Tory ads coming to a gas station near you

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

IMO, the only thing that will get pollution (including but not limited to carbon dioxide) under control is to cap the total amount and then let market forces take effect...basically cap and trade

If you want to pollute fine...but it will cost you

The Libs are going nowhere fast under Dion IMO...

How can you get pollution under control if you are allowed to burn as much as you want as long as you pay for it?

Cap and trade is definately not the answer.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You people aren't looking at the big picture. No amount of taxation or incentives is going to change anything. Every barrel of oil that is produced in this world is going to be burnt. We have a world wide shortage that's not going away. If Canada consumes less oil the saved barrels will only be sold and burnt in some other country. If that country has worse emission standards than Canada than the net results is more carbon produced.

If Canada was serious about lowering carbon emissions world wide they would leave more of it in the ground. Stop or slow oil production. I get mad when I hear of a country like Norway proudly boasting it is carbon neutral. It is not carbon neutral. It exports oil. Norway would have to somehow capture all the carbon released by the burning of the oil they pump up and sell. That's not going to happen.

Canada is not going to stop production of oil either. There's too much money involved. If anything we are going to do everything possible to increase production. What Canada should do is pave the way for research and development of that new miracle energy source that is going to replace oil. They should encourage the continuing develop of cleaner methods of burning carbon based fuels. They should also stream line and simplify the patten process to make it fairer /faster for the little guy.

Good point CB, I never thought of it that way.

[Devils'Advocate]

Interesting. According to this article, the Liberals have promised that their carbon tax would be revenue neutral, but most people don't want it that way.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/st...8-0352268d392c

However, when asked how revenues from a proposed federal carbon tax should be spent, most Canadians told the polling firm that they would prefer to see more green spending, rather than income tax cuts. For example, 47 per cent said that the new potential revenues should be spent on "renewable energy like wind and solar power" and 16 per cent said they wanted to see more spending on "energy efficiency technologies." Only 11 per cent of respondents said carbon tax revenues should be used to cut income taxes, while eight per cent said it should be spent on public transit.

[old-fart]

Again, no tax in the history of time has EVER been "revenue neutral", no matter how many lies a polititian spouts. It's just not possible.

Let's assume these scheme actually works: Libs raise taxes on carbon emmisions, and lower other taxes perfectly. It then has the desired effect and people reduce their carbon footprint. Now healthcare is suffering, because the government is taking in LESS tax money. Will they cut services or reduce the size of government? Remember, these are the Liberals we are talking about so the odds of that are roughly the same as gold flying out of my butt. So now, they need to increase the carbon tax, or the taxes on everything else that they said they were going to reduce. At some point, they will HAVE to increase the taxes on those things they said they would reduce, or cut services.

This tax is nothing more than a grab at the taxpayer's money to pay for the billions of promises Dion has made over the past few years.

[CaptainCrunch]

One of the other side effects of a carbon tax is that you will see a population drain in this country in pretty quick order.

People are already grumbling that they work to hard for their pay check and staples such as housing, food, fuel and utilities are already killing them, imagine if everything jumps up again due to a carbon tax.

[Boblobla]

Tell you what Mr. Green Party. You figure out a way to get China, The US of A and India to find ways to reduce emissions as well then I will go purchase a hybrid. Until then, taxing the people of Canada because of the irresponsibility of the world isn't going to fly.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Tell you what Mr. Green Party. You figure out a way to get China, The US of A and India to find ways to reduce emissions as well then I will go purchase a hybrid. Until then, taxing the people of Canada because of the irresponsibility of the world isn't going to fly.

So because no one else tries, Canada shouldn't try either?

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So because no one else tries, Canada shouldn't try either?

Why should our taxes go up when larger producers of emissions are doing SFA?

[Boblobla]

I know it is Wikipedia but I dont have time to look for a more credible source.

Just some numbers to look at. I just don't see how taxing the people of Canada helps. At all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_per_capita

[peter12]

This whole climate change issue really drives me crazy. Sure, it's a threat, but it's become sort of the poster boy for the environment. Any environmental platform is solely focused on fighting climate change at the expense of other more pressing environmental issues.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by old-fart

Again, no tax in the history of time has EVER been "revenue neutral", no matter how many lies a polititian spouts. It's just not possible.

Let's assume these scheme actually works: Libs raise taxes on carbon emmisions, and lower other taxes perfectly. It then has the desired effect and people reduce their carbon footprint. Now healthcare is suffering, because the government is taking in LESS tax money. Will they cut services or reduce the size of government? Remember, these are the Liberals we are talking about so the odds of that are roughly the same as gold flying out of my butt. So now, they need to increase the carbon tax, or the taxes on everything else that they said they were going to reduce. At some point, they will HAVE to increase the taxes on those things they said they would reduce, or cut services.

This tax is nothing more than a grab at the taxpayer's money to pay for the billions of promises Dion has made over the past few years.

With all due respect I think that you've mis-interpreted the term "revenue neutral" here. They are not going to have to cut services anymore than any other mandate. Revenue neutral is just that; you have the same amount of money to work with, but if comes from a different taxation.

Basically what you are doing here using the popular opinion of the liberals as "tax everything that moves" as a red herring to imply that they won't follow through with the policy.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So because no one else tries, Canada shouldn't try either?

Doing nothing is a very poor option, but is an action which will harm the country's economy and in turn population, in order to maintain the moral high ground really the best option available?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

is an action which will harm the country's economy and in turn population, in order to maintain the moral high ground really the best option available?

You realize one could apply that same reasoning in the 1860s to support the US government allowing slavery, right?

Or, if you prefer a more modern example, why should Western democracies maintain the moral high ground and harm their economies by having laws against sweatshops and child labour when other nations do not?

Yes, I know it's apples and oranges, but the logic is the same. Sometimes doing the right thing is worth the economic hit, just as it was with the abolition of slavery and the introduction of protective labour practices.

[Azure]

Actually the logic isn't the same.

Sweatshops are a problem because of the child labor, insane hours, and horrible working conditions coupled with poor pay.

We don't even know for sure what kind of effect our 'small' carbon footprint has on environment. Why should I pay 'extra' taxes for something that will do very 'little' to actually reduce greenhouse gases?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Doing nothing is a very poor option, but is an action which will harm the country's economy and in turn population, in order to maintain the moral high ground really the best option available?

The moral high ground is irrelevant.

If (and I will grant it is a big if) the environment goes to hell in 50 years, what will you tell your children when they ask why nothing was done?
We didn't do anything because China didn't do anything?
We didn't want to adversely affect the economy?
It was too inconvenient?

I don't think either side has fully convinced me that it will be armageddon or that there is nothing wrong. I think something is happening, but the possibility of error in the climate models has a chance to override the trends, so it isn't certain. However, I am willing to take steps to prevent the worst case scenario because, until there is something 100% conclusive (or close to it), I think having the planet fubar'ed is a much worse end result to being out of work.

But that is just how I view the whole topic after reading all the debates on here.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Slava

With all due respect I think that you've mis-interpreted the term "revenue neutral" here. They are not going to have to cut services anymore than any other mandate. Revenue neutral is just that; you have the same amount of money to work with, but if comes from a different taxation.

Basically what you are doing here using the popular opinion of the liberals as "tax everything that moves" as a red herring to imply that they won't follow through with the policy.

With respect, I think you missed my point. Let's say the Libs implement a carbon tax that raises $100K in taxation, and then they subsequently reduce income tax by $100K to maintain revenue neutrality. This has the desired effect on behaviour - that is we all start using LESS carbon, therfore we pay LESS carbon tax.... next year the tax only raises $75K. Where does the $25K come from to maintain the services the government provides (health care and the like)? They either need to a) raise the carbon tax to ensure it continues to generate $100K (thereby negating the whole point which was to reward those who use less - I paid $10 in carbon tax last year, reduced my emmisions, but now still pay $10 in tax because the Liberals raised the taxation rate), or b) raise other taxes to offset the missing $25K (again negating the point of rewarding those who use less carbon), or c) cut some services to make up for the $25K that is missing from revenue.

Will the Libs raise taxes, or reduce services?

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So because no one else tries, Canada shouldn't try either?

I'm not sure anyone has suggested Canada shouldn't try because China isn't, only that this particular policy is a bad one.

Canada should be investing in incentives to promote cleaner alternatives. Canada should be attracted investment in companies that do research on alternative fuels, or cleaner options.

Killing the economy so Dion can pay off his Kyoto promise by sending billions to China is not a solution, it is a wealth transfer ponzi scheme.

[Slava]

Ahhh, I see where you're coming from here. You think that people will adapt so fast that instead of paying less tax the taxes wll be increased in other areas. I guess then we are left with a cleaner environment and the status quo tax-wise? Seems pretty good to me.

[octothorp]

On a slightly different topic, I absolutely cannot stand the Tories' perpetual election campaign approach. It's bad enough that about half of our nightly news is filled with meaningless political rhetoric (not just from the conservatives but from all sides). If you want to call an election, go ahead. But until then, get on with the business of running the country, rather than wasting time and resources on delivering hypothetical arguments to the public.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Slava

Ahhh, I see where you're coming from here. You think that people will adapt so fast that instead of paying less tax the taxes wll be increased in other areas. I guess then we are left with a cleaner environment and the status quo tax-wise? Seems pretty good to me.

I think people/companies will adapt. Companies by shutting down or moving back to the States (the big 3 car manufacturers in Ont for example, other manufacturers to China, or India). People because they will be out of work and therefore not driving their cars as much.

Of course, they won't have jobs so affording the now more expensive everything will be harder to do, but Dion did say poverty was going to be a key election platform. Plunging the country into a recession is an excellent way to make an impact on the poverty situation.

As for the "cleaner" environment? Yes, I'm certain that if Canada can drastically reduce our GHG emissions we can make a definate positive impact on our .06% of the overall GHG emissions. Of course, with those manufacturing jobs moving to China and India, the pollution will be even worse since they have even less controls on emissions than we do....

Does that sound pretty good too?