i vote for humanity as whole. Not politicians as they are they are put into a position of status by the banks, to keep the public blind to their personal intentions.
Sure, that's it! Tax the job creating polluters and give the money to foreign countries for our 'environmental debt'. It sounds like global governance. Do you really think job providing companies are going to stay where they get taxed less or more?
C & T in it's existence taxes energy consumers. True Greener comapnies do make more money but what about the people at the bottom. they are stuck with a tax and no cuts...... with a carbon tax it is not so much a tax as a shift. Instead of taxing positive externalities like employment it taxes the negative externality of gas emissions. It'll all balance out and we'll be one step closer to actually meeting Kyoto Protocol.
Mankind make up only 3% of the total CO2 output into the air. Canada's portion of this is so small that it doesn't even register on any scale you can use.
Plants need CO2 amd the more they get, the more O2 they give off. CO2 is not the problem.
The problem is polution not CO2.
All commercial green houses have CO2 generators to help their plants grow stronger and faster. Our current level of 385 pmm is just enough to keep plants healthy, nothing to worry about.
LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS, PLEASE!! Do you all love income tax or something!? Carbon is taxed at all levels and the money pays most of our tax bill. We will no longer have big chunks taken from our pay checks, we would get interest free mortgages up to $10000 interest free + loans up to the same amount to do green renos. All this to help us leave oil before it oil leaves us. Tax pollution, not investments, income, savings or profits! We have never before had control over how much tax we weill pay.
The NDP is looking like the party to vote for. No carbon tax for the global warming hoax. Bring the troops home from Afghanistan. This party is also for the legalization of cannabis. Maybe they'll investigate 9/11 too.
Pollution is a real problem. Global warming is a hoax designed to make you feel so guilty about industrial pollution you'd be willing to pay more tax to clean it up. Like it's your fault. A Carbon Tax to stop global warming sells better than Pollution Tax to rip you off. Investigate it. By the way, Al Gore is getting his ass sued! If you still believe you're not being taken, ask yourself why do you feel the onus should be on you instead of the industries that create the pollution?
MORON!! The tax collected is given back to the citizens! Wake up, READ! the platforms and if you have the ability the constitutions! Learn what your vote can really mean over the long term. This "down turn," "ressession" or "depression" is going to be long term. Mark my words!
Impressive name calling. You're really down there. I will not stoop to your depths. Instead I will try to bring you up. First, turn off the TV. If they say they will give your pollution tax money back to you, a citizen, don't you think it is more efficient for you to just keep your money and save them the paper work? Don't fall for that old trick. They've never given anything back other than crumbs. They're going to use your pollution tax money to buy more weapons. Green weapons!
Hello friend. Politicians are not scientists. 30,000 scientists are suing Al Gore's ass because these 30,000 experts verified that global warming is a hoax. We all wish that Canada verifies things on our own but it isn't so. For example, we are at war in Afghanistan because of 9/11. 24 Canadians lost their lives on that day yet Canada did not even launch an inquiry. It is 2008 and Canada still has not investigated the events of 9/11. This is despicable. This is a crime. The truth hurts pal.
So, would you rather take a hard economic line to save money, or take a hard environmental line to protect our ecosystem/species?
To economists, the carbon tax system makes obvious sense. Every unit of carbon carries with it a cost that is fixed by the gov't. Nothing is guaranteed on the emissions front, though.
Cap and trade is the opposite. The price of carbon fluctuates, the gov't limits emissions. In this case, the economics are less certain and emissions are obviously going to go down.
cap and trade is not guaranteed either. both plans simply cause the polluters to pay for emmissions, they can still go on emmitting it just costs them money. and its not simply economists who support the carbon tax, when jack layton came out and announced his opposition to the carbon tax the majority of environmental community told him he was wrong on this issue. the endorsements and praise for environmental policy went and are going to the liberals and the greens. not the ndp
"the endorsements and praise for environmental policy went and are going to the liberals and the greens. not the ndp"
There are thousands out there supporting both sides. And this has nothing to do with who is supporting which side, it's all to do with which will work better, faster, and have the least negative impact on society.
According to the NDP, Barack Obama, George Monbiot, USCAP, and many others, cap and trade will work better than a carbon tax.
Use both then! the point is that the cap and trade system takes years to develop effectively and the carbon tax provides further incentive to industry, rewards people for their efficiency and redistributes wealth to middle and lower class people-why are the ndp against this!!
For the same reasons why the Greens/Liberals are against cap-and-trade: political gain.
Look, I think we should do absolutely WHATEVER it takes to solve this global crisis. It's great to hear this type of debate, but it should have been done many years ago.
If it means a tax & cap-and-trade, fine!
The only reason I support C&T is because it puts a definite cap on emissions, which is essentially the entire point of action on the climate crisis.
i agree, but the environmental movement was not divided until jack layton and the ndp made this move- the green party DOES NOT oppose cap and trade and the liberals have not shown major opposition either. layton and harper are the ones who care more about political gain than the issues and i have lost a lot of respect for layton because of this
Jack and the rest of the NDP support cap-and-trade over carbon taxes because of the negative economic effects that taxes will have on low-income families relative to effects on higher-income families. Cap-and-trade is much more just, since every person has the same cap, whether low- or high-income.
Jack and the NDP are simply looking out for ordinary Canadians (as always) when they attack carbon tax schemes.
You're suggesting that carbon taxes are schemes when they have been successfully implemented in other nations, just as cap-and-trade has. And you don't have the evidence to suggest that the cap-and-trade system is exclusively "the winner" of this debate as it still goes on. Layton and the ndp are still being political opportunistic with environmental policy.
Worse layton is not being honest. Cap & trade in Europe took ages to set up only to find it is not working!!. It must be a straight tax in the mean time. Everybody said "cap & trade Later" Capo & Trade IS A TAX PLAN ALSO!@! How do you think they will deal with those who exceed their targets (Caps), THEY WILL TAX THEM!! "Forcing THEM TO PAY" tax. Dr. Suzuki says this is WRONG!
Cap and trade IS A TAX ALSO!! This option is considered by both the Green Party and the Liberals but down the road after we are more on track. What do you think they will do when caps are exceeded and how many $'s will this undisclosed tax render and to who? The big problem is set up time and a system that is so complicated it leaves more holes than swiss cheese! Worse, where it has been tried, it is failing to achieve results and carbon emmissions are still going up!
The EU's cap-and-trade system failed (and is improving, by the way) for one glaring reason: they handed out emissions credits according to how much a company pollutes. This was a huge mistake, since the entire point of the emissions credit system is to auction 100% of the credits. This forces companies to pay up for every bit of their emissions.
And it's fortunate that the EU system was started: there were mistakes made along the way, but new C&T systems will not have to make them again.
In response to jennifer: "What do you think they will do when caps are exceeded"
It's quite simple. They will pay other companies who have leftover credits.
Companies that pollute too much pay companies that haven't.
These greener companies make money for simply being green.
Essentially, green up, or pay up.
Agreed, this is the same principle idea as a carbon tax, but under a tax, smaller companies won't be able to absorb the carbon costs that large, multi-million dollar companies can.
jennifer, you are a supporter of the Green Shift, which will move carbon tax revenue to income/personal tax cuts.
Anyone who has ever filled out a tax form knows damn well that taxes are certainly NOT simple. Relative to Layton's C&T plan, Dion plan would be a bureaucratic nightmare. Every year, a new CO2 tax rate would have to be calculated to determine what emissions reduction was to be achieved, and even then, there are no guarantees.
The problem with carbon tax is that it is fixed in a fiscal sense: the more you pollute, the more you pay. However, this doesn't necessarily guarantee that they will reduce emissions.
Cap and trade is fixed in a emissions/environmental sense. The country as a whole cannot emit more than its allotted amount (the "cap"). Within this limit, companies may pay for more carbon credits, or sell credits if they emit less (the "trade").
The Liberal "Green Shift" does not, although it has the right intentions.
The Conservative plan is idiotic and does absolutely nothing to reduce emissions. (Emissions allowances under this plan grow with the economy. Emissions actually increase under this plan.)
The Green plan is also a carbon tax, which, along with the Liberal plan, will NOT work.
so all of the economists- not just environmentally focused economists- who absolutely are in favor of the carbon tax which has worked in other nations are idiots?? the cap and trade emmissions is not established yet
I frankly don't think economists should have any say in this. Of course, this would be stupid, since we're talking about additional taxes and economic limits and the like...
However, we decide whether, in lowering our emissions, we do what's right for the economy, or what's right for the environment.
Obviously, the entire point of lowering our emissions is to preserve or natural web of life on Earth (including the very survival of our species).
Stephen Harper is the only one offering a soltion that WILL have positive effects on both environment and economy. Carbon taxes will only drive up inflation and reduce industry. Would you let Canada slump into recession for a 2% reduction in carbon while China and India carry on destroying the planet. Only the Harper conservatives seem to be awake. Dion shifting his greenshift before an expected election is classic liberal antics, he's buying votes with money he plans to steal.
We are already in a recession. ATM, IMO all parties suck, but I will say this:
We should make an effort for a fresh start and try to promote green - fuck jack layton that's over board. I think we need to force big corps ei cosco, walmart, to have solar panals on their roofs. majority conservative gov't scares people so who knows what will happen this election.
In 2002 when the government admitted to using racism and lies to keep cannabis users in cages and they see no problem with that I started to do some research.
The only science that I can find is that Henry Ford and Rudolf diesel had to switch to your fuel making you trillions.
I don't believe in trillion dollar accidents do you?
Name me one other time that a racist accident made trillions?
If this government is telling me it wants to go green I would like to see your new adjusted salary after we ban oil.
The first step to going green would be a government report which is now adjusted to lose the 20-40 billion a year they make off of oil. They make 5 billion for every ten cents they charge on oil.
I am interested in viewing the first step you would have already completed.
You can't cut services so I would like to see your new salaries after we ban oil.
The NDP actually had power in the liberal minority government. The NDP after years of no voice was finally getting ACTION done parliament such as the transit funding boost for the cities.
Then this moron topples the government due to conservative pressure and as a result the NDP have no power once again...and even worse we have CONSERVATIVES in power!
Everytime I see Harper talking...I think of this jackass.
We're not going to solve the problem by simply working on the big oil companies. Sorry folks, it isn't that easy-real measures will affect us all-to think we can do it without any economic pain is a delusion. A green economy will create jobs in the long term bt we need to be prepared for a bumpy transition. Politicians who tell you otherwise are fixated on electoral success over the health of our environment.
I'm amazed that the debate on the carbon tax has been this extensive on this video. To me, it's all too simple: Stephane Dion is using an idea that's already been put in place well elsewhere, and is endorsed by prominent environmentalists and economists. Stephen Harper has a talking oil stain saying it's just an evil liberal trick. Whether you think it sucks or it kicks ass, the current governing party can't seem to form an intelligent argument. Period.
As for the developing world,of course they want a better lifestyle-everyone does.That is why it is so crucial for countries in the Western world (the G8) to step up and show leadership in sustainable economic growth.Members w/I the G8 are reluctant to take a first step though;so that is where Canada comes in.
We provide the leadership and vision needed to lead the G8 and the rest of the world. Mr Dion's Green Shift Plan shows the leadership and vision necessary in this difficult but attainable task.
You are twisting my words (in fact I think you are putting words in my mouth).I did not say that it doesnt work, nor did I ever hint at that (hence this discussion that we have been having for a while).
As for Canada, this four year plan is just the start as it will move beyond four years but Mr Dion is leaving room for reassessment at the 3rd/4th year point to see where the tax should sit at that point.
Companies are not being abandoned though. Tax cuts will benefit their cause to move towards growing their business in the direction of the market.Those who dont take this direction have no one to blame but themselves.And those are the companies who workers should be frustrated at.
The Green Shift will allow for a smoother transition as company's can put resources towards more efficient production and products with the tax cuts they receive...
It is a great opportunity to promote a growing sector (in green technology), when the economy is slowing down and Mr Dion is willing to take this risk as he has staked his political career on this plan.
Why bother? Because the war isn't over. As I said, if the G8 steps up and helps shape a more sustainable economy, other countries will have to adapt in order to succeed in the marketplace. But the G8 needs leadership from within and that is where Canada comes in.
It would be easier for Africa to develop Green economies in many regions as the infrastructure there is minimal so they have nothing to start from anyways.Green technology is a great opportunity for Africa.
Theres no need to stop them bc it will take them less time to develop then we did,along the way their economies will have to adapt to the world economy.The G8 must be leaders as they are the among the wealthiest countries in the world to shape a sustainable economy.
Population growth shouldnt be factored in Sweden and the UK's progress when you look at Canada whose population growth is nearly zero (we would have negative growth without immigration)...and our emissions have rose...
The Conservatives are worse.They claim to be fighting climate change except no environmentalist you ask will say their plan is legitimate.Economist point out that the Green Shift couples tax cuts with its plan while the Conservatives plan does raise the cost of goods without measurable tax relief (GST? gotta spend more to save more)...
The mustache comment...fair enough I ll give you that...lol
"...raise the cost of goods without measurable tax relief." That's the Green Shift Plan for you. Remember the report from your favourite province Saskatchewan? An unsurmountable increase in cost of living awaits should this sucker hit. Thank goodness Dion didn't get elected and had to resign, agreed?
Moreover, there's still no word on that so-called "policy debate" between you and me. Do you have any ideas to talk about at all, or are you just chicken?
You people backing this tax are NUTS! We are 30 million...compared to over 6.5 billion. man made global warming is a FARCE!!! Why have they found fossilized crocodiles in greenland..and palm trees in antarctica. Do you think the climate was exactly the same for millions of years? Ice ages come and go. The world changes. Carbon tax will not help any of this. But it might make you feel better about yourself
Canadian has the worst per capita pollution in the world. On on the contrary, giving incentives for us to reduce our carbon foot print on an individual basis will go further than any other country. Furthermore, a focus on individuals is exactly what is needed in Canada.
Big polluters will not get off easy because they they are just that, "big polluters" and will have to pay accordingly. This is an economic package designed to stimulate the efficient technologies and practices.
the new carbon tax is good for people who take buses and bike and what not because people should receive cheques every few months. so if you put out less CO2 you will get more money then you pay. My heart does go out to people who live in small towns where buses arn't that regular. Where this tax really hits the target is for large companies that give out tons tons of CO2: they will be taxed for a lot.
They may pass some of the burden off to consumers but you have to realize that this is a world market. Especially with respect to oil, the price of "everything" (as the Conservatives phrase it) will certainly be affected - no doubt. But it will not be significant and consumers will be more then offset by the income tax cuts and special tax credits.
Of course, poverty is the best reason for recycle and conservation. If the government tax people enough, some will even scout landfill to make a living. The point is that carbon tax is totally useless to tackle our environmental problems and there is no clear plan on how much or how to use the money. There is no scientific research that prove eradicating cars can cool the earth back to normal or imposing the new tax can dramatically change Canadian consumption pattern.
Well I totally disagree with that...I realize that you do not agree with the scientific evidence pointing to climate change but certainly it would be elementary that if you take out emissions from vehicles that represents a large portion of GH emissions and would prove very significant. Yes it would change the Canadian consumption pattern but I think you are missing the positive nature of free-market; good business/products will succeed. Innovation will breed an inundation (of wealth that is)...
No good business or products exist now that can save consumer money. Every so-called "green technologies" cost a lot more than their conventional counterparts. If we can pay to get the world to cool down, fine, we must do it. However, They simple CAN'T. Why bother?
Well im disagree with that notion and again that goes back to your skepticism on climate change...That is the crux of this argument...
You are right, most green technologies being developed right now are more expensive initially but people can determine the longterm benefits of these products/services with rising energy costs...
So you said it yourself, the technologies that can save us don't exist yet; at least, not a viable replacement for common use. And you also mention my point, the rising energy costs are changing our behaviours already, another kick to our weakened economy, it will kill it immediately.
No I didnt say that they dont exist yet. I said that they are more expensive right now because other less environmentally friendly products can be sold much cheaper. The average person couldn't replace everything and be totally carbon neutral because access and financial flexibility is limiting at first. But once the market adjusts (and it adjusts faster in this sort of climate than it would a cap&trade system), the avg person could seek carbon neutrality.
If it doesn't bring down economic consumption, it can't achieve its goal as "reducing green house emission". What you are saying is completely contradictory.
Its transitional...it boosts the green side of the economy and forces a change with the less environmentally friendly portion of the economy. It may initially have a negative impact if the tax was initiated at $40/$50 or more per tonne but it starts at $10/tonne. Basically the first year is to get industry to start thinking about it...
You can't go carbon neutrality. Even the most ambitious goal is the return to the 1990's level. As long as we live, even in death, all our consumption produces greenhouse emission.
There are already examples of individuals who are carbon neutral...it is rare right now but possible...im not saying that society can be carbon neutral because I doubt that is attainable (certainly not at present time).
No individuals can be carbon neutral, because all of us need food and breathing. The houses we are living on are occupying on top of what is previously plant living space, so you can't claim you can offset any by planting trees either. Is our modern life unsubstainable for the environment? yes, we are destroying the earth. Can we stop global warming by any functional programs? No, we past the point of no return already.
At present I think it is nearly impossible to attain a carbon neutral society but there are many examples around the world of people who are carbon neutral.This does not mean they do not create emissions because that is impossible.But their emissions are minimal and they offset them by using minimal/no emissions for electricity, creating minimal/zero waste and creating a carbon sink property (ie plant life).In fact,until recently BC was a net carbon sink,but clear cutting has since ended that.
Have we reached a point where we have inflicted irreversable damage? Probably. Are we at a point where we cannot stop any further damage? Absolutely not. But we could be if we dont take bold action such as this...Such Leadership that Canada has been known to provide on the world stage.
Who cares about world stage? If I have to choose between paying for $4 per liter and killing 70 million Iranians, I would say, "if they love nuclear bombs so much, we should send enough for them, viciously." That's how piss I am when I see stupid environmentalists or leftists think we should pay more taxes to conserve even more. Many are in desperate situation already; no one love to destroy the earth, but no one hate money either.
Well lets just say that making sweeping generalizations about the Iranian people is one reason that the West is hated. Not all Iranians support their President's aspirations (in fact I would argue most don't).Unfortunately they dont have the luxury of showing their displeasure because they are quickly dealt with.That is not democracy...the arming of a nuclear arsonal is not something that can be pinned to the wants of the Iranian people.
Im not sure what you are trying to say with respect to your either/or statement but I do see your point wrt the earth vs money. That is why this plan is sensible. It puts more money back into people's pockets to start and they can choose to become greener. Lets not forget that both the Conservative Plan and NDP plan will not offset the rise in the costs of goods with tax cuts as the Liberal plan does.
But you fail to prove that "G-shit" can help to cut any meaningful amount of emission without dramatically reduce consumption level. Consumption level is GDP and where our wages come from.
Further it will increase the disposable income of individuals and allow them to make green decisions that will save them more money going forward.The Green Shift is still relevant because it does not tax gas and will do little to affect gas prices as it is a world market.
Well I can name our country as one...if you are referring to Kyoto specifically then I turn your attention to Sweden. A country that is on track to meet the Kyoto goals and then some. Britain is also in the same boat (although not in as ideal spot as Sweden). After a conversion from coal to natural gas-generated electricity, Britain is on track to meet their goals as well.Both are economic leaders in the world...
5% below their 1990 levels is Kyoto protocol's poster child. In 2008, Britain is 2% above its 1997 level. Sweden is still emitting more carbon emissions per capita than China, Turkey, Cuba, and India. The best case you can find, Sweden, is just a hair away from France in CEpC. Imagine if 1/3 of humans (China + India) on earth be as "green" as Sweden, the total emission level will have to rise 48%.
They are both on track though to meet their targets that is the point.And their economies are still going strong.You are right,if everyone lived the way the Western world lives we would need about 10 earths to accomodate everyone.Thats why we need to address it.This is the first step.Cutting carbon emissions buys us time to fix other consumption/waste problems before they are spun out of control by Climate Change.
But is it moral to stop India and China to develop? Is it moral to stop Russia from economic recovery through oil in Siberia wilderness? Is it moral to say animals are more important when Africans want to industrialize? Time ran out already; we should do it after WWII. Now, "G-shit" is too little, too late. If we must finish KP or other further emission cut, then we must destroy our existing economy. Well, people are greener when poorer, but they would hate their government even more.
When you got 2/3 of the world are becoming as dirty as the western world, there is nothing you can do to save global warming or mass extinction. Why bother to struggle in an inevitable death when facing a risky election and a slipping economic downturn?
Is it better to be wrong and end up with a more sustainable economy or do nothing and find out climate change is what we expected (or worse)? A more sustainable economy can only promote long term economic success.
And how will this economy be more sustainable? Dion's plan, according to some of his own MP's, is nothing more than an extra transfer of wealth from rich to poor. You're just going to make everybody equal, but equally poor.
Moreover, during this economic crisis, the Liberals were the ones demanding for more spending, all the while condemning Harper for a deficit. Now that's unsustainable. You can't spend more and expect your savings to remain the same.
This is "green shit". It is just a scam to raise new taxes, and the additional dollar will be wasted on useless programs as governments always do. Even with miracle help, reducing carbon emission to 1990 level, we are still a highly carbon positive society that continues to "destroy" the earth.If it takes thousands of years and 7 billion people to "warm" the planet to this point, how can paying a new tax and just reducing part of our modern way of living can "cool" down the planet?
Because ultimately people have to be encouraged to be environmentally friendly by making it financially make sense. This is not a tax grab. It is revenue neutral - for the government of course. There will be winners and losers just like there is in the current system, however this system is more sensible as a person can put a little more effort into becoming more eco-friendly and see the rewards in their bank statements...
In the end, you just prove my statement. There is no way this can save the environment. This just makes you feel a little better but it will completely put Canadian farming, manufacturing and the oil industry in jeopardy. Our economy is based on environmental destruction and by putting unnecessary tax on it, the effect will be similar to increase interest rate. Our economy will not shift after this "G-Shit", it will just slowdown or getting smaller.
No. What is putting our manufacturing industry in jeopardy right now is its focus on gas-guzzling SUVs. Until they understand that their main focus has to be gas efficiency not masculine appeal they will turn around their companies. Honda and Toyota are already doing this and as such they are the leaders in the industry.
Honda built jets and Toyota built tundra. The so-called leaders ain't really earning as much money on "environmentally friendly" cars as higher priced models. If you take away the fat profit of SUVs and big vehicles, you can be expected to pay $40,000 for a corolla or a lot of auto workers will lose their jobs.
Secondly, the oil industry is booming because demand is high and supply is low (plus a few more factors but that is the main driver). It is a non-renewable resource, which means that we are not going to have it some day so we cannot depend on it for much longer even if it had no negative environmental side effects. (Just so you know, the oil industry here will not be hurt if Canada lowers its dependence on oil...Uncle Sam will still need more for a little while yet).
Thirdly, I live in a farming community. I know the challenges that face farmers. A Carbon tax would hurt them, however the Liberal plan's cut in income taxes and special tax credits for people in rural communities (ie farmers) will help them and as shrewd business people they will find ways to further cut costs by cutting back on hydrocarbon-based fuels.
Whereas now, if someone works a few more hours a week thus raising their income level to a different tax bracket they are punished for earning more. Now, the Green Shift does not eliminate that problem but it does ease it, shifting tax burden from what you earn to what you burn.
How can this be fair? Someone can live in a 4 million dollar apartment in downtown, with his expensive solar panel, he could virtually transfer all his carbon cost to his clients. On the other hand, a middle income farmer has to pay for all his environmental destruction tools like pickups, equipments, farm feed, and generators, but he has to compete with American competitors who are recieving huge subsidies from the white house instead of putting a new tax burden on him.
Im not too sure what you are trying to say with respect to the solar panel because it does not emit CO2. But the cost of the solar panel will certainly be transferred but it would be good for the apartment because it would result in overall lower energy costs in the long run. If you are talking about some random business man who installs a solar panel in his apartment then transfers the costs to his clients, sure he could do that but people will start to seek business elsewhere if he did.
I am just saying that rich people or big businesses can easily transfer the "green tax" on consumers and to find alternatives. However, large middle income family or farmers or small businesses must soldier on with lower income and face higher inflation because of the imposing tax that can do nothing about the environment. CO2 is naturally emitted from animals and humans. You can't ban CO2 emission even if you kill all humans. Worse news: Methane and water vapour are more damaging than CO2.
Big business is guilty of purging resources with reckless abandon from the environment for the almighty dollar. Now, will this stop with the Green Shift...no. But it will certainly make them take a second thought. Inflation is not caused by carbon taxes...
CO2 is naturally emitted by humans and animals but the problem is we have extracted resources from the ground that were never meant to be in the atmosphere...(cont'd)
...now we have burn those resources and transferred them to the atmosphere where they never should have been...that is the problem. We could sustain humans and animals because of all the plant life but the extra CO2 is not absorbed and moved up in the atmosphere and causes the greenhouse effect. Methane and H2O are more potent in terms of creating climate change but they are not emitted in the quantities that CO2 is (H20 comes back to earth anyways).
Farmers do burn a lot of diesel and clean cut the enter natural environment to make a living. We have mass exodus of manufacturing jobs in Ontario due to exchange rate and economic downturn already, paying more will just be death sentence. In the end, the government will target motorists and the oil industry for carbon tax. Most people drive not because they want to sit in rush hour parking lot, they need to get to work. Tax won't stop them from coming.
What it will do is make them consider carpooling instead of having thousands of people driving single-occupant vehicles to work everyday, it will make people think of using public transit more often where possible, it will make people consider healthier options such as biking or walking to work. So you are right, taxes will not stop them from coming (although computers have a hand in that) but they will reconsider how they get to work with this plan.
As for the clean cut of the environment, that is true but that speaks to our overall consumerism lifestyle (which includes the pollution of the environment with greenhouse gases). No one suggests that stop farmers because we need to eat, but we do need to keep working on ways to co-exist with the environment instead of working against it (as should be a general rule of thumb). The high dollar contributes to the manufacturing sector's problem but it is mostly because of their products themselves.
...products that are gas guzzers...that is simply bad business planning. And as such Honda and Toyota are the leaders in the industry (I would argue that the economic downturn in Ontario is mostly attributed to the manufacturing industry...not the other way around)
2,000 years ago, most of Europe and China were covered with thick forest. 600 years ago, most of Canada was cover with evergreen forest. Now, 90% of Madagascar, 70% of Indonesia, 40% of Brazil, and 55% of Africa green belt forest are either completely wipe out or under siege. It is not carbon emission that is destroying earth. It's the amount of dramatic changes that we have done in the past 6 millennia.
It has certainly helped...this will push it farther...because people will be more conscious of it because they have to be. Gas prices will not be taxed further and will be minimally affected, but people will accompany their reduced energy/heating oil consumption with better driving habits...(ie the examples i listed earlier)
Stop driving SUV will just reduce less than .25% of total GH emission because modern cars emit very low harmful gas already and replacement transportation will also produce GH gas. The main "criminals of carbon producers" are powerplants, refineries, airliners & ships, and natural cycle.
Im not saying that SUVs are the main problem. All I mean is that they are very unnecessary for 99.9% of people who own them...they do create extra unnecessary emissions. Your 'criminals' are right on the money. Obviously we can only control the 'artificially-enhanced' portion of GH emissions and this carbon tax's main target are powerplants, refineries, jet fuel (ship fuel)...
Let me give you some harsh number. 35% of our energy comsumption belongs to private vehicles. Out of those 35%, approx. 34% is SUV. Assume that 80% of them is driven by poser. With high gas priced, 20% reduction in the number of SUV is predicted. That only produce 2% reduction in SUV. In passenger cars, only 1% reduction with 250% gas price increase in 2 years. As a result, astronomical gas price only causes about approx. 3% reduction in energy consumption, or about .5% reduction in emission.
Unless the new carbon tax push gas price above $4 or anything in equvalent, I can't see it will have additional effect on motorists or significantly reduce overall emission. In the end, "G-shit" is pointless.
I do see your point there...I wouldnt say it is pointless but it is not as drastic as one would need to make changes quickly. However, you cannot do that to the economy, thats why this plan is progressive in that it will systematically punish polluters more every year making more and more people reconsider their habits...
ok 34% are SUV emissions but what is the percentage of SUV's on the road as compared to all other vehicles?
What I would like to see is the amount of people who have switched to more fuel efficient vehicles in the past 2 years with comparisons to the last 10 years...that would be telling...
35% X 34% = 12% of our energy consumption is caused by SUV; we have been buying I4 engines and small cars a long time before this oil crisis. In UK, with high gas tax, road tax, and congestion charges, its annual net greenhouse emission has risen 2% since 1997 despite limited economic and population growth. Among G8, we are second in population growth and have the fastest economic growth. Unless Canada destroys its own economy or kill a quarter of its people, the goal is unrealistic.
Even if Canada did destroy its own economy AND kill a quarter of its people, since we are still carbon producers, the earth will still keep warming in faster and faster pace in the foreseeable future.
Humans do not exhale a significant amount of carbon. Collectively it may seem high but that is offset by plant life. It is the extra burning of hydrocarbons that adds a further burden to our ecosystems; ones that are being wiped out bit by bit as we speak.
My philosophy is that just because a problem is difficult to solve doesnt mean we simply throw our hands up.There are options,not perfect,but effective options to help reverse the downward trend with respect to environmental deterioration.
But all humans are the source of the problems. Cloths, food, living space, and transportation are keys to our survival and all of them cause global warming. It's just like we have 150% mortgage on our home already, and we are still spending like mad now. Yes, spending like mad is evil, but keep on living on credit 'meagerly' won't get you off from bankruptcy list either.
Consumerism is not all bad. It drives economies and puts food on the table. However, the western mass-consumption style that we have adopted is damaging. There are steps that we can take...it does not need to destroy the economy. It does need to change the focus of the economy however.Environmental sustainability needs to be a focus, and when works in unison with financial prosperity that is a winning combination in the free-market place.
But in the end, you can't solve the "environmental" deficit issue and people will literally torn apart any party who dare to put a penny more tax under the threat of inflation.
Let me reiterate...this carbon tax will not create accelerate inflation in any noticeable way whatsoever. And it is not a penny more tax because it is offset by tax cuts. Many people would be saving money right now if this system was in place.
I do agree it is risky politically but it is the right step forward. Mr Harper is certainly not taking the high road either.
First, I don't trust the government that 100% carbon tax will be transfered back to taxpayers, because, ultimately, some of that will be used to "green programs". So, that's a tax hike, is it not? Beside, if we did change our behaviour, so theoritically, money collected from "G-shit" will decrease. However, these green programs won't stop because of that, will they? Sorry, I am not believing in dream or the government anymore.
The Auditor General will do an annual review of the revenue neutrality of this plan. If there are any problems it will have to be promptly fixed or the gov't would face heavy public scrutiny. So of the revenue will be used for green initiatives certainly...but basically it is using money from other sources not the carbon tax.
When the Green Shift is in effect, private corporations will start investing in more green initiatives. The govt will certainly invest in order to provide choice for Canadians initially but it wont need a consistent commitment (it may not disappear but it would need not increase).
If the white house refuses to follow, companies will just need to move south, as our car manufacturers did. You simply can't do math addition, can you? We can't go back to 1990's emission level (even if we can, it won't cool the earth down). "G-shit" won't reduce our tax bills, because we are all "criminals" of carbon emission. Is "G-shit" still relevant in the age of $2 per liter of gas? Is it okay to increase social burden in the period of inflation?
The denial days of George Bush are over.Both presumptive candidates have been open about setting up a cap and trade system in the US. Businesses that move there would have to deal with that.Further,the Green Shift is coupled with business/corporate tax cuts to encourage investment and innovation.Cutting emissions back to 1990 levels wont be easy but its certainly not unrealistic.
President Bush had said he is going to reform healthcare program, deal with Chinese trade deficit, return Clinton's surplus to the poor, clean the air, unite with European nations, improve UN, secure borders with Mexico, and drill oil from Alaska and Florida coast. None of them work. Will I trust anyone in the WH again? No. Will I trust Ottawa Liberal or conservative to convince Americans to buy into "G-shit"? No.
Why do you have to convince the Americans to buy into the Green Shift plan? They will be creating their own cap and trade system (which by the way will come later after the initial Green Shift initiative) that will do its part to cap/reduce emissions.
GW reformed healthcare thats for sure...helping large drug companies make multi-billion dollars off the backs of hard-working Americans who need (or think they need) the drugs.
So a Canadian company pollut the world in Canada is different from the ones who pollut in the US or China? If companies move, jobs move. What's the point?
Ultimately both countries are sovereign states and make their own domestic policies. However the US looks to be moving towards a cap and trade system while China is hinting at finally cutting emissions (a positive step at least).Canada needs to be on the leading edge, not lagging behind.A recent study showed Canada lacked innovation, the Green Shift plan will promote such innovation and investment.
The climate is changing no matter what we do now. "More sustainable" doesn't mean it will be sustainable. If you are saying if we go back to 1990's emission level, the world will be saved, I will buy into "G-shit". But unfortunately, even if we go back to 1890's level, our "modern" living will still cause global warming. What's the point of punishing honest working people now?
We have to stop something that is happening right now and that is climate change. This sort of plan addresses that and the problems associated with consumerism. We cut emissions aggressively to buy time and along the way we create a "modern" standard of living that has less of an ecological footprint.And that footprint becomes fainter and fainter as we move forward.I dont see it as a punishment to hard working people.I see it as an opportunity to co-exist morality and their finances.
You can't scentifically prove that cutting emissions to 1990's level, which we destined to miss in 2013 anyways, can slowdown global warming. But there are obvious personal and economic consequences to pay with "G-shit". What we are paying for? "footprint becomes fainter and fainter"- That's a wish I hope to I can believe in, but unless we all suddenly become a lot lot poorer, or wonderful new technologies arrive, there is no hope of that yet.
Well I think that is where our argument is stuck. The technology does exist to reach our Kyoto targets (not necessarily promoting Kyoto there are problems with it but it has the right idea). One reason that it isn't all the popular to see these technologies is because it isn't as lucrative business-wise as non-renewable resource use at this point. That is steadily changing, and this plan would help accelerate that.Yes part of the economy would be hurt,but that is the nature of the free market...
...and corporations that take advantage of the tax cuts will be able to spend more money on converting their company to a more environmentally friendly one.Not only is that good financially bc of the Green Shift,it is great for marketing.
The problem is under the current economic condition, corporations won't have time nor money to improve technologies. The more conventional way is to jack up the price of most consumer products or simply export dirty process to oversea. Toyota built green cars, but its NA operation has 30-40% profit came from truck sale. Honda built green cars, but a single Honda Jet has more profit than selling 1698 Fit/Jazz. You just can't put math into "G-shit", only illusional dream.
You have to count that the UK and Sweden have virtually no population growth between 1990's and their manufacturing sectors have shrunk more than 30%. You can say they are on track to achieve KP, but I would like to say they are just cheated by exporting dirty works to eastern Europe and Asia.
Their manufacturing sectors have shrunk...but their economies are still strong.Canada and the US are just as guilty to shifting work/factories offshore yet our emissions are still increasing by the day.
Bottom line is, we cant say "well those guys had it easy" or "its too hard" we have to be strong and sensible plans to tackle the issue while not destroying opportunities of economic success.
The UK has 90% drop in coal production, 77% drop in steel production, and 50% job cut in automotive industry. If similar situation happens in Canadian resource sectors, our emission will be much lower, but we will have to deal with millions of unemployment. This is not the case of easy or not; this is a case of economic viability as different nations have different emission composition.
They have shifted to natural gas instead of coal and their automotive industry is facing similar problems like Ontario...
Its not a case of...well there are no jobs for people in the coal industry anymore...there will be other job opportunities.Even without the Green Shift, Canada is steadily closing these coal plants (although Ontario has stalled that).
The automotive industry needs to adapt to the new market.
"Other job opportunities" Funny what you say that in such easy manner. I wonder what happen if you are middle age and your beloved industry had been destroyed because of politicans who think they save the world. You failed to prove that "G-shit" can make a difference; nor disprove that there are dire consequences for many Canadians. Government is there to make our lives easier, not to make us all poorer.
Other job opportunities for people whose company's decide to cut labour instead of changing their ways...(ie whats happening in Southern Ontario)...
Ultimately its tough for people to switch jobs who have been at it for 30+ years, but if their company fails them we have to have other options for them and the green technologies sector is one such place...
I don't get your equation. If people consume less, pay less, where did you find additional corporate profit to hire more people? If we, in the western world, consume less than before, but still emit much higher than the developing world, somehow we can save the world even when 2/3 of the world want to live in our "modern" standard. If the government tax people base on carbon emission, somehow no pain will be suffered for all consumers. Wow, I think you are a good politican.
You are not considering both sides of the equation. Yes, corporations who decide decide against pursuing a direction that involves environmental sustainability will suffer--thats market forces at work. Others who decide to improve their ways will benefit. Consumption based on environmental degradation will decrease and consumption that follows a more circular rather than linear course will increase (ie consumption itself will be left virtually unchanged).
You are still skipping two critical questions: can "G-shit" stop global warming? do you really believe that no jobs will be lost and no consumers will feel their purchasing power to decrease?
Well yes the Green Shift will help curb emissions in a progressive and sensible manner. Can I say that no jobs will be lost when this plan is in place? Absolutely not. However, it will be a better position then what we are in right now (especially Ontario w/manufacturing). The green technologies sector grow and create jobs; more than offsetting the losses from companies who fail to take their head out of the sand and see where the market is going.The onus will be on companies to step up.
Stop avoiding the question: can "G-shit" STOP GLOBAL WARM? Do you know how much reduction of all human actives is needed to stop global warming? Within 20 years? 30 years? 50 years?
It WILL curb CO2 emissions that are the main contributors to climate change.Your question is flawed and pessimistic.We dont need to reduce "human activities" we need to increase environmental sustainability and decrease/prevent environmental degradation.We dont need to go "back in time" and reduce economic activity/prosperity.We need to look at reducing emissions significantly by about 2050,somewhere in the region of 90%.This is a good start economically and environmentally...
I am not looking forward to just "curb" CO2. Can "G-shit" STOP GLOBAL WARMING? If you are asking us to sacrifice without reasonable return, you are looking for 33 million "Jesus" within this nation.
Theres no "sacrificing" anything; I don't see your point. The plan is progressive and will work to reduce CO2 emissions right away as it is implemented, while growing a more sustainable economy.You decrease CO2 you are on your way to preventing the devastating effects of climate change.We do have the capabilities of growing the green sector parallel to the "main stream" economy (carbon based); and with that we can merge economic prosperity and environmental responsibility/sustainability.
It can be part of the solution. By itself it cannot because we need international support for an international problem but Canada cannot simply sit back and do nothing. This is our leadership role.Others can see that there is a sensible way to cut carbon emissions while preserving/boosting your economy and they will be on board soon enough...
Okay, you finally face part of the issue, but not all of it. In your own word, it simply doesn't work. In reality, 2/3 of the world population are advancing faster and faster to achieve the life style we have enjoyed for decades. In reality, no one knows how much cut back we need in order to stop climate from worsening. In reality, with deforestation, melting ice, increase in atmos. water vapour, and thawing of tundra, global warming will probably be worsened in the next thousands of years.
No country will benefit more from global warming than Canada, with an international shipping lane up north, new ports, new farmland and new investment. After last winter, I am eager for some global warming....The problem is primarily over population. Let's ensure people stop having more than 1 child (yeah right).
Riddle me this.. The earth once went through the ice age.. now the ice age is gone.. humans werent polluting back then.. but the earth warmed up and the ice age ended.. this tells me the warming of the earth is natural.. another point.. everytime mankind fucks with nature and tries to stop it from taking its course we get a hot curling iron of reality shoved up our asses.. let nature go.. we will hit another ice age.. and you will beg for more pollution.. haha just my two cents
the difference is that the earth took a very long time coming out of the ice age and global warming has spiked in the past 60years. if you have studied chem then you will know that CO2 and methane do not cool down as fast as nitrogen and oxygen so the more we pump into the air the warmer the planet is and there is also the fact of destroying the ozone(but that can repair itself in time cause its just O3).The earth does go through natural changed but they take thousands of years.
The only green that's going to get shifted is the green stuff in your wallet. Revenue neutral doesn't mean revenue neutral for the taxpayer...as usual the middle class will pay more. Don't forget the GST pull-back...the Liberals will say ANYTHING to get elected...they'll even lie!
i vote for humanity as whole. Not politicians as they are they are put into a position of status by the banks, to keep the public blind to their personal intentions.
000JustAPerson 1 year ago
carbon scammer
BabylonShitstem 2 years ago
Sure, that's it! Tax the job creating polluters and give the money to foreign countries for our 'environmental debt'. It sounds like global governance. Do you really think job providing companies are going to stay where they get taxed less or more?
drchiodo 2 years ago
C & T in it's existence taxes energy consumers. True Greener comapnies do make more money but what about the people at the bottom. they are stuck with a tax and no cuts...... with a carbon tax it is not so much a tax as a shift. Instead of taxing positive externalities like employment it taxes the negative externality of gas emissions. It'll all balance out and we'll be one step closer to actually meeting Kyoto Protocol.
alanbalfe 2 years ago
Mankind make up only 3% of the total CO2 output into the air. Canada's portion of this is so small that it doesn't even register on any scale you can use.
Plants need CO2 amd the more they get, the more O2 they give off. CO2 is not the problem.
The problem is polution not CO2.
All commercial green houses have CO2 generators to help their plants grow stronger and faster. Our current level of 385 pmm is just enough to keep plants healthy, nothing to worry about.
peakyone 3 years ago
We're not American.
Kiddalee 3 years ago
/agree. I was going to vote NDP until I herd about this. so... Green/block/liberal.. I dunno anymore.
newexperiment 3 years ago
LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS, PLEASE!! Do you all love income tax or something!? Carbon is taxed at all levels and the money pays most of our tax bill. We will no longer have big chunks taken from our pay checks, we would get interest free mortgages up to $10000 interest free + loans up to the same amount to do green renos. All this to help us leave oil before it oil leaves us. Tax pollution, not investments, income, savings or profits! We have never before had control over how much tax we weill pay.
jenniferatemple 3 years ago
The NDP is looking like the party to vote for. No carbon tax for the global warming hoax. Bring the troops home from Afghanistan. This party is also for the legalization of cannabis. Maybe they'll investigate 9/11 too.
AntiShocker 3 years ago
"global warming hoax"?
Why do you even bother, Senator Infoe?
jroy375 3 years ago
Pollution is a real problem. Global warming is a hoax designed to make you feel so guilty about industrial pollution you'd be willing to pay more tax to clean it up. Like it's your fault. A Carbon Tax to stop global warming sells better than Pollution Tax to rip you off. Investigate it. By the way, Al Gore is getting his ass sued! If you still believe you're not being taken, ask yourself why do you feel the onus should be on you instead of the industries that create the pollution?
AntiShocker 3 years ago
MORON!! The tax collected is given back to the citizens! Wake up, READ! the platforms and if you have the ability the constitutions! Learn what your vote can really mean over the long term. This "down turn," "ressession" or "depression" is going to be long term. Mark my words!
jenniferatemple 3 years ago
Impressive name calling. You're really down there. I will not stoop to your depths. Instead I will try to bring you up. First, turn off the TV. If they say they will give your pollution tax money back to you, a citizen, don't you think it is more efficient for you to just keep your money and save them the paper work? Don't fall for that old trick. They've never given anything back other than crumbs. They're going to use your pollution tax money to buy more weapons. Green weapons!
AntiShocker 3 years ago
Well said. Name calling is worm like. I am sorry and, well as it goes, said more about me than you. Cheers
jenniferatemple 3 years ago
Hoax? This isn't USA, we verify things and you are a moron for thinking you can coax us into believing this.
newexperiment 3 years ago
Hello friend. Politicians are not scientists. 30,000 scientists are suing Al Gore's ass because these 30,000 experts verified that global warming is a hoax. We all wish that Canada verifies things on our own but it isn't so. For example, we are at war in Afghanistan because of 9/11. 24 Canadians lost their lives on that day yet Canada did not even launch an inquiry. It is 2008 and Canada still has not investigated the events of 9/11. This is despicable. This is a crime. The truth hurts pal.
AntiShocker 3 years ago 5
@AntiShocker Hello idiot, mechanics, & engineers aren't scientists either.
yellowkrux 5 months ago
why does he went to buddy up with dion? thats fuckin stupid and dion is a fuck tard
kevo201 3 years ago
Harpers a dumb motherfucker.
powers49 3 years ago 2
nah bro u know whose a stupid retard? dion what a fuckin idiot , liberals are starting to collapse
kevo201 3 years ago
@powers49 i agree go ndp or liberal i go for NDP butif liberal was elected i would not mind that much but i hate conserv
Mooseguy15 1 year ago
Damn i wish this guy becomes PM
Chewy2284 3 years ago
So, would you rather take a hard economic line to save money, or take a hard environmental line to protect our ecosystem/species?
To economists, the carbon tax system makes obvious sense. Every unit of carbon carries with it a cost that is fixed by the gov't. Nothing is guaranteed on the emissions front, though.
Cap and trade is the opposite. The price of carbon fluctuates, the gov't limits emissions. In this case, the economics are less certain and emissions are obviously going to go down.
jroy375 3 years ago
cap and trade is not guaranteed either. both plans simply cause the polluters to pay for emmissions, they can still go on emmitting it just costs them money. and its not simply economists who support the carbon tax, when jack layton came out and announced his opposition to the carbon tax the majority of environmental community told him he was wrong on this issue. the endorsements and praise for environmental policy went and are going to the liberals and the greens. not the ndp
stevehowatt 3 years ago
"the endorsements and praise for environmental policy went and are going to the liberals and the greens. not the ndp"
There are thousands out there supporting both sides. And this has nothing to do with who is supporting which side, it's all to do with which will work better, faster, and have the least negative impact on society.
According to the NDP, Barack Obama, George Monbiot, USCAP, and many others, cap and trade will work better than a carbon tax.
jroy375 3 years ago
Use both then! the point is that the cap and trade system takes years to develop effectively and the carbon tax provides further incentive to industry, rewards people for their efficiency and redistributes wealth to middle and lower class people-why are the ndp against this!!
stevehowatt 3 years ago
For the same reasons why the Greens/Liberals are against cap-and-trade: political gain.
Look, I think we should do absolutely WHATEVER it takes to solve this global crisis. It's great to hear this type of debate, but it should have been done many years ago.
If it means a tax & cap-and-trade, fine!
The only reason I support C&T is because it puts a definite cap on emissions, which is essentially the entire point of action on the climate crisis.
jroy375 3 years ago
i agree, but the environmental movement was not divided until jack layton and the ndp made this move- the green party DOES NOT oppose cap and trade and the liberals have not shown major opposition either. layton and harper are the ones who care more about political gain than the issues and i have lost a lot of respect for layton because of this
stevehowatt 3 years ago
Jack and the rest of the NDP support cap-and-trade over carbon taxes because of the negative economic effects that taxes will have on low-income families relative to effects on higher-income families. Cap-and-trade is much more just, since every person has the same cap, whether low- or high-income.
Jack and the NDP are simply looking out for ordinary Canadians (as always) when they attack carbon tax schemes.
If you really think and research the two,
cap-and-trade comes out the winner.
jroy375 3 years ago
You're suggesting that carbon taxes are schemes when they have been successfully implemented in other nations, just as cap-and-trade has. And you don't have the evidence to suggest that the cap-and-trade system is exclusively "the winner" of this debate as it still goes on. Layton and the ndp are still being political opportunistic with environmental policy.
stevehowatt 3 years ago
Worse layton is not being honest. Cap & trade in Europe took ages to set up only to find it is not working!!. It must be a straight tax in the mean time. Everybody said "cap & trade Later" Capo & Trade IS A TAX PLAN ALSO!@! How do you think they will deal with those who exceed their targets (Caps), THEY WILL TAX THEM!! "Forcing THEM TO PAY" tax. Dr. Suzuki says this is WRONG!
jenniferatemple 3 years ago
Cap and trade IS A TAX ALSO!! This option is considered by both the Green Party and the Liberals but down the road after we are more on track. What do you think they will do when caps are exceeded and how many $'s will this undisclosed tax render and to who? The big problem is set up time and a system that is so complicated it leaves more holes than swiss cheese! Worse, where it has been tried, it is failing to achieve results and carbon emmissions are still going up!
jenniferatemple 3 years ago
The EU's cap-and-trade system failed (and is improving, by the way) for one glaring reason: they handed out emissions credits according to how much a company pollutes. This was a huge mistake, since the entire point of the emissions credit system is to auction 100% of the credits. This forces companies to pay up for every bit of their emissions.
And it's fortunate that the EU system was started: there were mistakes made along the way, but new C&T systems will not have to make them again.
jroy375 3 years ago
In response to jennifer: "What do you think they will do when caps are exceeded"
It's quite simple. They will pay other companies who have leftover credits.
Companies that pollute too much pay companies that haven't.
These greener companies make money for simply being green.
Essentially, green up, or pay up.
Agreed, this is the same principle idea as a carbon tax, but under a tax, smaller companies won't be able to absorb the carbon costs that large, multi-million dollar companies can.
jroy375 3 years ago
And as for C&T being "complicated"?
jennifer, you are a supporter of the Green Shift, which will move carbon tax revenue to income/personal tax cuts.
Anyone who has ever filled out a tax form knows damn well that taxes are certainly NOT simple. Relative to Layton's C&T plan, Dion plan would be a bureaucratic nightmare. Every year, a new CO2 tax rate would have to be calculated to determine what emissions reduction was to be achieved, and even then, there are no guarantees.
Tomorrow, vote NDP.
jroy375 3 years ago
The problem with carbon tax is that it is fixed in a fiscal sense: the more you pollute, the more you pay. However, this doesn't necessarily guarantee that they will reduce emissions.
Cap and trade is fixed in a emissions/environmental sense. The country as a whole cannot emit more than its allotted amount (the "cap"). Within this limit, companies may pay for more carbon credits, or sell credits if they emit less (the "trade").
jroy375 3 years ago
The NDP cap and trade makes sense.
The Liberal "Green Shift" does not, although it has the right intentions.
The Conservative plan is idiotic and does absolutely nothing to reduce emissions. (Emissions allowances under this plan grow with the economy. Emissions actually increase under this plan.)
The Green plan is also a carbon tax, which, along with the Liberal plan, will NOT work.
jroy375 3 years ago
so all of the economists- not just environmentally focused economists- who absolutely are in favor of the carbon tax which has worked in other nations are idiots?? the cap and trade emmissions is not established yet
stevehowatt 3 years ago
I frankly don't think economists should have any say in this. Of course, this would be stupid, since we're talking about additional taxes and economic limits and the like...
However, we decide whether, in lowering our emissions, we do what's right for the economy, or what's right for the environment.
Obviously, the entire point of lowering our emissions is to preserve or natural web of life on Earth (including the very survival of our species).
jroy375 3 years ago
Global warming is a fraud. 911 is a fraud.
These people want to have an inspector coming on your property to determine your carbon taxes.
Do we need more government interference.
No..
btester1 3 years ago
Stephen Harper is the only one offering a soltion that WILL have positive effects on both environment and economy. Carbon taxes will only drive up inflation and reduce industry. Would you let Canada slump into recession for a 2% reduction in carbon while China and India carry on destroying the planet. Only the Harper conservatives seem to be awake. Dion shifting his greenshift before an expected election is classic liberal antics, he's buying votes with money he plans to steal.
VvredknightvV 3 years ago
We are already in a recession. ATM, IMO all parties suck, but I will say this:
We should make an effort for a fresh start and try to promote green - fuck jack layton that's over board. I think we need to force big corps ei cosco, walmart, to have solar panals on their roofs. majority conservative gov't scares people so who knows what will happen this election.
nevous8 3 years ago
In 2002 when the government admitted to using racism and lies to keep cannabis users in cages and they see no problem with that I started to do some research.
The only science that I can find is that Henry Ford and Rudolf diesel had to switch to your fuel making you trillions.
I don't believe in trillion dollar accidents do you?
Name me one other time that a racist accident made trillions?
6k2 3 years ago
At least Dion is trying to fool the public into thinking it's not the government turning the skies black for profit.
At least he feels a tiny bit bad about profiting from killing the planet.
You banned hemp by using no evidence just racism to sell your oil.
You banned the number one crop on the planet because you couldn't sell oil if it was legal.
When are you going to give up this scam that oil was ever wanted or needed?
I'll ask again. What science did you use to ban hemp in Canada?
6k2 3 years ago
Lets design electric cars to bomb countries.
Strap a couple nukes on top and a few guns then the USA will develop it in 3 or 4 days.
Then just take the nukes and guns off and sell it to private citizens.
Unfortunalty I'm not kidding.
It's a sick world when most of the greatest technologies were developed just to kill people.
6k2 3 years ago
If this government is telling me it wants to go green I would like to see your new adjusted salary after we ban oil.
The first step to going green would be a government report which is now adjusted to lose the 20-40 billion a year they make off of oil. They make 5 billion for every ten cents they charge on oil.
I am interested in viewing the first step you would have already completed.
You can't cut services so I would like to see your new salaries after we ban oil.
6k2 3 years ago
(Part two not showing up on my screen may show later)
When they produce this report that must exist if they are not liars we will implement it.
Then when we are no longer counting on these billions of dollars to pay these government officials going green will be easy.
Unless they have been poluting our planet and wasting the money there should be trillions in an account waiting to develop new technologies.
We locked a lot of farmer in cages for you to get paid for your oil time to give back
6k2 3 years ago
Listening to people who make billions from oil is like tabbaco farmers telling me they don't want people to smoke.
I can't believe that these people can tell you they want to go green with a straight face.
Do you think they really wants to go from a 100k+ salary to just above minimum wage?
Chase the money!
Tell me the reason we banned hemp causing you to make trillions.
Tell me electric cars are impossible then I'll ask about the space station and nuclear subs.
6k2 3 years ago
Jack Layton is a fucking moron
The NDP actually had power in the liberal minority government. The NDP after years of no voice was finally getting ACTION done parliament such as the transit funding boost for the cities.
Then this moron topples the government due to conservative pressure and as a result the NDP have no power once again...and even worse we have CONSERVATIVES in power!
Everytime I see Harper talking...I think of this jackass.
I hope the Green Party kills the NDP for good
DriverInc 3 years ago
We're not going to solve the problem by simply working on the big oil companies. Sorry folks, it isn't that easy-real measures will affect us all-to think we can do it without any economic pain is a delusion. A green economy will create jobs in the long term bt we need to be prepared for a bumpy transition. Politicians who tell you otherwise are fixated on electoral success over the health of our environment.
gilraen789 3 years ago
I'm amazed that the debate on the carbon tax has been this extensive on this video. To me, it's all too simple: Stephane Dion is using an idea that's already been put in place well elsewhere, and is endorsed by prominent environmentalists and economists. Stephen Harper has a talking oil stain saying it's just an evil liberal trick. Whether you think it sucks or it kicks ass, the current governing party can't seem to form an intelligent argument. Period.
TheMaskedDonut 3 years ago
As for the developing world,of course they want a better lifestyle-everyone does.That is why it is so crucial for countries in the Western world (the G8) to step up and show leadership in sustainable economic growth.Members w/I the G8 are reluctant to take a first step though;so that is where Canada comes in.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
We provide the leadership and vision needed to lead the G8 and the rest of the world. Mr Dion's Green Shift Plan shows the leadership and vision necessary in this difficult but attainable task.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
You are twisting my words (in fact I think you are putting words in my mouth).I did not say that it doesnt work, nor did I ever hint at that (hence this discussion that we have been having for a while).
nickgibson1 3 years ago
As for Canada, this four year plan is just the start as it will move beyond four years but Mr Dion is leaving room for reassessment at the 3rd/4th year point to see where the tax should sit at that point.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Companies are not being abandoned though. Tax cuts will benefit their cause to move towards growing their business in the direction of the market.Those who dont take this direction have no one to blame but themselves.And those are the companies who workers should be frustrated at.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
The Green Shift will allow for a smoother transition as company's can put resources towards more efficient production and products with the tax cuts they receive...
nickgibson1 3 years ago
It is a great opportunity to promote a growing sector (in green technology), when the economy is slowing down and Mr Dion is willing to take this risk as he has staked his political career on this plan.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Why bother? Because the war isn't over. As I said, if the G8 steps up and helps shape a more sustainable economy, other countries will have to adapt in order to succeed in the marketplace. But the G8 needs leadership from within and that is where Canada comes in.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
It would be easier for Africa to develop Green economies in many regions as the infrastructure there is minimal so they have nothing to start from anyways.Green technology is a great opportunity for Africa.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Theres no need to stop them bc it will take them less time to develop then we did,along the way their economies will have to adapt to the world economy.The G8 must be leaders as they are the among the wealthiest countries in the world to shape a sustainable economy.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Population growth shouldnt be factored in Sweden and the UK's progress when you look at Canada whose population growth is nearly zero (we would have negative growth without immigration)...and our emissions have rose...
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Heres the solution to env. problems.
1.stop greenhouse gases by plugging up all the hot air the comes from the ndp and the liberals
2. tax mustaches and put that money towards alternatives.
darcam123 3 years ago
The Conservatives are worse.They claim to be fighting climate change except no environmentalist you ask will say their plan is legitimate.Economist point out that the Green Shift couples tax cuts with its plan while the Conservatives plan does raise the cost of goods without measurable tax relief (GST? gotta spend more to save more)...
The mustache comment...fair enough I ll give you that...lol
nickgibson1 3 years ago
"...raise the cost of goods without measurable tax relief." That's the Green Shift Plan for you. Remember the report from your favourite province Saskatchewan? An unsurmountable increase in cost of living awaits should this sucker hit. Thank goodness Dion didn't get elected and had to resign, agreed?
Moreover, there's still no word on that so-called "policy debate" between you and me. Do you have any ideas to talk about at all, or are you just chicken?
lkcwu 2 years ago
Thank you for posting this video. I suppose Jack is trying to run his party into the ground.
asaabthearab 3 years ago
You people backing this tax are NUTS! We are 30 million...compared to over 6.5 billion. man made global warming is a FARCE!!! Why have they found fossilized crocodiles in greenland..and palm trees in antarctica. Do you think the climate was exactly the same for millions of years? Ice ages come and go. The world changes. Carbon tax will not help any of this. But it might make you feel better about yourself
shaun98si 3 years ago
Canadian has the worst per capita pollution in the world. On on the contrary, giving incentives for us to reduce our carbon foot print on an individual basis will go further than any other country. Furthermore, a focus on individuals is exactly what is needed in Canada.
Big polluters will not get off easy because they they are just that, "big polluters" and will have to pay accordingly. This is an economic package designed to stimulate the efficient technologies and practices.
asaabthearab 3 years ago
Very well articulated!:D
nickgibson1 3 years ago
the new carbon tax is good for people who take buses and bike and what not because people should receive cheques every few months. so if you put out less CO2 you will get more money then you pay. My heart does go out to people who live in small towns where buses arn't that regular. Where this tax really hits the target is for large companies that give out tons tons of CO2: they will be taxed for a lot.
DAIGORO14 3 years ago
Yes...and they'll pass it on to you in incresed selling price.
countryclassic 3 years ago
They may pass some of the burden off to consumers but you have to realize that this is a world market. Especially with respect to oil, the price of "everything" (as the Conservatives phrase it) will certainly be affected - no doubt. But it will not be significant and consumers will be more then offset by the income tax cuts and special tax credits.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Of course, poverty is the best reason for recycle and conservation. If the government tax people enough, some will even scout landfill to make a living. The point is that carbon tax is totally useless to tackle our environmental problems and there is no clear plan on how much or how to use the money. There is no scientific research that prove eradicating cars can cool the earth back to normal or imposing the new tax can dramatically change Canadian consumption pattern.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Well I totally disagree with that...I realize that you do not agree with the scientific evidence pointing to climate change but certainly it would be elementary that if you take out emissions from vehicles that represents a large portion of GH emissions and would prove very significant. Yes it would change the Canadian consumption pattern but I think you are missing the positive nature of free-market; good business/products will succeed. Innovation will breed an inundation (of wealth that is)...
nickgibson1 3 years ago
No good business or products exist now that can save consumer money. Every so-called "green technologies" cost a lot more than their conventional counterparts. If we can pay to get the world to cool down, fine, we must do it. However, They simple CAN'T. Why bother?
mercedescl 3 years ago
Well im disagree with that notion and again that goes back to your skepticism on climate change...That is the crux of this argument...
You are right, most green technologies being developed right now are more expensive initially but people can determine the longterm benefits of these products/services with rising energy costs...
nickgibson1 3 years ago
So you said it yourself, the technologies that can save us don't exist yet; at least, not a viable replacement for common use. And you also mention my point, the rising energy costs are changing our behaviours already, another kick to our weakened economy, it will kill it immediately.
mercedescl 3 years ago
No I didnt say that they dont exist yet. I said that they are more expensive right now because other less environmentally friendly products can be sold much cheaper. The average person couldn't replace everything and be totally carbon neutral because access and financial flexibility is limiting at first. But once the market adjusts (and it adjusts faster in this sort of climate than it would a cap&trade system), the avg person could seek carbon neutrality.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
...The plan is sensible because it does not kill the economy but progressively says "time to change your ways or you wont be here much longer".
nickgibson1 3 years ago
If it doesn't bring down economic consumption, it can't achieve its goal as "reducing green house emission". What you are saying is completely contradictory.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Its transitional...it boosts the green side of the economy and forces a change with the less environmentally friendly portion of the economy. It may initially have a negative impact if the tax was initiated at $40/$50 or more per tonne but it starts at $10/tonne. Basically the first year is to get industry to start thinking about it...
nickgibson1 3 years ago
You can't go carbon neutrality. Even the most ambitious goal is the return to the 1990's level. As long as we live, even in death, all our consumption produces greenhouse emission.
mercedescl 3 years ago
There are already examples of individuals who are carbon neutral...it is rare right now but possible...im not saying that society can be carbon neutral because I doubt that is attainable (certainly not at present time).
nickgibson1 3 years ago
No individuals can be carbon neutral, because all of us need food and breathing. The houses we are living on are occupying on top of what is previously plant living space, so you can't claim you can offset any by planting trees either. Is our modern life unsubstainable for the environment? yes, we are destroying the earth. Can we stop global warming by any functional programs? No, we past the point of no return already.
mercedescl 3 years ago
At present I think it is nearly impossible to attain a carbon neutral society but there are many examples around the world of people who are carbon neutral.This does not mean they do not create emissions because that is impossible.But their emissions are minimal and they offset them by using minimal/no emissions for electricity, creating minimal/zero waste and creating a carbon sink property (ie plant life).In fact,until recently BC was a net carbon sink,but clear cutting has since ended that.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Have we reached a point where we have inflicted irreversable damage? Probably. Are we at a point where we cannot stop any further damage? Absolutely not. But we could be if we dont take bold action such as this...Such Leadership that Canada has been known to provide on the world stage.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Who cares about world stage? If I have to choose between paying for $4 per liter and killing 70 million Iranians, I would say, "if they love nuclear bombs so much, we should send enough for them, viciously." That's how piss I am when I see stupid environmentalists or leftists think we should pay more taxes to conserve even more. Many are in desperate situation already; no one love to destroy the earth, but no one hate money either.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Well lets just say that making sweeping generalizations about the Iranian people is one reason that the West is hated. Not all Iranians support their President's aspirations (in fact I would argue most don't).Unfortunately they dont have the luxury of showing their displeasure because they are quickly dealt with.That is not democracy...the arming of a nuclear arsonal is not something that can be pinned to the wants of the Iranian people.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Im not sure what you are trying to say with respect to your either/or statement but I do see your point wrt the earth vs money. That is why this plan is sensible. It puts more money back into people's pockets to start and they can choose to become greener. Lets not forget that both the Conservative Plan and NDP plan will not offset the rise in the costs of goods with tax cuts as the Liberal plan does.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
But you fail to prove that "G-shit" can help to cut any meaningful amount of emission without dramatically reduce consumption level. Consumption level is GDP and where our wages come from.
mercedescl 3 years ago
It has been proven to work. Look at Sweden. And they did not couple their carbon tax with offsetting tax cuts.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Further it will increase the disposable income of individuals and allow them to make green decisions that will save them more money going forward.The Green Shift is still relevant because it does not tax gas and will do little to affect gas prices as it is a world market.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Can you name a single nation which can achieve the goal of returning to 1990's emission level without economic collapse?
mercedescl 3 years ago
Well I can name our country as one...if you are referring to Kyoto specifically then I turn your attention to Sweden. A country that is on track to meet the Kyoto goals and then some. Britain is also in the same boat (although not in as ideal spot as Sweden). After a conversion from coal to natural gas-generated electricity, Britain is on track to meet their goals as well.Both are economic leaders in the world...
nickgibson1 3 years ago
5% below their 1990 levels is Kyoto protocol's poster child. In 2008, Britain is 2% above its 1997 level. Sweden is still emitting more carbon emissions per capita than China, Turkey, Cuba, and India. The best case you can find, Sweden, is just a hair away from France in CEpC. Imagine if 1/3 of humans (China + India) on earth be as "green" as Sweden, the total emission level will have to rise 48%.
mercedescl 3 years ago
They are both on track though to meet their targets that is the point.And their economies are still going strong.You are right,if everyone lived the way the Western world lives we would need about 10 earths to accomodate everyone.Thats why we need to address it.This is the first step.Cutting carbon emissions buys us time to fix other consumption/waste problems before they are spun out of control by Climate Change.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
But is it moral to stop India and China to develop? Is it moral to stop Russia from economic recovery through oil in Siberia wilderness? Is it moral to say animals are more important when Africans want to industrialize? Time ran out already; we should do it after WWII. Now, "G-shit" is too little, too late. If we must finish KP or other further emission cut, then we must destroy our existing economy. Well, people are greener when poorer, but they would hate their government even more.
mercedescl 3 years ago
When you got 2/3 of the world are becoming as dirty as the western world, there is nothing you can do to save global warming or mass extinction. Why bother to struggle in an inevitable death when facing a risky election and a slipping economic downturn?
mercedescl 3 years ago
Is it better to be wrong and end up with a more sustainable economy or do nothing and find out climate change is what we expected (or worse)? A more sustainable economy can only promote long term economic success.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
And how will this economy be more sustainable? Dion's plan, according to some of his own MP's, is nothing more than an extra transfer of wealth from rich to poor. You're just going to make everybody equal, but equally poor.
Moreover, during this economic crisis, the Liberals were the ones demanding for more spending, all the while condemning Harper for a deficit. Now that's unsustainable. You can't spend more and expect your savings to remain the same.
Boy, you're making no sense at all!
lkcwu 2 years ago
This is "green shit". It is just a scam to raise new taxes, and the additional dollar will be wasted on useless programs as governments always do. Even with miracle help, reducing carbon emission to 1990 level, we are still a highly carbon positive society that continues to "destroy" the earth.If it takes thousands of years and 7 billion people to "warm" the planet to this point, how can paying a new tax and just reducing part of our modern way of living can "cool" down the planet?
mercedescl 3 years ago
Because ultimately people have to be encouraged to be environmentally friendly by making it financially make sense. This is not a tax grab. It is revenue neutral - for the government of course. There will be winners and losers just like there is in the current system, however this system is more sensible as a person can put a little more effort into becoming more eco-friendly and see the rewards in their bank statements...
nickgibson1 3 years ago
In the end, you just prove my statement. There is no way this can save the environment. This just makes you feel a little better but it will completely put Canadian farming, manufacturing and the oil industry in jeopardy. Our economy is based on environmental destruction and by putting unnecessary tax on it, the effect will be similar to increase interest rate. Our economy will not shift after this "G-Shit", it will just slowdown or getting smaller.
mercedescl 3 years ago
No. What is putting our manufacturing industry in jeopardy right now is its focus on gas-guzzling SUVs. Until they understand that their main focus has to be gas efficiency not masculine appeal they will turn around their companies. Honda and Toyota are already doing this and as such they are the leaders in the industry.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Honda built jets and Toyota built tundra. The so-called leaders ain't really earning as much money on "environmentally friendly" cars as higher priced models. If you take away the fat profit of SUVs and big vehicles, you can be expected to pay $40,000 for a corolla or a lot of auto workers will lose their jobs.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Secondly, the oil industry is booming because demand is high and supply is low (plus a few more factors but that is the main driver). It is a non-renewable resource, which means that we are not going to have it some day so we cannot depend on it for much longer even if it had no negative environmental side effects. (Just so you know, the oil industry here will not be hurt if Canada lowers its dependence on oil...Uncle Sam will still need more for a little while yet).
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Thirdly, I live in a farming community. I know the challenges that face farmers. A Carbon tax would hurt them, however the Liberal plan's cut in income taxes and special tax credits for people in rural communities (ie farmers) will help them and as shrewd business people they will find ways to further cut costs by cutting back on hydrocarbon-based fuels.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Whereas now, if someone works a few more hours a week thus raising their income level to a different tax bracket they are punished for earning more. Now, the Green Shift does not eliminate that problem but it does ease it, shifting tax burden from what you earn to what you burn.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
How can this be fair? Someone can live in a 4 million dollar apartment in downtown, with his expensive solar panel, he could virtually transfer all his carbon cost to his clients. On the other hand, a middle income farmer has to pay for all his environmental destruction tools like pickups, equipments, farm feed, and generators, but he has to compete with American competitors who are recieving huge subsidies from the white house instead of putting a new tax burden on him.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Im not too sure what you are trying to say with respect to the solar panel because it does not emit CO2. But the cost of the solar panel will certainly be transferred but it would be good for the apartment because it would result in overall lower energy costs in the long run. If you are talking about some random business man who installs a solar panel in his apartment then transfers the costs to his clients, sure he could do that but people will start to seek business elsewhere if he did.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
I am just saying that rich people or big businesses can easily transfer the "green tax" on consumers and to find alternatives. However, large middle income family or farmers or small businesses must soldier on with lower income and face higher inflation because of the imposing tax that can do nothing about the environment. CO2 is naturally emitted from animals and humans. You can't ban CO2 emission even if you kill all humans. Worse news: Methane and water vapour are more damaging than CO2.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Big business is guilty of purging resources with reckless abandon from the environment for the almighty dollar. Now, will this stop with the Green Shift...no. But it will certainly make them take a second thought. Inflation is not caused by carbon taxes...
CO2 is naturally emitted by humans and animals but the problem is we have extracted resources from the ground that were never meant to be in the atmosphere...(cont'd)
nickgibson1 3 years ago
...now we have burn those resources and transferred them to the atmosphere where they never should have been...that is the problem. We could sustain humans and animals because of all the plant life but the extra CO2 is not absorbed and moved up in the atmosphere and causes the greenhouse effect. Methane and H2O are more potent in terms of creating climate change but they are not emitted in the quantities that CO2 is (H20 comes back to earth anyways).
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Farmers do burn a lot of diesel and clean cut the enter natural environment to make a living. We have mass exodus of manufacturing jobs in Ontario due to exchange rate and economic downturn already, paying more will just be death sentence. In the end, the government will target motorists and the oil industry for carbon tax. Most people drive not because they want to sit in rush hour parking lot, they need to get to work. Tax won't stop them from coming.
mercedescl 3 years ago
What it will do is make them consider carpooling instead of having thousands of people driving single-occupant vehicles to work everyday, it will make people think of using public transit more often where possible, it will make people consider healthier options such as biking or walking to work. So you are right, taxes will not stop them from coming (although computers have a hand in that) but they will reconsider how they get to work with this plan.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
As for the clean cut of the environment, that is true but that speaks to our overall consumerism lifestyle (which includes the pollution of the environment with greenhouse gases). No one suggests that stop farmers because we need to eat, but we do need to keep working on ways to co-exist with the environment instead of working against it (as should be a general rule of thumb). The high dollar contributes to the manufacturing sector's problem but it is mostly because of their products themselves.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
...products that are gas guzzers...that is simply bad business planning. And as such Honda and Toyota are the leaders in the industry (I would argue that the economic downturn in Ontario is mostly attributed to the manufacturing industry...not the other way around)
nickgibson1 3 years ago
2,000 years ago, most of Europe and China were covered with thick forest. 600 years ago, most of Canada was cover with evergreen forest. Now, 90% of Madagascar, 70% of Indonesia, 40% of Brazil, and 55% of Africa green belt forest are either completely wipe out or under siege. It is not carbon emission that is destroying earth. It's the amount of dramatic changes that we have done in the past 6 millennia.
mercedescl 3 years ago
$1.5 per liter did that already.
mercedescl 3 years ago
It has certainly helped...this will push it farther...because people will be more conscious of it because they have to be. Gas prices will not be taxed further and will be minimally affected, but people will accompany their reduced energy/heating oil consumption with better driving habits...(ie the examples i listed earlier)
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Stop driving SUV will just reduce less than .25% of total GH emission because modern cars emit very low harmful gas already and replacement transportation will also produce GH gas. The main "criminals of carbon producers" are powerplants, refineries, airliners & ships, and natural cycle.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Im not saying that SUVs are the main problem. All I mean is that they are very unnecessary for 99.9% of people who own them...they do create extra unnecessary emissions. Your 'criminals' are right on the money. Obviously we can only control the 'artificially-enhanced' portion of GH emissions and this carbon tax's main target are powerplants, refineries, jet fuel (ship fuel)...
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Let me give you some harsh number. 35% of our energy comsumption belongs to private vehicles. Out of those 35%, approx. 34% is SUV. Assume that 80% of them is driven by poser. With high gas priced, 20% reduction in the number of SUV is predicted. That only produce 2% reduction in SUV. In passenger cars, only 1% reduction with 250% gas price increase in 2 years. As a result, astronomical gas price only causes about approx. 3% reduction in energy consumption, or about .5% reduction in emission.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Unless the new carbon tax push gas price above $4 or anything in equvalent, I can't see it will have additional effect on motorists or significantly reduce overall emission. In the end, "G-shit" is pointless.
mercedescl 3 years ago
I do see your point there...I wouldnt say it is pointless but it is not as drastic as one would need to make changes quickly. However, you cannot do that to the economy, thats why this plan is progressive in that it will systematically punish polluters more every year making more and more people reconsider their habits...
nickgibson1 3 years ago
ok 34% are SUV emissions but what is the percentage of SUV's on the road as compared to all other vehicles?
What I would like to see is the amount of people who have switched to more fuel efficient vehicles in the past 2 years with comparisons to the last 10 years...that would be telling...
nickgibson1 3 years ago
35% X 34% = 12% of our energy consumption is caused by SUV; we have been buying I4 engines and small cars a long time before this oil crisis. In UK, with high gas tax, road tax, and congestion charges, its annual net greenhouse emission has risen 2% since 1997 despite limited economic and population growth. Among G8, we are second in population growth and have the fastest economic growth. Unless Canada destroys its own economy or kill a quarter of its people, the goal is unrealistic.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Even if Canada did destroy its own economy AND kill a quarter of its people, since we are still carbon producers, the earth will still keep warming in faster and faster pace in the foreseeable future.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Humans do not exhale a significant amount of carbon. Collectively it may seem high but that is offset by plant life. It is the extra burning of hydrocarbons that adds a further burden to our ecosystems; ones that are being wiped out bit by bit as we speak.
My philosophy is that just because a problem is difficult to solve doesnt mean we simply throw our hands up.There are options,not perfect,but effective options to help reverse the downward trend with respect to environmental deterioration.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
But all humans are the source of the problems. Cloths, food, living space, and transportation are keys to our survival and all of them cause global warming. It's just like we have 150% mortgage on our home already, and we are still spending like mad now. Yes, spending like mad is evil, but keep on living on credit 'meagerly' won't get you off from bankruptcy list either.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Consumerism is not all bad. It drives economies and puts food on the table. However, the western mass-consumption style that we have adopted is damaging. There are steps that we can take...it does not need to destroy the economy. It does need to change the focus of the economy however.Environmental sustainability needs to be a focus, and when works in unison with financial prosperity that is a winning combination in the free-market place.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
But in the end, you can't solve the "environmental" deficit issue and people will literally torn apart any party who dare to put a penny more tax under the threat of inflation.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Let me reiterate...this carbon tax will not create accelerate inflation in any noticeable way whatsoever. And it is not a penny more tax because it is offset by tax cuts. Many people would be saving money right now if this system was in place.
I do agree it is risky politically but it is the right step forward. Mr Harper is certainly not taking the high road either.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
First, I don't trust the government that 100% carbon tax will be transfered back to taxpayers, because, ultimately, some of that will be used to "green programs". So, that's a tax hike, is it not? Beside, if we did change our behaviour, so theoritically, money collected from "G-shit" will decrease. However, these green programs won't stop because of that, will they? Sorry, I am not believing in dream or the government anymore.
mercedescl 3 years ago
The Auditor General will do an annual review of the revenue neutrality of this plan. If there are any problems it will have to be promptly fixed or the gov't would face heavy public scrutiny. So of the revenue will be used for green initiatives certainly...but basically it is using money from other sources not the carbon tax.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
When the Green Shift is in effect, private corporations will start investing in more green initiatives. The govt will certainly invest in order to provide choice for Canadians initially but it wont need a consistent commitment (it may not disappear but it would need not increase).
nickgibson1 3 years ago
If the white house refuses to follow, companies will just need to move south, as our car manufacturers did. You simply can't do math addition, can you? We can't go back to 1990's emission level (even if we can, it won't cool the earth down). "G-shit" won't reduce our tax bills, because we are all "criminals" of carbon emission. Is "G-shit" still relevant in the age of $2 per liter of gas? Is it okay to increase social burden in the period of inflation?
mercedescl 3 years ago
The denial days of George Bush are over.Both presumptive candidates have been open about setting up a cap and trade system in the US. Businesses that move there would have to deal with that.Further,the Green Shift is coupled with business/corporate tax cuts to encourage investment and innovation.Cutting emissions back to 1990 levels wont be easy but its certainly not unrealistic.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
President Bush had said he is going to reform healthcare program, deal with Chinese trade deficit, return Clinton's surplus to the poor, clean the air, unite with European nations, improve UN, secure borders with Mexico, and drill oil from Alaska and Florida coast. None of them work. Will I trust anyone in the WH again? No. Will I trust Ottawa Liberal or conservative to convince Americans to buy into "G-shit"? No.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Why do you have to convince the Americans to buy into the Green Shift plan? They will be creating their own cap and trade system (which by the way will come later after the initial Green Shift initiative) that will do its part to cap/reduce emissions.
GW reformed healthcare thats for sure...helping large drug companies make multi-billion dollars off the backs of hard-working Americans who need (or think they need) the drugs.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
So a Canadian company pollut the world in Canada is different from the ones who pollut in the US or China? If companies move, jobs move. What's the point?
mercedescl 3 years ago
Ultimately both countries are sovereign states and make their own domestic policies. However the US looks to be moving towards a cap and trade system while China is hinting at finally cutting emissions (a positive step at least).Canada needs to be on the leading edge, not lagging behind.A recent study showed Canada lacked innovation, the Green Shift plan will promote such innovation and investment.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
The climate is changing no matter what we do now. "More sustainable" doesn't mean it will be sustainable. If you are saying if we go back to 1990's emission level, the world will be saved, I will buy into "G-shit". But unfortunately, even if we go back to 1890's level, our "modern" living will still cause global warming. What's the point of punishing honest working people now?
mercedescl 3 years ago
We have to stop something that is happening right now and that is climate change. This sort of plan addresses that and the problems associated with consumerism. We cut emissions aggressively to buy time and along the way we create a "modern" standard of living that has less of an ecological footprint.And that footprint becomes fainter and fainter as we move forward.I dont see it as a punishment to hard working people.I see it as an opportunity to co-exist morality and their finances.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
You can't scentifically prove that cutting emissions to 1990's level, which we destined to miss in 2013 anyways, can slowdown global warming. But there are obvious personal and economic consequences to pay with "G-shit". What we are paying for? "footprint becomes fainter and fainter"- That's a wish I hope to I can believe in, but unless we all suddenly become a lot lot poorer, or wonderful new technologies arrive, there is no hope of that yet.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Well I think that is where our argument is stuck. The technology does exist to reach our Kyoto targets (not necessarily promoting Kyoto there are problems with it but it has the right idea). One reason that it isn't all the popular to see these technologies is because it isn't as lucrative business-wise as non-renewable resource use at this point. That is steadily changing, and this plan would help accelerate that.Yes part of the economy would be hurt,but that is the nature of the free market...
nickgibson1 3 years ago
...and corporations that take advantage of the tax cuts will be able to spend more money on converting their company to a more environmentally friendly one.Not only is that good financially bc of the Green Shift,it is great for marketing.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
The problem is under the current economic condition, corporations won't have time nor money to improve technologies. The more conventional way is to jack up the price of most consumer products or simply export dirty process to oversea. Toyota built green cars, but its NA operation has 30-40% profit came from truck sale. Honda built green cars, but a single Honda Jet has more profit than selling 1698 Fit/Jazz. You just can't put math into "G-shit", only illusional dream.
mercedescl 3 years ago
You have to count that the UK and Sweden have virtually no population growth between 1990's and their manufacturing sectors have shrunk more than 30%. You can say they are on track to achieve KP, but I would like to say they are just cheated by exporting dirty works to eastern Europe and Asia.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Their manufacturing sectors have shrunk...but their economies are still strong.Canada and the US are just as guilty to shifting work/factories offshore yet our emissions are still increasing by the day.
Bottom line is, we cant say "well those guys had it easy" or "its too hard" we have to be strong and sensible plans to tackle the issue while not destroying opportunities of economic success.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
The UK has 90% drop in coal production, 77% drop in steel production, and 50% job cut in automotive industry. If similar situation happens in Canadian resource sectors, our emission will be much lower, but we will have to deal with millions of unemployment. This is not the case of easy or not; this is a case of economic viability as different nations have different emission composition.
mercedescl 3 years ago
They have shifted to natural gas instead of coal and their automotive industry is facing similar problems like Ontario...
Its not a case of...well there are no jobs for people in the coal industry anymore...there will be other job opportunities.Even without the Green Shift, Canada is steadily closing these coal plants (although Ontario has stalled that).
The automotive industry needs to adapt to the new market.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
"Other job opportunities" Funny what you say that in such easy manner. I wonder what happen if you are middle age and your beloved industry had been destroyed because of politicans who think they save the world. You failed to prove that "G-shit" can make a difference; nor disprove that there are dire consequences for many Canadians. Government is there to make our lives easier, not to make us all poorer.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Other job opportunities for people whose company's decide to cut labour instead of changing their ways...(ie whats happening in Southern Ontario)...
Ultimately its tough for people to switch jobs who have been at it for 30+ years, but if their company fails them we have to have other options for them and the green technologies sector is one such place...
nickgibson1 3 years ago
I don't get your equation. If people consume less, pay less, where did you find additional corporate profit to hire more people? If we, in the western world, consume less than before, but still emit much higher than the developing world, somehow we can save the world even when 2/3 of the world want to live in our "modern" standard. If the government tax people base on carbon emission, somehow no pain will be suffered for all consumers. Wow, I think you are a good politican.
mercedescl 3 years ago
You are not considering both sides of the equation. Yes, corporations who decide decide against pursuing a direction that involves environmental sustainability will suffer--thats market forces at work. Others who decide to improve their ways will benefit. Consumption based on environmental degradation will decrease and consumption that follows a more circular rather than linear course will increase (ie consumption itself will be left virtually unchanged).
nickgibson1 3 years ago
You are still skipping two critical questions: can "G-shit" stop global warming? do you really believe that no jobs will be lost and no consumers will feel their purchasing power to decrease?
mercedescl 3 years ago
Well yes the Green Shift will help curb emissions in a progressive and sensible manner. Can I say that no jobs will be lost when this plan is in place? Absolutely not. However, it will be a better position then what we are in right now (especially Ontario w/manufacturing). The green technologies sector grow and create jobs; more than offsetting the losses from companies who fail to take their head out of the sand and see where the market is going.The onus will be on companies to step up.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Stop avoiding the question: can "G-shit" STOP GLOBAL WARM? Do you know how much reduction of all human actives is needed to stop global warming? Within 20 years? 30 years? 50 years?
mercedescl 3 years ago
It WILL curb CO2 emissions that are the main contributors to climate change.Your question is flawed and pessimistic.We dont need to reduce "human activities" we need to increase environmental sustainability and decrease/prevent environmental degradation.We dont need to go "back in time" and reduce economic activity/prosperity.We need to look at reducing emissions significantly by about 2050,somewhere in the region of 90%.This is a good start economically and environmentally...
nickgibson1 3 years ago
I am not looking forward to just "curb" CO2. Can "G-shit" STOP GLOBAL WARMING? If you are asking us to sacrifice without reasonable return, you are looking for 33 million "Jesus" within this nation.
mercedescl 3 years ago
Theres no "sacrificing" anything; I don't see your point. The plan is progressive and will work to reduce CO2 emissions right away as it is implemented, while growing a more sustainable economy.You decrease CO2 you are on your way to preventing the devastating effects of climate change.We do have the capabilities of growing the green sector parallel to the "main stream" economy (carbon based); and with that we can merge economic prosperity and environmental responsibility/sustainability.
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Stop circling around: answer it directly, Can it stop global warming?
mercedescl 3 years ago
It can be part of the solution. By itself it cannot because we need international support for an international problem but Canada cannot simply sit back and do nothing. This is our leadership role.Others can see that there is a sensible way to cut carbon emissions while preserving/boosting your economy and they will be on board soon enough...
nickgibson1 3 years ago
Okay, you finally face part of the issue, but not all of it. In your own word, it simply doesn't work. In reality, 2/3 of the world population are advancing faster and faster to achieve the life style we have enjoyed for decades. In reality, no one knows how much cut back we need in order to stop climate from worsening. In reality, with deforestation, melting ice, increase in atmos. water vapour, and thawing of tundra, global warming will probably be worsened in the next thousands of years.
mercedescl 3 years ago
No country will benefit more from global warming than Canada, with an international shipping lane up north, new ports, new farmland and new investment. After last winter, I am eager for some global warming....The problem is primarily over population. Let's ensure people stop having more than 1 child (yeah right).
kdscott10 3 years ago
Riddle me this.. The earth once went through the ice age.. now the ice age is gone.. humans werent polluting back then.. but the earth warmed up and the ice age ended.. this tells me the warming of the earth is natural.. another point.. everytime mankind fucks with nature and tries to stop it from taking its course we get a hot curling iron of reality shoved up our asses.. let nature go.. we will hit another ice age.. and you will beg for more pollution.. haha just my two cents
Leeman17 3 years ago
the difference is that the earth took a very long time coming out of the ice age and global warming has spiked in the past 60years. if you have studied chem then you will know that CO2 and methane do not cool down as fast as nitrogen and oxygen so the more we pump into the air the warmer the planet is and there is also the fact of destroying the ozone(but that can repair itself in time cause its just O3).The earth does go through natural changed but they take thousands of years.
DAIGORO14 3 years ago
The only green that's going to get shifted is the green stuff in your wallet. Revenue neutral doesn't mean revenue neutral for the taxpayer...as usual the middle class will pay more. Don't forget the GST pull-back...the Liberals will say ANYTHING to get elected...they'll even lie!
countryclassic 3 years ago