Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
You're arguing history not effectiveness here. Saying "but he did it first" is irrelevant to whether something is good policy.
If you want to reduce emissions a consumer carbon tax is way better - my heating and commuting emissions can't move to another country to avoid the tax, and so higher costs do produce change (more efficient vehicles/houses/heating systems).
By contrast, many industrial emitters can either move offshore or be competed away by countries with lower emissions costs. I don’t think shutting down our steel industry and importing steel from China helps emissions globally, etc.
Carney cut consumer not industrial not because it's good policy but because it was politically expedient.
|
Interpreting the point as “he did it first” is the kind of ignorance I’m talking about. Who did it first is relevant only in that it gives a clue as to a big reason the system exists, and the fact that Premiers like Smith have said they’ll keep it even if PP removes the requirement for it should provide a further clue.
Both the consumer and industrial “taxes” shift the needle. You can argue that any shift isn’t relevant on the global scale, fine. But ask yourself, if the industrial levy is just about climate change and causes businesses to offshore or hurts their competitiveness, why was it first implemented by a PC government and why is a UCP government set on keeping it?