The triumph of the Conservative-NDP axis of climate change dimwits

Really, Stephen?

You came back to post this??

Again, I simply do not understand why a tax that was introduced when oil was at $140/bbl is supposed to be a disincentive when oil drops to $40.  And if it isn't, then how does that reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

ottawaobserver wrote:

Again, I simply do not understand why a tax that was introduced when oil was at $140/bbl is supposed to be a disincentive when oil drops to $40.

So what's your suggestion?

I know, I know, you're going to say "cap-and-trade" because that's what Jack Layton has set his mind on and therefore the debate is settled.  But the same issues remain.  Why would a cap set when emissions were in demand a year or so ago (people were spending, manufacturing was doing alright) be a disincentive when we hit a recession and suddenly there's more than enough emissions credits to go around (factories are shuttered, people are saving)?  Cap-and-trade would see the same cycles as oil prices and the carbon tax, so you're complaint doesn't really stand up.

Carbon tax is more or less just as good as cap-and-trade.  More importantly, it's infinitely better than nothing - which is what the NDP seems to be aiming for if it can't get its way.

Stephen Gordon wrote:

Scott Piatkowski wrote:

Could it be that New Democrats have figured out that a carbon tax is not the best way to tackle climate change (as opposed to the Conservatives, who really don't believe that climate change exists)?

But, don't trouble yourself with such questions. It might get in the way of your knee-jerk anti-NDP labelling spree.

Oh, I've troubled myself with them. But until the NDP actually admits that a cap-and-trade policy will affect consumers in pretty much the exact same way as a carbon tax will, and comes up with a way of protecting low-income households from those costs, then they are part of the Axis of Dimwits.

It's called policy analysis, Scott. You guys might want to try it sometime.

You might want to acknowlege that carbon-pricing mechanisms need complementary policies in order to promote alternatives. Such as the fair pricing and access laws that have made germany a leader in renewable energy.

I'm sorry, Stephen, but I could never vote for the Liberals because theyre promising to do something or another. That party sold Canada's environment to Exxon-Imperial and friends with the sssssssssstupidest trade deal in the history of the planet. They were either really stupid or on the take, one or the other.  

Another thing that's really stupid is the fact that East of Ottawa, theyre importing 90% of their oil.

How does a carbon tax work in a few years when conventional reserves of oil and gas are depleted? Because, I dont think a carbon tax on banana exports will work in Canada at that point. DAY-O!

Meanwhile the Liberals under Ignatieff have flat out rejected the Carbon Tax, so maybe ou should lurk on a Liberal blog and complain to them about it.

Let me get this straight.

A telephone survey in today's society where 90% (estimated) of those under the age of 25 use cell phones that aren't listed in phone books, thus slanting the results towards older people, is supposed to speak for all Canadians?

I really should not grace your crap with a reply- as if it had some substance to it.

But I'm weak.

Stephen Gordon wrote:

Bravo, you short-sighted hacks brave militants of the CPC and the NDP! Thanks to your unstinting efforts, Canadians now believe that climate change is someone else's responsibility. Because of you, no serious greenhouse gas policy - that is, one that will actually influence how people behave - will be implemented for at least a generation.

In that recent multi-threaded discussion I already referred, I gave a thoughtful, non-partisan and brief enough analysis of why carbon pricing is difficult for any party in North America... and the fertile grounds for political cowardice that raises. [Sidenote: that would be among the things in these discussions on climate change politics I've been complimented on by people who did not agree with me. Wouldn't happen with you Gordon.]

It is very clear that this was, and will continue to be, a challenge for people committed to raising awareness among the public.

Ad the BC NDP has not helped. But what a load of crap hubris: "Because of you, no serious greenhouse gas policy will be implemented for at least a generation."

Even the Harper crew is not going to have anything like that effect. We're not ready to push them aside yet, and time is being lost... months matter, but thats politics and thats life... and we will beat them in the near enough future.

The other side of the hubris is the non-distribution of blame. Campbell and company's crass play of politics is beyond being not helpful. And if Dion hadn't been such a loser we'd be stuck with the Trojan Horse in his plan- another product of chicken shit political dodges on the issue.

And I don't think David Suzuki is being helpful on this either. I disavow him and the Foundations as leaders when it comes to this. But thats more than a bit different: despite what many on this board say, I don't question their commitment and still see the differences wityh them as an unfortunate political agreement still within the bounds of 'en famille'.

But you Gordon- there's no evidence you have any commitment to this beyond being a hack who has chosen your side, and who will use anything, and avoid anything, in service to that.

The thread title named by remind that I referred to above was:

Privatization of rivers, the carbon tax, and the war between environmentalists and those who pretend they are

And by the time oldgoat commented, it was in the successor thread: 

"First, re: the thread title, one can, up to a point, editorialize within the body of a thread title.  Up to a point.  whether or not I agree with it, I don't think the previous incarnation offends any policies which would override freedom of expression. (eta: I just gave that a bit of thought, and titles can border on trolling, so lets leave this as is.)"

Thanks old goat, and at least my thread title was accurate, as to what is going on in BC in respect to environmentalists, and those who pretend they are.

And now, a few weeks after I made that thread title commentary, there is more than enough public proof that attests to this reality, as such the addition of your  bordering on trolling comment was not appreciated, though I ignored it at the time, realizing that you would have no way of knowing back east, what exactly was going on out here in the environmental movement, until more information supporting my statement started to become public.  Which of course it now has.

Whereas as this thread title, is at best spurious and its refernces to Hitler's Germany are a bit beyond the pale. Though having said that, I just found it hilarious.

Me too.

When I go over the top, I'm always right.

And being right puts you on the side of universal harmony.

The wrong people go to hell.

I mean, the people who are wrong go to hell.

Maybe this thread should be moved to the theology section.

And mabe a slight name change while we are at it:

The triumph of the Conservative-NDP axis for universal harmonic dissonance

I believe no political party is going to bring in a policy that will increase the costs of driving, heating and running a family based on the consumption of carbon.  It is political suicide.  Any form of tax whether direct (carbon tax) or indirect (cap and trade) will be borne by the end consumer.  Every aspect of one's life will see an increased cost with absolutely no way to offset that cost.  Sure you can spout about alternatives, efficiencies etc.  Those all require significant capital outlays.  If a family see's their costs increase by 10% right now, where will they get the thousands of dollars to make the structural changes to reduce their carbon footprint.  Tax incentives and grants still require the intial funds to do the changes and even after the tax breaks and grants there is still ahuge difference to the family's wallet.  All you have to do is look at the cost of groceries between say Ont. and NWT.  Now add the cost of carbon, people will change their lifestyle, but not in a positive way.  The changes required will take a generation to implement, it will not happen over a period of less than 5 years.

This BS thread brings up a point, that is bugging me. The focus on a notion that "climate change" is the only environmental issue that there ever was and is, which requires actioning.

It has so taken over people's conceptual frameworks, that they are not even looking real and immediate environmental damages going on other than GHG emissions. Really, I would say good slight of hand, is what is going on. Though by saying this I am not diminishing the need for immediate reduced emissions, either.

If; we have no potable drinking water within 10 years, cannot afford to have hydro and thus freeze to death within 2 years, we have no wild fish stocks to speak of within 10 years,  we have continued and immediate on going destruction of wildlife habitats, we continue to dump plastics into the oceans and lands, thus destroying carbon sinks in an immediate way as well pollute of our food production means, we continue shoving cancerous toxins into our evironment and ourselves, we continue to exploit peoples through colonialist activities and destroy their water and lands when we do so,  then not being able to breath 100 years from now is not going to matter one witt. Everyone and everything, will be dead long before then anyway.

Stephen Gordon wrote:

Oh, I've troubled myself with them. But until the NDP actually admits that a cap-and-trade policy will affect consumers in pretty much the exact same way as a carbon tax will, and comes up with a way of protecting low-income households from those costs, then they are part of the Axis of Dimwits.

It's called policy analysis, Scott. You guys might want to try it sometime.

I used to like reading Stephen Gordon's analysis and his blog. But now, I don't even bother. He exemplifies everything that's wrong with economics being an academic discipline whose practitioners have little understanding of reality and politics.

For example, he is right by stating that a cap-and-trade system and a carbon tax will theoretically have the same effects in the economy and on the environment, but he doesn't understand or acknowledge that in practice, they end up having very different results.

If your goal is to limit and reduce carbon emissions, a cap-and-trade system is superior in practice because it establishes a hard ceiling, from which to start from. This hard ceiling decreases as emission permits are taken away from the carbon market exchange. With a carbon tax, you set a tax rate by the tonne which cannot be too high because politically, it remains a tax. Then, you pray that the behaviour of people will change. And it might not change until way past the level of emissions that would have been the ceiling under a cap and trade.

The acid rain has been tackled relatively fast with a cap-and-trade scheme. There is no way it would have been addressed that quickly with a SO3 tax, to timidly change behaviour...

Indeed, the evidence in BC no way suggests that the carbon tax had any significant role to play on behaviour. But Stephen prefers to rely on the well-drawn graphs and charts on his blog to demonstrate that carbon tax and cap-and-trade have the theroretical same impact on carbon emissions. But they don't politically. A carbon tax is a tough sell politically, especially at levels where it would make behavioural change significant. A hard cap and trade system can be challenging to implement, but as Europe and the U.S. are moving in that direction, we can expect that implementation will be smoother.

As for protecting low-income households, a carbon tax will affect them as much as a cap-and-trade. There should be measures to address that in a way that won't eliminate the hypothetical behavioral you hope for in a carbon tax. The Dion carbon tax was too heavily slanted towards income tax reductions (reductions that would have benefitted more well-off households anyways). I'm all in favour of targetted measures for low-income households, and they will be necessary for bothe a cap-and-trade and a carbon tax. But most of the extra revenues from auctioning or a carbon tax has to fund the transition towards green energy alternatives.

Oh! And that last point from Stephen (about low-income households) has nothing to do with his opening post, which is all about bashing the NDP for not shutting up, and letting Liberals in BC and the Canada go forward with a carbon tax.

thanks wrote:

on carbon tax vs. cap and trade:

While there are still no real controls on global finance, and while players can manipulate prices, commodity exchanges, and currencies, the practice of submitting environmental 'bads' and 'goods' to a pricing regime is to put environmental policy in the hands of those who crashed the economy. 

Carbon pricing might work if there were international financial and currency controls in the context of a democratized system, but these controls and this context does not currently exist. 

There are problems with carbon trading too, but at least emissions can be actually measured and not disappear with relatively meaningless dollar signs into the ether of financial bubbles. 

And, as noted above, at least with a carbon cap there is something hard.

I think the problems with global finance suggests carbon tax should be used over cap and trade, because there would be a whole lot less trading going on. With cap and trade I suspect there would be more effort put into making a quick buck trading credits around then trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in the end people would start demanding more credits be released to old widows to heat thier poorly insulated homes because speculators had driven up the price.

With a carbon tax it is a simple and strieght forward tax applied where fossil fuels are exacted or imported.

on carbon tax vs. cap and trade:

While there are still no real controls on global finance, and while players can manipulate prices, commodity exchanges, and currencies, the practice of submitting environmental 'bads' and 'goods' to a pricing regime is to put environmental policy in the hands of those who crashed the economy. 

Carbon pricing might work if there were international financial and currency controls in the context of a democratized system, but these controls and this context do not currently exist. 

There are problems with carbon trading too, but at least emissions can be actually measured and not disappear with relatively meaningless dollar signs into the ether of financial bubbles. 

Carbon trades enter the exchanges too, but at least more directly, without the carbon price variable.  Thus, the trades would be somewhat more amenable to tracking and accountability.

And, as noted above, at least with a carbon cap there is something hard.

Lasker wrote:

 

Be there as it may, can you name a single environmental issue:

(1) which has consequences that are demonstrated to be as dramatic for human life on this planet;

...

(Clipped for simplicity). That's a fair point, but focussing on climate change to the exclusion of all these other issues - as some of these ENGOs seem to be doing - increases the risk that we are going to have to clean up other messes down the road. Giving Gordon Campbell a pass on fish farms, on offshore oil, on species at risk legislation, on the massive new hydro projects, all because of a tiny carbon tax that will likely have no impact, just seems foolish to me.

Carbon pricing is good, but only carbon pricing when it is fair, and only if it is part of a much larger, more comprehensive climate change policy that includes incentives to change behaviors. And only still if it isn't offset by a whole wash of other programs which are going to make other problems worse.

Campbell's carbon tax is a shiny bauble meant to distract BC voters away from his real environmental record.

D'oC, I edited my post before seeing your comment.  the addition clarifies one aspect that relates to your comment, i think. another element is that fossil fuel corporations and their financiers can speculate on fossil fuel prices, input prices, distribution prices, etc., and make a carbon tax irrelevant to their operations.  they can also speculate on competitors valuations, or the home base currencies of various countries in the supply chain.  they can hedge and leverage ensuing debt, and play all the other games that make what seems like a straight-forward dollar figure into anything-but.  and untrackable.  you've seen what's happened to dollars in financial bubbles?  no?  neither have i.

Perhaps, by turning many Canadian socialists into opponents of a carbon tax on general principle (threads on babble are presumably evidence enough that some Canadian socialists are dead set against carbon pricing), the BC government really has done some harm to the cause. I see now that some Canadian socialists are even denying that climate change should be a major issue. That's rather sad. Thread titles like this one will get the NDP-is-always-right crowd even more dead set against addressing the very real issues, though, so this thread is pretty counter-productive really. Maybe best to keep silent on the issues and hope that once the BC election is over, NDP members will go back to pushing for a double-pronged attack (carbon pricing plus cap-and-trade). It's pretty clear that Canada's hyper-partisan political system has made action on climate change less likely.... since I see no evidence that any party has taken its stance based on anything other than partisan political considerations.

Ze, you did nothing more than put words into people's mouth, in order to  push your nonsense.

It hasn't been done, and will not be done, with a constant over shadowing. And again I repeat the urgency is just as great as with GHG's.

And here, really we are pretending that what is being done with GHG's is actually being done anyway, when it isn't.

Canadians are always in favour of taxes they themselves do not have to pay...

remind wrote:

I am saying the accumulation of the other environmental concerns on a group basis, outweigh that of climate change, I suppose. Though I am not sure, considering about dwarfing, because if we take into consideration  all the diseases that kill us by the millions, because our immune systems are toast because of the toxins in our environment, and not just cancer,  then it would seem to me to be close ratios to  those who will be displaced from the low laying countries when/if seas raise. And all those auto-immune and disease rates and cancer rates are climbing and climbing every year too and will continue.

Climate change will exacerbate many other environmental threats, including air quality, water quality and disease rates. If we can't address climate change, we will not be able to address these other concerns adequately.

Uncle John wrote:

Canadians are always in favour of taxes they themselves do not have to

Canada is middle of the OECD pack when it comes to overall taxation as a percentage of GDP. We're below the OECD average, and well below the EU-15 average. And corporate taxes have never been lower, especially on exports of Canada's fossil fuels and other energy supplies.

Canada represents about 2% of global GHG emissions. But we're killing the environment so the most unsustainable economy in the world next door is able to consume more and more cheap Canadian fossil fuels. That's the problem our bought off environmentalists and politicos refuse to acknowledge. Capitalists never want to sell less of their product, in this case fossil fuels. Therefore, capitalists and their paid mouthpieces are part of the problem, and probably the largest problem standing in the way of real solutions to dangerous climate change. Theyre dangerous idiots themselves, and theyre the ones running the show  not environmentalists.