BC Carbon Tax and Environmental Issues part 6

Flames wrote:

A carbon tax is carbon pricing.

Are all pricings taxes? If so, then OK, just like profits are taxes levied by whoever is profiting.  Anyhow, we have no disagreement that the price of carbon should be higher.

Quote:

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.

Given the source, it is a sham meant to mollify what environmentalists it can, split off the rest, and leave the business community to continue with business as usual.  Business as usual is killing the planet.

Quote:

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.

Like don't call up your army until invaders have over run two thirds of your country because it is good policy to allow for a transition period to stymie the shock effect of being invaded?

Better to make it more politically viable by convincing people that there is a crisis which needs immediate and radical attention.

Quote:

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.

Tax, price, cost, all semantics and fun to play word games with.

Quote:

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.

Which in this case should be considered a failing, though I always thought that it was the supply and demand that was supposed to decide the price.  In any event, it is not a precise nor efficient method for achieving exact targets on consumption.

Quote:

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.

Why does it have to be immediately or all at once?  That is a strawman.  If we have time for a gradual increase in carbon taxes, a couple a pennies a year over decades, we certainly should be able to reduce supply a bit every year instead, and with a more precise result on reaching targets.

Government recepeits can be increased through other taxes, especially a much higher marginal rate on upper incomes, progressive property taxes and probably a number of other areas where wealth can be redistributed from.  A much higher royalty on oil, gas, and coal would put more of our taxation onto foreign customers of those resources.

Quote:

A gradually increasing carbon price will smooth the transition.

Or slow it down so much that it becomes ineffective to meet the crisis.  Nothing is as sure in its ability to hold emissions at a set level than restricting supply.

Quote:

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.

Still a crap shoot, and at what environmental cost?  Reducing carbon emissions by 80% or more is going to cost a lot for some sectors, no matter what, and the entire socio-economic structure is going to have to be redesigned to accomodate that reduction.  Our current economic system is part of the problem and will have no place in a sustainable society.

Quote:

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.

I am pretty clear on what a price is.  I am not so clear on what you just said, however.  And you might need to explain the difference between upstream and downstream in the economist's lexicon, since that isn't clear, either.  One would think that upstream is near the source, like the well head, and downstream the final consumer.  Using that view I would think that the BC tax which is aimed at the consumer is downstream.

Quote:

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.

Ha! There is no guarantee how much any price will reduce emissions, its trial and error with variables.

Quote:

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.

Does that mean that you are advocating for price controls, since if you don't, carbon taxes aside, the price can fluctuate.  Without effective controls appropriate investment decisions are a gamble based on guesses.

Quote:

That is if another oportunistic political party doesn't win an election and decide to screw it all up in the mean time.

Ah, another variable.

Quote:

I'll leave you to try to limit production in a market-oriented democratic country and see how far that gets you.

Maybe we shouldn't be so addicted to the tyranny of the market, and maybe convincing people to abandon much of that view is what we need to do before we will ever be able to adequately address the environment problem.

Quote:

"The Liberal government is the worst government that the environment in B.C. has ever had," Anne Sherrod, director of the Valhalla Wilderness Society told The Tyee.

Last week she slammed the David Suzuki Foundation for supporting the carbon tax.

She told The Tyee she spoke out because she believes the carbon tax/cap and trade debate is a minor issue and a "red herring" to distract from the Liberal's environmental record.

Even the celebrated Great Bear Rainforest plan, finalized by the Liberals after years of negotiation with industry and environmental stakeholders, was not good enough, says Sherrod.

"They really put a feather in their own cap over that," she says. "They saved a third of it and relegated two-thirds of it to logging. That is not enough protection."

How does the provincial government in BC cap the supply of oil coming from Alberta,  Jerry?

It is fine and dandy to say "cap the mine or well but how?

We have no BC army to do this work in other parts of Canada or the world.

Will we have people dipping gas tanks when people leave the province and when people enter it too?

Your plan might work if we were the overlords of north american trade.

But we are not, we are just a province with no powers outside the borders of BC.

The cars in europe are smaller and more fuel efficient because the cost of fuel is higher and consumer choice is informed by that higher price.

A carbon tax raises the cost of fuel so in the carbon tax world it follows that

cars will be smaller than in an alternative world where fuel is corespondingly cheaper.   I would ask the environmentalists on this board which type of cars they prefer to see on the roads.      Hummers or compact cars?

Brian

Are you pretending that there will be no price increases with cap and trade?

Just because you have no idea where they will come and how big they will be and who they will affect? At least with the carbon tax, you will have the tax money which you can give to the poorest people to help them through it.

I would be happy enough if you go straight from carbon tax to cap and trade but that is not what is going to happen.  First you demonize the carbon tax and then (more than likely, after at least 3 years setting it up,  there will be major teething problems (and massive compromises with industry) with cap and trade. 

3 years wasted, at least.   Why do you want to drive in the north in the winter in a car? 

 When global warming gets really bad and the sea starts coming in in lowland china and many other places, other countrys are going to hold guns to our heads and shout stop.

(Gwynne Dyer (war historian) has already written about this).

We and the USA are by far the biggest wasters of oil in the world.    We point the finger at china and dirty coal while neatly forgetting that most of chinas production is for us!  How many coal fired powerstations in china are burning for us?   Quite a few due to our crazy wasteful consumer lifestyle.

You may need huge cars in the snowy north, and I question that.  

Do the swedes have gigantic cars?

I was in norway about 20 years ago. Cars were not big, perhaps they are bigger now but hardly as huge as what we have here. It is a pretty rugged place too.

 And certainly in southern bc where over 3 million of us live, we do not need those monster single person vehicles that you seem to think are necessary.

remind wrote:

Awwww, Brian ignore BC's own wells eh, which supply most of our oil?!

Forget the pipelines crosssing BC, that could have cap amounts put on them directly targeting the oil companies shipping to China..

And move the hell off of VIsland and see if you want to drive a  sub-compact car in BC's north during the winter.

Oh and forget about  the heat costs too, and pretend it is only on gasoline products for cars.

Oh and let's forget about grocery prices going up 18% too and pretend it is all about cars.

 

 

Flames wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

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.   

Reducing emissions is a short, medium and long term need. Your leap of logic does not hold. A carbon tax makes little sense when carbon intensive industries are subsidized. As for needing to find substitutes for minerals and oil and gas, you do realize that it takes energy to exploit these resources and there may be lots of minerals and fossil fuels in BC but whether they are easily accessible (concentration and location) is another question so they can't be counted on in the long term, particularly as minerals covers a lot of ground in terms of variety. Obviously you are a peak oil/peak gas skeptic who will likely be proven totally wrong in the near future.

Flames wrote:

Quote:

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.

No, I'm saying regulate the economy so as to promote carbon neutral and less carbon intensive industries and processes, and discourage carbon intensive industries and processes. Germany did not become a leader in renewable energy by regulating emissions directly, it did so through measures such as fair access and pricing laws. Changing building codes so as to reduce energy consumption by new buildings and providing funding incentives for retrofits of older buildings are also examples of regulatory and fiscal measures that do not involve pricing carbon directly (which is actually a very indirect way of reducing emissions, however effective you might think they are). Only an idiot would suggest doing it person by person and firm by firm. You have to start where you get the most bang for your buck and that is in reducing the most carbon intensive sectors and promoting far less carbon intensive or carbon neutral sectors.  There may be a canon of literature, but carbon pricing (taxes or cap and trade) makes far more sense if there are viable alternatives made available beforehand or at least at the same time. Otherwise the increased price negatively affects those least able to pay it most and those most able to pay the increased price least.

Gerry West wrote  "Restriction of supply will guarantee that the volume consumed can not exceed that possible from the level of supply".

All righty then. I agree, but how to you get any of the supply for those of us on low wages?  The price is going to go through the roof and only rich people will be able to gass up their automobiles or heat their houses.

That might not be that easy to sell to the voters.  Incidently, it sounds a bit like cap and trade.

Does it sound socalist to let the holy free market put the price of fuel out of the reach of remind in her SUV in the snowy north?

Brian

Jerry West wrote:

Stephen Gordon wrote:

I know! How 'bout we tell people that two-thirds of the population must die?

That'll make them sit up and take you seriously.

Of course the argument is not that two thirds must die, but you know that, so I wonder why you presist in this kind of unsupportable fear mongering and misrepresentation.  Are you a right to lifer?

Actually all of the present population will die eventually. It's not a question of whether the population will be reduced but how and when, and business as usual will accomplish the task quite well if perhaps not quite in a manner that we would find palatable.

Quote:

Quote:

I would ask the environmentalists on this board which type of cars they prefer to see on the roads.

Better question, I would ask them how anyone can justify air travel which is a gross waste of resources.  We could favour the government putting a huge tax on jet fuel.

Fewer cars and trucks is as worthy a goal as generally smaller cars, recognizing the need for trucks in some locations and for some purposes. I plan to give up personal ownership of a car when I retire in the fall, and car-share co-ops are emerging in a number of places. If electric cars were cheap and efficient they would replace gasoline and diesel fueled cars. And if you don't drive too much, there is also the veggie oil option (I've met people who have driven the length of the Baja peninsula and more on veggie oil).

Not all air travel is equal. Propeller driven aircraft are more fuel efficient albeit slower, and don't give off nitrous oxide and water vapour at high altitudes. Perhaps we could also go back to dirigibles. There is a move towards video-conferencing rather than face to face meetings too. As for justifying air travel in general, if you really had to go from Vancouver to Halifax, could you go by train at a reasonable price and would you have the time?

Fidel wrote:

If we had a modern rail system, people could travel from Toronto to Montreal in a couple of hours. Capitalism doesnt work without an underlying public infrastructure, educated people or skilled workers. Ideologues thought they could defund those things and it not affect the economy, but they were wrong.

As opposed to 6 hours by car and two or three hours even before you board the plane. No economic system can work without skilled workers, educated people and public infrastructure, even one used by nomadic gatherer-hunters (the skilled work, educational requirements and infrastructure are much different of course).

Policywonk wrote:

Fidel wrote:

If we had a modern rail system, people could travel from Toronto to Montreal in a couple of hours. Capitalism doesnt work without an underlying public infrastructure, educated people or skilled workers. Ideologues thought they could defund those things and it not affect the economy, but they were wrong.

As opposed to 6 hours by car and two or three hours even before you board the plane. No economic system can work without skilled workers, educated people and public infrastructure, even one used by nomadic gatherer-hunters (the skilled work, educational requirements and infrastructure are much different of course).

Apparently our European cousins learned double entry accountancy from an order of Crusaders about a thousand years ago. It led to proliferation of Venetian Republic with a large part of their trade coming from the Muslim world.

But at some point our ideologues decided governments should treat spending on infrastructure and people as expenditures rather than investments retaining value throughout the life of the thing or person. Clean air and water were taken for granted for centuries of industrialist expansions, and went largely unnaccounted for by governments, industrialists, as well as economists. Social and environmental capital are relatively new concepts, or at least new for the modern western world. I think indigenous people have a traditional high regard for nature and all its dependents.

I am not bickering, I would be happy with both.  A cap and a carbon tax. I do not want to wait 3 to 5 years for a carbon tax replacement that might not come or work effectively when it does. The carbon tax provides many millions of dollars right now that the ndp can use to promote green initiaves next month if they win.

If the incoming government has a problem with revinue neutral, they can change it with a law or two.

Sorry Jerry, i am a rotten speller.

Brian

To put it to rest let's see "a full accounting of the gas tax to date" and see what's happened to it?

Anybody know where to find this information current?

Bubbles wrote:

A few days ago I read an article that predicted that  our use of the internet will surpass airtravel in greenhouse gas production. Soon we might have to make it mandatory that if you buy a computer a 120 watt installed solar panel or wind mill will have to be part of the deal. It would be another approach to developing alternative energy sources. Require installed non fossil and non-nuclear alternative energy sources for all new energy consuming products.

Or pay a bit tax for internet usage. Although I have problems with taxing information.

This just in:

Two top ecologists to vote for NDP.

Although, when you look at the quotes, it really sounds like an endorsement for BC-STV.

Quote:

Biologist Alexandra Morton and ecologist Bill Rees plan to vote for the New Democratic Party in next week's provincial election.

"I personally have always voted Green. But I feel partly responsible for Gordon Campbell getting in these last two elections, and so I'm voting for the NDP," Morton told a Vancouver press conference this morning.

"I'm absolutely with the Greens philosophically. On the other hand, I probably will vote strategically to avoid seeing the Campbell government return," agreed Rees, the UBC professor who devised the "ecological footprint" concept.

Strategic voting.  Yay.

.

BC will survive another 4 years of Gordo, though it may be that he won't last that long.  A criminal conviction may be in his future unless his friends can bury the corruption deep enough.

I don't know how to read these tea leaves yet, but I voted at 9:30 this morning and already two dozen had voted in this little village.  I hear that in Campbell River they were lining up at the early polls.

Some may find this of interest:

The List—the BC Liberal record—love it or hate it

From Jerry's link:

Is it time for somebody else to be at the helm?

**Sold BC Rail in a doubtful deal for much less than it was
worth;

**Failed to hold regular legislative sessions;

*Privatized power generation and stopped development by BC
Hydro;

*Privatized BC Ferries, asset stripped, and froze subsidy so
fares went up;

*Created Translink, then took it away from local control;

*Privatized hospital cleaning and broke HEU contract, lost
case in court;

*Reduced number of residential care beds for seniors;

*Awarded part of BC Hydro to Accenture;

*Large financial overrun on Vancouver Convention Centre;

*Large salary raises to MLAs, Cabinet, Premier, politically
appointed senior civil servants;

* Enacted election Gag Law, struck down in courts;

*Signed Trade Investment Labour Mobility Agreement with
Alberta, exposing local legislation and policies to attack;

*Allowed export of raw logs;

*Increased post secondary fees, decreased grants;

*Unsuccessfully promoted the GSX pipeline and the Duke
Point generation plant and

*Eventually ran high tension powerline through Tsawwassen
and then had to purchase all the houses along it to be sold at a loss;

*Reduced the Ministry of Environment;

*Reduced the number of park rangers, and cut back the days some parks are open;

*Permitted private lodges in public parks;

*Reduced water testing requirements;

*Unknown financial overrun on Sea-to-Sky highway, plus environmental damage;

Excessive executive salaries to BC Rail, BC Ferries;

Sold fast ferries without considering alternative uses;

Promoted P3 for Port Mann bridge, then had to back out and
provincially fund it;

Ignored freedom of information laws;

Failed to enforce lobbying legislation;

Poor budgeting and financial management for Olympics;

Allowed Canada Line to change contract, tear up Cambie Street;

Bill 30 stops municipal govts from rezoning run-of-river sites;

Significant Projects Streamlining Act gives draconian powers to the Province;

Allowed forest lands to be made available for suburban and resort development;

Private forest lands deregulated (PMFL);

Cut funding to school boards;

Deregulated private post-secondary education;

Privatized BC health records with Maximus; and

Sold BC Gas to Terasen

An amazing list that shows the deep trouble BC is in, at least one BC newspaper is credible enough to declare openly the  travesty happeing in BC. As opposed to being part of the anti-democracy movement of Canwest Global and Jimmy's media.

Hope runs deep I suppose, but it won't happen, too many cards in play, and too much to lose for too many who are in power in BC, at every level.

Someone really should write a tell all book, after doing some investigative journalism, I can't publically,  as I have a pesky signed life-time non-disclosure agreement.

Canwest and the Jimmy P media certainly won't be exposing him, nor will the police forces do any deep digging unless forced to by public opinion, they are all members of the CoC and the Rotary Clubs.

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090507.wbcelectione... urge BCers to "vote strategically" on May 12[/u][/color][/url]

Quote:

Five leading conservationists and environmental scientists said yesterday that British Columbia watersheds are threatened by provincial government policies, and they urged the public to "vote strategically" in next week's election.

They were reluctant to endorse any specific party, but their pointed criticisms of policies introduced by the Liberals indicated [b]they think a vote for the NDP would be in the best interest of the environment[/b].

"When you see five people of this calibre gathered together to raise the alarm, you have to pay attention," said Craig Orr, who moderated a group news conference.

Making statements were Mark Angelo, chairman of the Rivers Institute at B.C. Institute of Technology; Elaine Golds, a biochemist; William Rees, a professor at the University of British Columbia; Alexandra Morton, a leading salmon researcher who has been campaigning against salmon farms; and Vicky Husband, a senior environmental advocate.

Thanks munroe, they certainly do, as they actually, you know, "care about the environment" as opposed to lining their pockets.

As I have stated repeatedly here, that the Green Party and Berman's stance on supporting  private runs of the rivers and lakes, indicate quite clearly how environmentally unfriendly they are, and that their purposes are not environmental purposes at all.

Quote:

Organizations and community groups from across the province have joined forces in a united front of opposition to the so-called "run of the river" private power projects or IPPs. Much has been made about the divide among environmental groups on the issue but grassroots opposition is very strong throughout BC communities. A broad spectrum of community groups, representatives and environmental organizations have signed on to a statement of unity which calls for a "green energy policy by promoting a vision of a sustainable community that includes democracy, accountability, conservation and community based public power."

The diverse list of supporter from across BC shows the need to both protect the environment and support democratic public control of sustainable power generation. Organizers expect the list to grow significantly as the public continues to learn more about negative implications of these projects.

"The run-of-river projects should more aptly be called 'ruin-of-river'," says Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and Senior Advisor on Water to the President of the United Nations General Assembly. "Granting hundreds of multi decade contracts and 40 year water licenses to private corporations to divert rivers and run roughshod over BC's pristine wilderness simply cannot be called 'green'."

Moreover, as far as I can see the repeated whining about the  useless carbon tax, can only be seen as an attempt to  obscure, the most environmentally unfriendly activity ever observed in BC.

Yes it certainly is mind boggling.

Norm Lorenz, former Reform candidate that stated in the 1996? election, that "no where else on earth could you get an education on Indians and lesbians, like you could at UNBC", has a license for private hydro transmission, guess he got his pay off for being a good little reformatory. He now gets to own a river system, sexist bigoted ass hat that he is.

Moreover one should look at Canadian Power Corp, officers and executive to see who is owning what in the BC private energy drive. Valisa Energy which holds several, is a subsiduary of Can Power corp. One can also see ties to the BC Green Party's Sterk and Kettlewell. As it seems likely kettlewell went to school with some at York U.

Here are a few:

Dennis M. Erker – Board Chair

Mr.Erker is a Director and Managing Partner with Fairley Erker Advisory Group, private estate planning and insurance consultants.  Mr. Erker is a Director of Corus Entertainment Inc., a Director of First Canadian Insurance Company and Millennium Insurance Company and serves as a Director of several charitable organizations.  He was appointed an Honorary Colonel of the Loyal Edmonton Regiment, has served as Chair of the Board for the Edmonton Eskimos, Governor of the CFL, and Director of the Workers’ Compensation Board – Alberta, The Citadel Theatre and the Alberta Securities Commission.  Mr. Erker is a graduate of the Institute of Corporate Directors.

Ralph Klein

Mr. Klein has been a senior business advisor at the law firm Borden Ladner Gervais LLP since 2006. From 1992 through 2006, Mr. Klein served as the Premier of Alberta. Mr. Klein served as Minister of Environment from 1989 to 1992, Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs in 1992 and as Minister of Economic Development and Tourism 1993.  Mr. Klein has more than 30 years in public service, establishing him as a strong business leader with unique insights with a broad business knowledge.

Douglas Patriquin - Audit Committee Chair

Dr.Patriquin, an economist, is a consultant focusing on business strategy, finance and marketing.  He is Head of Institutional Development at CPCS Transcom Limited, an international consulting firm specializing in commercialization of infrastructure, and was formerly president of a federal crown corporation.  Dr. Patriquin is currently the Chair of our Audit Committee and a Member of our Human Resources Committee.

David J. Stenason – Interim HR Committee Chair

Mr. Stenason is a Partner and Director of MacDougall Investment Counsel Inc., a private investment counselling company he helped found in 2002. Mr. Stenason is also a director of Whitemud Resources Inc., a public company. Prior to 2002, Mr. Stenason held the position of Director, Oil & Gas Equity Research at Scotia Capital Inc., an investment dealer from 1998 to 2002.  Mr. Stenason held senior financial positions with Gordon Capital, Inc., Wood Gundy Inc. (now CIBC World Markets), Levesque Beaubien Inc. (now National Bank Financial), and Gulf Canada Ltd. Mr. Stenason is presently the interim Chair of the Human Resources Committee and a member of the Audit Committee.

Richard Ballantyne

Mr.Ballantyne, a professional engineer in Alberta and British Columbia, is the President of Timple Consulting. From 2002 to 2005 he was President of Terasen Pipelines, the oil pipeline unit of Terasen Inc., where he led a major expansion of the business through new construction and acquisition.   He is a Certified Director with the Institute of Corporate Directors.

http://www.canhydro.com/index.php/EN/About_Us/Board_of_Directors.html

So, now we are going to Ralph Klein and his boys descimating BC too! Good job Gordo!

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090509.wbcelectionh... throws support behind carbon tax[/u][/color][/url]

Quote:

Former NDP premier Mike Harcourt has joined the movement lobbying for a carbon tax in the midst of an election campaign, arguing the tax will be part of the future despite an NDP commitment to kill it if the party wins next Tuesday.

Mr. Harcourt, the premier from 1991 to 1996, has signed an op-ed piece published today on globeandmail.com, along with such luminaries as environmentalist David Suzuki, that calls for a carbon tax and cap-and-trade system working in conjunction to spur innovation and clean-energy solutions.

"The carbon tax and cap-and-trade system should cover all of B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions and should be enhanced over time to enable B.C. to achieve or surpass its legislated emissions target," reads the article, also co-signed by the mayors of North Vancouver, Dawson Creek, Whistler, Kelowna and Castlegar.

Quote:

Berman and her influential allies want us to believe that only by harnessing renewable "green" energy can we reduce global warming. And that the time for debate is past; now we must just do it.

I'm one long-time environmentalist who couldn't disagree more.

As one of the founders of Greenpeace International, EcoJustice, Smart Growth BC, the Dogwood Initiative, and other B.C. groups, I embrace real solutions to our environmental challenges, including climate change, and the movement to make them happen.

But in pressing for run-of-river, Berman and allies are only accelerating us down a doomed path that will destroy precious natural ecologies in British Columbia without making any significant dent in global warming, and undermine the work of many environmentalists in the process.

There is a far better course of action, however, that would not divide environmentalists but excite them and motivate the larger citizenry.

PowerUp? No thanks.

PowerDown? Sign me up!

Let me explain.

Being opposed to the carbon tax was in the best interest of the environment. How the NDP campaign opposed it was a mistake. Those who opposed the NDP because of this, whether they realize it or not, were acting against the best interest of the environment.

The only way to make the carbon tax fair is to immediately increase it to the full cost of cleaning up any damage done by using carbon fuel, anything less is merely fooling the public and contributing to environmental degradation.

What Carole should be advocating, and what should be party policy is to drop both the carbon tax and cap and trade ideas and go straight for the only thing that will make a difference, cutting the available supply of carbon fuel directly through limits on extracting, refining and importing.

Yesterday Will Horter praised the selection of Rob Fleming as Environment critic. If Will and those with him had been thinking straight six weeks ago we might now have Rob Fleming as Minister of Environment, although I doubt that the carbon tax issue hurt the NDP very much, all things considered.

Someone asked me where is the NDP's credibility given their apparent 180 turn.  I ask where is anyone's credibility in this. The Libs put forward a scam disguised as an environmental measure. The NDP opposed the scam using the wrong reasons, and some in the environmental community suspended their critical thinking and sucked up to the Libs.

First party to promise to immediately end financial support for coal and oil and gas operations, limit extraction, processing and importation, raise royalties on carbon minerals to cover the full environmental and social cost of carbon, and to reverse growth should get the support of the environmental community.

No one promises that? Then the EC should keep pounding them to do so and refuse to cooperate with anyone that does not.

The arguments that we can't do this, or the system won't allow it yet, yadda, yadda, are cop outs.

mybabble wrote:

I'm not paying to much attention to what is being said but for those into the carbon tax they are really going to be happy because the Federal Government is going to put a carbon tax in place also.  Certainly something to cheer about two carbon taxes and a topic of much controversy.   I understand the NDP are looking at the tax and I like that they are listening but unfortunately its premature given economy is in a recession and rising gas prices are forcing many to stay home and get tanked.  As Obama says No to Alberta Oil and an environmental disaster in the making. 

The federal Conservatives and NDP looking at a carbon tax? What are you basing this on?

"In fact, if Carole had been thinking straight six months ago, she would have made this announcement in Dec 2008, and Rob would likely be in Cabinet today."

Were the NDP polling ahead of the Liberals before their oppositon to the carbon tax?  No, they weren't.  Did NDP popularity go up when they opposed the tax?  Yes, it did.

So on what basis is one to believe that if they had supported the tax they would now be in power?