Half shift

Charles and others

Those who suggest there are no targets in the Liberal proposal should look at p.16:

“We believe that our target should be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. This should be increased to at least 25 per cent if other countries take on comparable efforts. This is in line with what the science tells us we need to do. We must achieve absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and we must begin today.”

This thinly-veiled attempt to redistribute the wealth of western Canada into the pockets of Quebec and Ontario voters (which, to the Liberal mindset, is where it rightly belongs) will not go unnoticed. Fanning the flames of western alienation, truly a Liberal tradition.

ESJ,
That sounds awfully like past Liberal promises on Kyoto, and we all know what happened there–30% above 1990 levels.

“We believe…this should…if other countries…”

Where do they spell out the number of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions reductions, by year.

Mr.Learmonth,

You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say “there are no targets” and when this is shown to be wrong change your line to “ahh, well how did that work last time?”

If you want to spout Conservative talking points then that is fair enough. If you want to have a substantive exchange about today and how we can move forward, well then welcome aboard.

Where are the year over year targets? Are you serious? The Government’s widely ridiculed plan does not provide these. Major environmental groups do not call for annual numbers. Nobody who looks at this topic does that.

The general scientific consensus is 1) 20% or more by 2002 and 2) reductions below 1990.

In think Andrew has said it best as this is not a plan but really an election platform, budget and large government program all rolled into one. Of course this does not surprise me because that is always the liberal solution to any given problem -setup another government program. I give Dion major cudos for such as it does appeal to a certain shallow first glance that makes me feel happy sort of response however as you drill down and as usual with liberal plans it fails to make any serious dent in the problem and major promises will be broken – I love the ” Promise ” gas prices will not increase – hmmm wait a sec aren’t large trucks diesel and don’t these diesel trucks deliver the gas to the stations and since diesel will be carbon taxed then doesn’t that mean the cost of delivery will go up … hmmm I wonder do you think that this will be passed on to joe canuck

Andrew, you are a sham. There are many independent experts saying the plan is revenue neutral. For you to say, “tax cuts …to …….. the bottom tax brackets, … will do the least good — in terms of raising productivity,” is a totally irresponsible comment; especially when you couple it with comments on how the rich need a tax break. Your thinking that only the wealthy can be productive is inexcusable. Maybe we should start talking about social and economic justice; something I doubt you have ever given much consideration to.
You sound like a whiner who just might have to start taking responsibility for a consumptive lifestyle.

“Andrew, you are a sham.”

Andrew doesn’t need my help defending himself, but…he’s not exactly wrong about the productivity thing. Unfortunately that’s because the only generally agreed upon measures of productivity are based on income or GDP output per hours worked, which is frankly not a very useful concept. By this definition the average NHL hockey player is 5 times as productive as a Supreme Court Justice, and – well, I don’t know how much Andrew makes or works.

This is another post for another day. More to the point for today, I don’t think these criticisms (revenue non-neutrality, wrong focus from a productivity standpoint) will reasonate with Canadians who aren’t obsessed with precise interpretations of the minutiae of tax policy and macroeconomic.

That carbon emissions must be priced and taxed somehow is beyond doubt. But in the wake of Dion’s presentation, Canadians are wondering whether the Liberal leader, who cannot even balance his own chequebook, according to his wife, is the right man to be in charge of a carbon tax. The economy, after all, is like an organism and therefore utterly unpredictable. Dion’s own plan contains too many imponderabilities and is heavy on wishful thinking, rather than actual detailed calculations and computations. For example, Dion has neglected to make any allowances for the people of British Columbia, who will face their own provincial carbon tax starting this summer. Will they be taxed twice? If not, will they still be eligible for the income-tax shift under the federal program even if the province has opted out of it?

The cuts to income tax may look promising at first, but at closer inspection, it is plain to see that there is not enough of a safety margin built into Dion’s plan that would protect taxpayers and consumers from unexpected consequences – which always occur, as surely as the sun rises in the east. Under his tax plan, the bottom income-tax bracket would be cut from 15% to 13.5%, with the remaining brackets being reduced by 1% each, which is not a lot. Meanwhile, the Green Party has come up with a more reasonable plan, which would apply a rate of 15% to all incomes under $37,000, thus giving hardworking Canadians more of a tax break than they would see under Dion’s program.

The Green Party is proposing a Green Tax Shift that comes much closer to the ideal solution, which Dion has ignored completely: It is probably safe to price carbon at $40 a tonne right from the start, instead of waiting for four years. But in return, the income-tax system should be switched to a flat tax, as the one envisaged by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Such a flat tax would come with a 15% rate for all incomes below $80,000 and 25% for anything above that amount – the threshold of $80,000 alone demonstrates that the authors of that plan have a more accurate reading of the current circumstances taxpayers find themselves in in Canada than all the politicians combined.

A carbon tax of $40 per tonne of emission coupled with a 15%-25% flat tax built around a threshold of $80,000 would work best – for the economy and the environment. This way, taxpayers would have a sufficient safety net in case the carbon tax produces unforeseen side effects in the economy (such as exorbitant inflation, reduced competitiveness of Canadian companies, etc.).

As of now, the Green Party seems to be the only party that “gets it”. The Liberals are trying to move in the right direction, but as usual, have botched it before they have even started. The Conservatives call it a crazy plan, but have failed to table anything useful themselves – and they ignore the fact that many prominent conservatives, like David Frum, are in full support of a carbon tax. And the NDP is also railing against the carbon tax plan.

On the sidelines of the general debate, there have been critical voices out of Alberta, such as Alberta’s finance minister Iris Evans, saying that a carbon tax would be detrimental to Alberta and that it would unfairly discriminate against the province. This is not quite accurate, because the purpose of a carbon tax is to reduce the use and production of carbon, and while, say, Québec would not see a carbon tax on its environmentally-friendly hydropower, there is no discrimination as such. A carbon tax will go wherever there are carbon emissions, and if Alberta happens to be such a place, then naturally the tax will apply there more so than in other jurisdictions with less carbon output.

However, since Albertans would be hardest hit by a carbon tax, not only at the level of individual consumers and taxpayers but also across its entire economy, they should be eligible for much more substantial tax cuts and breaks than the rest of the country – if Dion’s plan came to fruition, that is. No such “special treatment” would be necessary if the carbon tax were introduced in connection with the flat tax of 15% and 25% as described above.

Canadians will have to do a lot of reading in order to form an educated opinion about the carbon tax plan. But as things stand right now, and if Canadians actually do their “homework”, instead of merely listening to their politicians (always the wrong thing to do), they will conclude that if a carbon tax had to be swallowed somehow, of all the plans currently out there in circulation the plan of the Green Party would make a lot more sense than what Dion has tossed to the masses in the hopes of putting the Liberals back in power.

How many times do we have to say,”CO2 is NOT pollution!” Boudica, please note, as you keep repeating the fallacy. Catalytic converters were put in cars so they would mostly only emit H2O and CO2 through their exhausts, which scientists then, having not been politicized, realized were not pollutants. Carbon taxes are a cash and power grab with no scientific basis. Greenhouses routinely push their CO2 levels up to 1000 parts per million (the ‘free’ atmosphere is about 389 ppm) so plants will grow better. The more CO2 for the plants, the more oxygen is freed for us to breath. Repeat after me: “The sun drives the climate, not a trace gas”. CO2 is a bureaucrat’s dream – an invisible trace gas that can put people on a guilt trip and be taxed. Get rid of real pollution, not an imaginary one! Junk science is not a basis for public policy.

I have read Mr Coyn’s blog and the first paragraph say it all. Then I read the comments that followed . To me most of these seem to be written by self proclaimed experts on science and tax to the same extent as Mr Dion explaining his carbon tax policy which to put it mildly was educated incoherence. A tax is so easy to inflict but to put the proceeds in the hands of politicians to disperse is like pouring petrol on a fire with the same final result.As Mr coyn says the first part of the tax policy MAY be OK.but from then on it falls into a total lack of comprehension

let the conspiracy theories begin

The conclusion of a report by the British TaxPayer’s Alliance watchdog, states that “In many cases, individual green taxes and charges are failing to meet their objectives, are set at a level in excess of that needed to meet the social cost of CO2 emissions, and are causing serious harm to areas of the country and industries least able to cope.” The study found that the social cost of Britain’s entire output of CO2 was £11.7 billion in 2005 but in the same year, the total net burden of green taxes and charges was £21.9 billion. Meaning that even two years ago taxes were £10.2 billion in excess of the level agreed to meet the Britain’s CO2 emissions. The Alliance calculates this excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain.”We need more honesty about the costs of extra green taxes when British taxpayers already pay some of the highest pollution charges in the world,” said Matthew Elliott of the TaxPayers’ Alliance.
The report also reveals that the main “pollution taxes” of fuel duty; vehicle excise duty (road tax); the Climate Change Levy; Air Passenger Duty; the Landfill Tax and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, each have serious flaws which indicate that the government is less concerned about the environment and more concerned with raking in excessive revenues. In addition a second study by accountants UHY Hacker Young backs up this claim by revealing that the Government gives back in tax breaks just two per cent of the money it collects through environmental taxes. UHY Hacker Young tax partner Roy Maugham said: “It’s surprising just how lopsided the Government’s approach to green taxes has been over the last ten years. “At the moment it’s all stick and very little carrot.”