct way" would lead to the immediate shut-down of many major industries in BC, throwing thousands and thousands of people out of work, shutting down resource-based communities like Gold River entirely, and since you reject carbon taxes, you'd have no revenues to help those people transition to more sustainable jobs and create the green industries of the future.
The "waste of time" is discussing ideas which have no basis in actual reality and zero chance of being democratically accepted by the population. If Carole can make a big gain out of Gordo's trivial and innocuous carbon tax, the Jerry West "let's shut down the oil and gas, mining and forestry sectors tomorrow and force people to live on one tank of gas per month" platform would go down in flames with voters. And deservedly so - as social democrats, we have to always consider the impact on working and low-income people from our policies, that's what distinguishes the NDP from the Green Party in most cases.
The beauty (yes, I said "beauty" about a tax instrument - I'm a total policy geek 
) of carbon taxes is that they send the long-term signal about the need to shift to low-carbon technologies and behaviours while giving people time to adjust. Gordo's 2.5 cent tax won't stop people driving in 2009 but knowing it will triple by 2012 will trigger increased demand for hybrid cars, renewable energy, housing in core areas with good walking and transit amenities, etc. We need a radical societal shift to keep our planet liveable and it needs to come from the bottom up - it won't be "Commisar West" dictating my carbon ration that will make me change how I live. When carbon prices go high enough, people will begin to ask the real questions - "does it make sense to live so far from my office?" "Why do I shop at the mall when there is a grocery store a few blocks away?" "Maybe I should buy local produce instead of the expensive stuff from China and California?"
Taxation is the price we ask of ourselves to live in a civilized society - and it is to the eternal discredit of the BC NDP that they are using the anti-tax rhetoric that the right-wing pummeled us with for so long, and which the current economic crisis has proven to be completely intellectually bankrupt. The US is nationalizing banks and auto companies and Carole is saying "vote for me and I'll cut your taxes!!!" It is to weep...
Except that it was Liberal and Tory stooges who transformed Canada into a top-down experiment for the neoliberal voodoo since Brian Baloney. And just look at the economy now ... hemorrhaging jobs at a greater pace than the imperial master nation while they steal our oil and gas and massive amounts of hydroelectric power 24-7. Oh ya, and Yanqui imperialists still have the nerve to tell our colonial administrativeship of the day to shove the softwood. Free trade free schmade. What's afta NAFTA? Maybe the warming wont be so bad if we can at least grow some bananas. DAY-O!
The "waste of time" is discussing ideas which have no basis in actual reality and zero chance of being democratically accepted by the population. If Carole can make a big gain out of Gordo's trivial and innocuous carbon tax, the Jerry West "let's shut down the oil and gas, mining and forestry sectors tomorrow and force people to live on one tank of gas per month" platform would go down in flames with voters. And deservedly so - as social democrats, we have to always consider the impact on working and low-income people from our policies, that's what distinguishes the NDP from the Green Party in most cases.
The forestry sector is largely shut down already and the mining and oil and gas sectors are based on non-renewable resources that we will have to find substitutes for. It's not a question of shutting down sectors but rather of creating a sustainable economy before these sectors collapse due to depletion of non-renewable resources or unsustainable use of renewable resources.
The beauty (yes, I said "beauty" about a tax instrument - I'm a total policy geek
If you think carbon pricing (either a carbon tax or cap and trade (or cap and share for that matter)) is the best way to reduce emissions then you are mistaken. Carbon emissions will have to be regulated out of existence, and the regulations will support new industries. Support for that will have to come from the bottom up too though but people will support regulations that make sense. Tripling of the carbon tax will have far less effect than the increase of crude oil to $200 when the recession ends.
Moreover, it looks like the federal Liberals have changed their minds again on the carbon tax. How long will it be before they reverse the flop on this flip-over roll over?
Jerry, as always, you leave out the real "main problem", which is how to get the drastic rationing and centralized control of all GHG emissions you are advocating actually implemented in a democratic society.
No, the main problem is over consumption, period. How to get people to accept that in time to act quick enough is a subsidiary problem. The Liberal carbon tax is not a first step, it is a sidetrack meant to make people feel good while effectively delaying any substantial action to solve the problem.
Your "direct way" would lead to the immediate shut-down of many major industries in BC, throwing thousands and thousands of people out of work, shutting down resource-based communities like Gold River entirely, and since you reject carbon taxes, you'd have no revenues to help those people transition to more sustainable jobs and create the green industries of the future.
Your argument is that since being environmentally responsible will upset the economy we can't be environmentally responsible?
The change in the economy with a hard cap on carbon is something that is necessary to adjust to. The argument should not be that it is too hard to do, but how do we do it without further damage to the environment.
As for revenue, what revenue at 2, 3, 4, 10 or 50 cents per litre? Particularly if it is rebated an used to subsidize fuel purchases? If you were talking 3, 4, or 5 dollars per litre now, you might have a bit of a point. Still not the most efficient one, but a point.
Revenue should come from 1) the full amount of the cost of mitigating the damage of GHGs caused per unit of carbon mineral applied to that unit at source of extraction as part of the royalty due the Crown; and 2) raising taxes on excess wealth being held in the private sector.
We also have to be careful about more industries for the future. Transitioning to a truly green economy and planet will mean reversal of growth, and over all less industrial activity. Industries of the future should be green industries replacing brown ones, and on a less than one to one basis.
The "waste of time" is discussing ideas which have no basis in actual reality and zero chance of being democratically accepted by the population.
The real waste of time is in not looking for ways to make those ideas acceptable to voters.
as social democrats, we have to always consider the impact on working and low-income people from our policies, that's what distinguishes the NDP from the Green Party in most cases.
And it can still be done. Capping extraction and production does not have to mean abandoning working people. Not capping extraction and production probably means abandoning everybody to a dying system. Again, you argue that being environmentally responsible will hurt people, so we shouldn't do it?
The beauty of carbon taxes is that they send the long-term signal about the need to shift to low-carbon technologies and behaviours while giving people time to adjust.
It is like putting bandaids on a severely injured crash victim and leaving them lie on the street for awhile to adjust to the idea that they have to go to the hospital. 
The ugly side of carbon taxes like the BC one is that they do not adequately address the issue and probably do more harm than good.
Gordo's 2.5 cent tax won't stop people driving in 2009 but knowing it will triple by 2012 will trigger increased demand for hybrid cars, renewable energy, housing in core areas with good walking and transit amenities, etc.
You don't know that absolutely for sure. What if gas prices drop as the tax goes up? What if a lot of people adjust to paying more, particularly those whose incomes go up?
7.5 cents per litre is a joke. Why aren't environmentalists hammering Gordo for letting gas prices drop below last year's high?
The one thing that would probably achieve what you dream about is for the oil and coal companies to raise their prices significantly above last year's high. 2, 3, 4 dollar carbon taxes, anyone? Works for me, but would probably be too steep for most of the carbon tax cheering squad.
We need a radical societal shift to keep our planet liveable and it needs to come from the bottom up
We agree that we need a radical change in society, but what is bottom up? A carbon tax is top down unless we have a referendum on it. I wonder if even the piddly 2-3 cents of Gordo's would pass a referendum. If we want bottom up, then we need to convince the public of the severity of the problem and the nature of the solution. The solution is reduce consumption. Once they are convinced of that, then restricting supply is the simplest and most efficient method to proceed with. If they are not willing to make considerable cut backs in consumption, there is no bottom up possible.
Just gritting your teeth and paying a tax is not willing.
- it won't be "Commisar West" dictating my carbon ration that will make me change how I live.
Who said anything about commisars? Of course the opponents of commisars are Fascists, right? We can do without name calling like some other less disciplined posters, no?
Anyhow, you are saying if carbon rationing were introduced you would look for ways to get more than your share?
When carbon prices go high enough, people will begin to ask the real questions - "does it make sense to live so far from my office?" "Why do I shop at the mall when there is a grocery store a few blocks away?" "Maybe I should buy local produce instead of the expensive stuff from China and California?"
Limited supply of fuel would have the same effect, only quicker and with far less damage to the environment.
Taxation is the price we ask of ourselves to live in a civilized society - and it is to the eternal discredit of the BC NDP that they are using the anti-tax rhetoric that the right-wing pummeled us with for so long, and which the current economic crisis has proven to be completely intellectually bankrupt.
I agree. They should be emphasizing the fact that the carbon tax is an environmental fraud.
The carbon tax mentality, also, is a product of the disasterous economic thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.
Interesting that in criticizing control of supply and production it is always assumed that hard capping would happen in one fell swoop to the safe level, yet while extolling the carbon tax, incrementalism is emphasized. Restricting supply can be incremental too, allowing people to adjust.
William Beveridge in Britain wrote a contingency plan for rationing in time for WW I. The plan was dusted off and implemented again during WW II.
It's simple. Identify dangerous climate change as the biggest enemy of all creatures great and small since Adolf Hitler. Then plagiarize hell out of Beveridge's plan for war rations.
The forestry sector is largely shut down already and the mining and oil and gas sectors are based on non-renewable resources that we will have to find substitutes for. It's not a question of shutting down sectors but rather of creating a sustainable economy before these sectors collapse due to depletion of non-renewable resources or unsustainable use of renewable resources.
Sure. This is a long-term policy goal. Reducing emissions is a short term need. Therefore carbon pricing is the most efficient method to transition away from carbon intensive industries. As a side note, mining and oil and agas are non-renewable but to somehow assert that we need to find substitutes for them soon does not hold alot of water. There are alot of minerals and fossil fuels beneath the surface of BC. The sectors are still economically viable up to the medium to long-term.
If you think carbon pricing (either a carbon tax or cap and trade (or cap and share for that matter)) is the best way to reduce emissions then you are mistaken. Carbon emissions will have to be regulated out of existence, and the regulations will support new industries. Support for that will have to come from the bottom up too though but people will support regulations that make sense. Tripling of the carbon tax will have far less effect than the increase of crude oil to $200 when the recession ends.
So you're saying regulate broad-based emissions reductions for each firm and each person? That's your policy? That is a completely inefficient and administratively burdensome venture. The best way to reduce emissions is through carbon pricing. There's an entire canon of literature, modelling, and real data analysis to prove this.
Some policy wonk.
Brian and Peter. You are both bringing down the tone of debate on this thread with personal attacks and snarky comments. Cut out the personal attacks or you will be taking breaks from the board.
Reducing emissions is a short term need. Therefore carbon pricing is the most efficient method to transition away from carbon intensive industries.
Carbon pricing or carbon tax? Rational carbon pricing would put the full cost of abating any damage caused by the carbon on the carbon minerals as they are extracted. The current insignificant carbon tax will not transition us away from carbon intensive industries, not until all the carbon minerals are used up. Better for the environment to leave most of them in the ground. Better for us to control carbon supply than crap shoot with carbon taxes related to nothing but economic and political fantasies.
As a side note, mining and oil and agas are non-renewable but to somehow assert that we need to find substitutes for them soon does not hold alot of water. There are alot of minerals and fossil fuels beneath the surface of BC. The sectors are still economically viable up to the medium to long-term.
Economic viability dose not equate to environmental viability. These sectors have to start shrinking. We need to rethink our economy to one of reverse growth until we once again have a sustainable foot print.
The best way to reduce emissions is through carbon pricing. There's an entire canon of literature, modelling, and real data analysis to prove this.
There is an entire canon of literature on the superiority of the Aryan race, too. So what? The surest way to reduce emissions is to restrict supply, limiting the amount of carbon that can be converted into GHGs. There is no certainty in carbon pricing as to exactly what given price will achieve what exact amount of reduction.
If one insists on pricing, then first implement the charge at the mine or wellhead that covers the full cost of mitigating damage, then if that doesn't reduce use enough, keep raising the royalty fee until it does. Of course it is simpler just to limit production, and raise royalties to cover mitigation.
Brian and Peter. You are both bringing down the tone of debate on this thread with personal attacks and snarky comments. Cut out the personal attacks or you will be taking breaks from the board.
Cheers.
Excellent post Jerry, it seems the shallow thinking people, are even more shallow thinking than I once perceived, or they are drinking their own kool aid too much. Thank you for illuminating the faulty thinking that is going on here by those who apparently think they are environmentally concerned, whilst they are not at all.
Carbon pricing or carbon tax? Rational carbon pricing would put the full cost of abating any damage caused by the carbon on the carbon minerals as they are extracted. The current insignificant carbon tax will not transition us away from carbon intensive industries, not until all the carbon minerals are used up. Better for the environment to leave most of them in the ground. Better for us to control carbon supply than crap shoot with carbon taxes related to nothing but economic and political fantasies.
A carbon tax is carbon pricing. As mentioned earlier, the small nominal carbon tax now is a transitional move entirely consisten with recommendations made by countless environmental NGOs including the National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy. You need to start to get people thinking about the price of carbon before you hit them hard. The carbon tax will triple in a couple years and will no doubt need to at least double again after that. It is good policy to allow for a transition period as it stymies the shock-effects and makes it more politically viable.
Based on this above comment though, maybe you are unclear what a carbon tax actually is because it does what you are saying we should do. An upstream price on carbon is an effective factor of production on carbon minerals. And as much as you may deride it, we are in a market economy where we let the price regulate the supply of a good not a central agency.
Economic viability dose not equate to environmental viability. These sectors have to start shrinking. We need to rethink our economy to one of reverse growth until we once again have a sustainable foot print.
Agreed, but in the meantime. What are you going to do with the rural communities dependent on resource extraction if you wipe them out immediately through your command and control regulation? Also, what are you going to do to make up the balance of government receipts lost from taxable income and royalties received from resource extraction? Thought so.
A gradually increasing carbon price will smooth the transition. Far more than your regulations on carbon supply and emissions. In the end, the emissions reductions could be made at a fraction of the cost with a carbon price as reductions come from the sectors with the cheapest abatement costs instead of everyone making the same reductions irregardless of their abatement costs. A recipe for runaway costs.
Logical Fallacy 101There is an entire canon of literature on the superiority of the Aryan race, too. So what?
The surest way to reduce emissions is to restrict supply, limiting the amount of carbon that can be converted into GHGs. There is no certainty in carbon pricing as to exactly what given price will achieve what exact amount of reduction.
An upstream carbon price (BC's carbon tax is one) does this. It makes the carbon emissions embodied in the fossil fuels scarce therefore making emissions another factor of production that will limit the supply. I think you are unclear on what a carbon price actually is.
With respect to uncertainty, the only concern is the exact price to set. There is no uncertainty on the fact that a carbon price will reduce emissions. If the price is too low (or too high) policy makers can adjust it. We have pretty good modelling showing that carbon prices will need to be around $100 per tonne to achieve the 2020 targets. It would be most efficient to to outline a schedule of carbon price increases over the next 10 years to influence individual and firm investment behaviour over that period. If a firm knows that the carbon price will be $100 in ten years and it is investing in capital with a lif eof 25 years then it will make the appropriate investment decision in light of the future carbon price. That is if another oportunistic political party doesn't win an election and decide to screw it all up in the mean time.
If one insists on pricing, then first implement the charge at the mine or wellhead that covers the full cost of mitigating damage, then if that doesn't reduce use enough, keep raising the royalty fee until it does. Of course it is simpler just to limit production, and raise royalties to cover mitigation.
The first part is what a carbon price is. I'll leave you to try to limit production in a market-oriented democratic country and see how far that gets you.