That's a very strange assumption. Particularly since, if they wanted to, they could assume carbon tax revenue is used to finance reductions in the corporate income tax and make a reasonable argument that this would increase capital flows into Canada. Then again, I couldn't imagine the Pembina institute calling for corporate income tax cuts.

Just for the record, I believe they were supportive of the Liberal or Green party plans in the last campaign both of which included a carbon tax shift, including reductions in corporate taxes.

Go to S. Gordion's blog and read my comments, as I indicated in my first comment here. I posted as "Just visiting from macleans".

Btw, get over the Pembina fixation. It was commissioned by TD Bank and modelled by Jaccard. You sound like someone from Alberta, where the latest criticism originated.

The Canada West Foundation, a very partisan western based think tank releases a critique of the TD bank – Jaccard study on Dec 10th.

That very same day, Jack Mintz from the School of Public Policy, University of calgary, publishes an op-ed in the National Post, picked up and quoted by Stephen Gordon in his blog. The Mintz op-ed repeats the CanadaWest Foundation criticisms.

Also, on that very same day, Dec 10th, uber partisan CAPP shill columnist Deborah Yedlin of the Calgary Herald repeats unfiltered, and embellished, a column piece reminding Pembian that it gets a significant amount of funding from oil interests, and also wonders if TD banks outlooks suddenly look less "Wild Rosie". Of course, Ms Yedlin assumes readers know she is married to a very significant oil analyst at a very significant Investment bank.

It's easy to see how one might be inclined to associate Pembina incorrectly, given the "spontaneous" media coverage.

1. Oil and gas extraction
2. Automobile manufacturing
3. Petroleum refining
4. Non-ferrous metal smelting
5. aerospace
6. paper mills
7. alumina and aluminum processing
8. other non-metallic mineral mining and quarrying
9. gold and silver mining
10. Resin and synthetic rubber manufacturing

1 and 3 are industries that provide the fuel driving C02 emissions.
2 and 5 are industries that produce products that emit large amounts of C02
4 and 7-9 are also energy intensive industries that ravage the landscape
6 is an industry that relies on the killing of trees

Yeah, we are going to get SOOO rich by decimating our core industries.

Suppose all taxes are invested in Canadians. Now consider how much carbon is emitted. That's a lot of taxes. Ergo, we'll all be rich. Tax Alberta and give me my money!

I mentioned them *once* three messages ago. What on earth are you talking about?

What are you talking about? We've been discussing this for some time. At any rate, the existence or non-existence of other reports does not change the rather large methodological flaws with this one. That's the sole issue here. Not who is funding the thing. Not what other studies there are. Not what schools we belong to. Not the size of our paycheques. Not whatever artificial issue you'll introduce next.

Anyhow, agreed – this *is* the kind of thing the Feds should be doing. But they're not. A number of us, including Prof. Gordon have been calling for an increase in the PBO's budget precisely so they can do these sorts of studies!

Also agreed with McKitrick – they deserve credit for trying however there's some questionable modeling assumptions. So, in essence, we're all in agreement!

Oh, and you forgot another FP critic and University economics prof – one of Coby's favourites: Ross McKitrick of Guelph. Here's what he wrote Nov 3rd, before all of the piling on:

The cost estimates were done by Mark Jaccard's team in Burnaby, B.C. The technical report is a serious piece of work that tries to put some numbers onto far-reaching energy policy shocks. Although I have reservations about their modeling work and their cost estimates, they deserve credit for trying. It is astonishing and unacceptable that there has been nothing on this subject from Ottawa. Why do we even have a Department of Finance anymore? There should have been detailed cost estimates long before now. Instead we are sleepwalking into some of the most disruptive and costly energy policy misadventures since the National Energy Plan of the 1970s without the Conservatives having published a single estimate of the economic consequences.

http://www.financialpost.com/related/topics/story…

Perhaps his target is the proper one – the fed gov't for not supplying anything. It's very easy to criticize, I've found . Hence why I asked S. Gordon for a more appropriate report if we should discount this one, as he suggests. Not surprising, no reply from anyone. That speaks more to me than some questionable assumptions that may/may not be significant.

I honestly don't know what assumptions he was using then or if they were criticized.

"No, I wouldn't call it an everyone hates SFU turfwar, more of I hate the guy making all of this consulting money turfwar. "

LOL… hahahahah. That must be it – we're all jealous of those huge grants the Pembina institute is famous for handing out.

If you were going to go the 'follow the money' route, you should have gone with the 'you're all being paid off by the oil industry' card. It's not true, but it's a hell of a lot more believable.

You know — you're right. A guy who can casually toss off references to obscure Dungeons & Dragons rules, the way Colby Cosh can, should have seen it and called it for what it was — not a hoax, but rather a fantasy.

Do you know if Jaccard also used similar assumptions when he did the modelling for the NRTEE? If so, were the same criticisms of his model assumptions made at that time, or was he using different ones? If not, why not? I presume his work there was the basis for this latest engagement.

No, I wouldn't call it an everyone hates SFU turfwar, more of I hate the guy making all of this consulting money turfwar.

"Since Jaccard teaches at SFU, Mintz is at U of C, you are at UWO part time, and Gordon is at Laval, this looks to me like an economics internal turf war, or factional battle."

LOL – yeah, that well known Ivey-to-Laval-to-Calgary Axis. If there is a 'internal turf war' here (which, there isn't), it would be a methodological one. Economists have methodological debates all the time. Science isn't conducted by majority rule, but that being said, given that every single economist who has spoken publicly about this assumption has spoken out against it, and the economist who used it hasn't commented, should indicate something.

btw, since Jaccard teaches at SFU, Mintz is at U of C, you are at UWO part time, and Gordon is at Laval, this looks to me like an economics internal turf war, or factional battle. Perhaps had the Stelmach task force looking into these matters hired some economists (as others had beefed about in the past), all might be more quiet on the Western Canada front.

I seem to recall from my government finance class that Alberta declined from taking part in equalization.

Primary resource extraction isn't as big a part of Alberta and Saskatchewan's economy as most people think. It's important, but not the whole picture. We have a lot of primary and tertiary industries, but not a lot of the secondary sector / manufacturing jobs that have been bleeding out of Ontario & Quebec to China & Mexico.

Dr. Mark Kenneth Jaccard (born April 12, 1955 in Vancouver, British Columbia) is a professor of environmental economics in the School of Resource and Environmental Management (REM) at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada.

* Bachelor of Arts: Simon Fraser University, 1977.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Jaccard

That's quite a definitive statement.

Kind of sounds like economicsologists to me.

It's not a matter of being 'theoretically' wrong, Dot, it's one of the major worries about the negative effect any attempts at reducing CO2 is going to have to the economy. The authors of the study are assuming the major question away. It's like disproving the theory of evolution by first assuming that the earth is 6000 years old.

Despite your and McClelland's objections, there isn't a single serious economist in Canada who sees this as a worthwhile assumption, including the folks at progressive-economics.ca.

Here's why I have difficulty with the original criticism – other economists claim it's theoretically wrong, but can't say it's material wrong. Can you give me some examples of industries, currently productive in Canada (recipients of their forecast investment) that will locate to India and China SOLELY because Canada/NA has a carbon tax/cap and trade and they don't?

Or are we just talking about $12-$15 billion on a, what, $2 trillion economy in 2020?

So let's continue down a road that leads to more forest fires, more pine bettle infestations! You're a genius Wilson. Stop pretending there will be no downside to not taking remedial CC action of some sort…there's always a price to pay somewhere. The key surely is to figure out a sensible balance between economic and environmental costs. Hands off our oil wont get it done.

While you are at it , google Petro China, Korean National and Oil Sands…..

Get informed, you are wrong.

Alberta's contribution to Confederation is already three times higher than Ontario's on a per capita basis

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomm…

"Lower investment in the oil and gas sector is magically assumed to be balanced off by new investment elsewhere"

http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2009/11/05/de…

And on the really important thing, which is the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions:

http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2009/12/14/th…

By the way, Colby, it is dishonest of you to call it a hoax.

Hell, and they say the Bloc are separatists.. at least they're honest about it.