Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

'Sensible, pragmatic, courageous'

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 2:47pm - 31 Comments

Scott Brison considers British Columbia’s carbon tax.

“If you look at Campbell’s government in terms of tax policy and carbon tax, he was a centrist,” Brison said during a one-hour interview with The Province editorial board. “A carbon tax is not a left-wing or a right-wing policy, it’s simply a sensible, pragmatic, courageous [policy],” adding it also was “a risky idea” politically.

Here is the official explanation of that carbon tax.

Tags: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • Crit_Reasoning

    What are the actual results of the carbon tax? Have BC's emissions declined at all?

    • Mike R

      No.

    • OriginalEmily1

      Yeah, gosh, how long has it been now?

      • Crit_Reasoning

        Since mid-2008.

        • OriginalEmily1

          Jeepers, and they haven't cleaned up world pollution yet? Or even Canadian pollution? Tsk.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Umm… it's been more than two and a half years since it was implemented. I'm just asking whether it has had any measurable effect so far.

          • AT1

            Don't bother CR, Emily doesn't respond well to perfectly rational comments.

    • s_c_f

      The BC govt has more money. Hooray.

      • Andrew (not PorC)

        Well, they implemented offsetting tax cuts that reduce revenue by more than the amount the carbon tax brings in.

  • Leo

    Well this is sure turning into a good "news byte" week for the Conservatives.

    - Iggy confirms Liberals will supply money for Quebec City arena
    - Justin doesn't want to hurt the feelings of barbarians
    - now Brison applauds the B.C. carbon tax – let's make it national

    :-D

    Rumour – Trevor Linden running for Conservatives

    • John D

      While I agree with you on the first two, there is overwhelming support for a Carbon tax among economists, business leaders, the energy sector, policy experts, and real fiscal conservatives. There is no screw-up in Bryson supporting it.

      • OriginalEmily1

        Agreed…tis the way to go.

        • Leo

          I am not against a carbon tax, but politically it is a very hot potatoe – just read the comments on the article.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Yeah I know….so I thought it was very brave of Brison to say what he did.

            Something can be the right thing to do…..but dangerous to say, more's the pity.

      • Jan

        The right wing Free Enterprise Institute has published a number of papers supporting the carbon tax as the best way to proceed. Of course Canadian Conservatives think the best way is to not proceed at all.

        • Leo

          Tried to find the link again, article in Alberta Oil & Gas publication, companies operating in the oil sands are already factoring in a carbon tax coming from the Feds. A new carbon tax during a recession would have been wrong.

          • frobisher

            And a new carbon tax during a 'fragile recovery' would be even wronger, right`?

    • AT1

      I have my doubts about the Dion's Green Shift plan, as ~40% of the funds raised were to be diverted to new program spending (including daycare funding).

      However, I am in favor of carbon taxes in general, if they are revenue neutral to taxes cut elsewhere. They are the most efficient way of providing incentives for broad-based improvements in energy efficiency.

      • Leo

        That is what happens when these special taxes go into general revenue, then it does just become a tax grab.

        • M_A_D_world

          Exactly, governments even with the best of intentions find it very hard to ignore the revenue created by consumption taxes.
          If revenues from the tax would go to innovation, infrastructure and research I might become swayed by the argument of hydro-carbon taxation.
          I just don't take politicians at their word that such revenues would be turned into advancements in energy infratructure or long term savings for Canadians. Leaving a bigger bill for when future initiatives have to be taken.

  • M_A_D_world

    If markets continue to spike the costs of carbon based fuels, a carbon tax will be redundant and unnecessary.
    Unless of course governments still feel they need the extra revenue for deficit cutting.
    If the revenue is going to subsidize farmers, transport interests and anyone one else burdened by the increased costs;
    I guess tax paying consumers will just burden the load knowing that we are paying for carbon and somehow that will be cleaner than untaxed carbon.
    I'm all for less pollution but I don't delude myself for one moment that a carbon tax will save anything but a few spend addict finance minsters hides.

    • Andrew (not PorC)

      So you doubt that people and businesses respond to price signals? If we know anything in economics empirically, it's probably this.

  • gottabesaid

    I can hear that sarcasm-dripping Conservative Attack Ad Voice already:

    "The Liberals' Scott Brison thinks that a permanent tax on everything is 'sensible' and 'courageous.' He even thinks that a job-killing carbon tax is 'pragmatic.'

    If only we could be courageous… just like Scott."

    • s_c_f

      There's a lot of truth to that.

    • frobisher

      Sadly, they'd probably lisp that last sibilant. For good measure.

  • alfanerd

    a carbon tax is the dumbest thing you could come up with.

    it addresses a non-existent problem. and even if catastrophic global warming was real, a carbon tax would be the wrong solution for it.

    the demand for fuel is essentially inelastic. so the chances of a carbon tax 'changing behavior' is pretty much zero.

    so it's definitely not sensible nor pragmatic.

    it is however courageous, in the sense that promoting idiotic and unpopular policies is courageous.

  • alfanerd

    it is rather well known that demand for fuel is inelastic. in fact, fuel is often used as an example of a product with inelastic demand.

    there are more differences between Europe and NA then just fuel prices. geography and population density and climate, are just some of the most obvious ones.

    in the last ten years the price of gas has gone up almost 100% in NA. yet people are still buying SUVs. im sure that if put a carbon tax which quadruples the price of gas it would change some people's habits. but this is not what we're talking about. besides such a huge carbon tax would have its own problems.

    and, what other energy source do you recommend? wind? solar? they all stink.

  • alfanerd

    Let's compare the fleet fuel efficiency numbers for new cars today versus 1997 or 1995 and conclude whether price has had any impact on purchasing decisions.

    Yeah, let's do that. And then make sure to adjust it for engineering advances which would have come about regardless – remember, fuel efficiency is an end in and of itself, and you dont need a carbon tax to realize that. i would recommend checking what proportion of cars sold today are at the upper end of fuel efficiency compared with that same metric in 1995.

    The demand curve is continuous. You're suggesting it's step-discontinuous. We make no change at all until fuel prices quadruple, then all of a sudden we all drive scooters? Please… If 4x the price makes a huge difference, then even 10% will make some difference in consumption

    that's what inelastic demand is. besides, i didnt say 4x the price makes a huge difference. i said it would make a difference for some people (i.e., the poor). but guess what, people still need to eat, so trucks will still be driving to Toronto to deliver food. the price of food will be much higher, and demand for non-essential goods will plummet, because people will be spending more of their budget on essential items.

    since the Libya crisis, there has been a 20% increase at the pump. so that''s twice your 10% which you suggest "will make some difference in consumption".

    also, you dont want to put a price on carbon, you want to put a price on carbon dioxide.

    im all for natural gas – its cheap, plentiful, relatively clean and efficient. market forces will take care of that, no need for politicians to artificially inflate the price of everything.

    global warming is still a non-problem, and a carbon tax is still a horrible solution which will not achieve its purported goal of changing behaviour, although it will hurt the poor significantly.

  • alfanerd

    the elasticity of the demand for fuel is not zero. but it isnt very high either. that's the point. in other words, a carbon tax is a very poor tool for changing behavior.

  • alfanerd

    no, first of all that was not my only premise. the bigger issue is of course, that global warming is a non-problem.

    the second issue is that the elasticity of fuel is close to zero. that's not a minor point and very crucial in terms of the potential "benefits" of a carbon tax.

    unless of course your goal is to harm the economy and hurt the poor, then a carbon tax is just perfect.

  • charles

    The liberals propose to raise the cost of the prinipal input for the cost of food (fuel).
    I’m not political analyst, but promising to raise the price of food on the eve of an election seems unwise.

Previous

Next

From Macleans