Of course everyone now agrees that Dion’s carbon tax won’t get the job done because it doesn’t contain a single target for greenhouse gas emission reductions. Not one.
Even Dion has admitted as much saying "I'm confident we will have significant reductions. I'm not telling you specific numbers because you would not trust me."
But over at PEF, Erin Weir is imagining just what would happen if the carbon tax did work … and the news isn't good if you among the meagre 98.7 per cent of Canadians who actually care about health care, child care, education, drug costs, infrastructure, etc.
Weir concludes that because of Dion's absurd pledge to give back every cent in carbon tax revenue in tax cuts, the net effect of reduced demand for diesel, home heating oil and natural gas will be reduced government revenues:
"Unfortunately, the Liberals have instead committed the revenues to across-the-board tax reductions. Only $400 million in contingency funds, 2.6% of Green Shift revenues, would be potentially available for other purposes.
Nevertheless, it is conceivable that some combination of rising fuel prices, a slowing economy and successful environmental policy will reduce future fossil-fuel consumption by more than 2.6%. If carbon-tax revenues consequently fell, would the Liberals rollback their tax cuts or find another revenue source? "
The other option of course would be spending cuts like we saw in the early 1990s.
In a brilliant piece of politicking, Dion has managed to conjour up with a scheme that will have environmentalists praying it works, and social progressives praying it doesn’t. Er, simplicity itself!
Liberal greats like Lester Pearson and Paul Martin Sr. wouldn't recognize this as Liberalism at all.
But maybe this is what economist Marc Jaccard was predicting when he said Dion’s carbon tax is “going to be messy – really messy.”
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Northern premiers reject Dion’s carbon tax gamble: Call for Layton-style investments.
News this week of shrinking ice coverage in the Arctic Circle served once more to show the urgency, particularly in northern parts of Canada of making real reductions in greenhouse gasses.
So it says something that the premiers of the three territories most affected by climate change have come out against Stephane Dion’s $15 billion carbon tax scheme as the wrong answer to a growing problem.
The three leaders savaged the plan for its ineffectiveness and balked at the outrageous price tag for hard pressed northern families.
Yukon premier Dennis Fentie slammed Dion for proposing to increasing prices while having no plan to reduce emissions:
Mr. Fentie said he doesn't believe there's any actual evidence that a carbon tax will result in reducing emissions
“We think there are better ways to deal with this issue than another tax being applied, especially in the North where the cost of goods and services is already predominantly higher than anywhere else in the country.”
Of course, one of the advantages of the cap and trade system Jack Layton is proposing is that it reduces emissions while creating a new revenue stream for green innovation and investment. Northwest Territories premier Floyd Rolland identified that a major benefit over Dion’s tax: “We see instead a more productive or sensible solution to combatting the impact of climate change, such as making strategic investment in alternative energy sources such as hydro electricity, wind power and bio-mass.”
Is it any coincidence then that the only premier left to be in favour of Dion’s plan is the one who happens to be the brother of the Liberal environment critic?
Dion’s carbon tax is unpopular because it puts targets and timelines on increasing prices, instead of decreasing emissions. That’s why the northern premiers are against it, and why Dion now appears lost in the barrens.
So it says something that the premiers of the three territories most affected by climate change have come out against Stephane Dion’s $15 billion carbon tax scheme as the wrong answer to a growing problem.
The three leaders savaged the plan for its ineffectiveness and balked at the outrageous price tag for hard pressed northern families.
Yukon premier Dennis Fentie slammed Dion for proposing to increasing prices while having no plan to reduce emissions:
Mr. Fentie said he doesn't believe there's any actual evidence that a carbon tax will result in reducing emissions
“We think there are better ways to deal with this issue than another tax being applied, especially in the North where the cost of goods and services is already predominantly higher than anywhere else in the country.”
Of course, one of the advantages of the cap and trade system Jack Layton is proposing is that it reduces emissions while creating a new revenue stream for green innovation and investment. Northwest Territories premier Floyd Rolland identified that a major benefit over Dion’s tax: “We see instead a more productive or sensible solution to combatting the impact of climate change, such as making strategic investment in alternative energy sources such as hydro electricity, wind power and bio-mass.”
Is it any coincidence then that the only premier left to be in favour of Dion’s plan is the one who happens to be the brother of the Liberal environment critic?
Dion’s carbon tax is unpopular because it puts targets and timelines on increasing prices, instead of decreasing emissions. That’s why the northern premiers are against it, and why Dion now appears lost in the barrens.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Dion admits it again: Liberal carbon tax “won’t get it done”
It’s good to see Stephane Dion being consistent for a change.
Those in the mainstream media are having trouble swallowing the contradiction of Dion transitioning from being the most vehement critic of carbon taxes, to being the poster boy for them now.
But at least Dion is being consistent today – consistent in letting people know that his carbon tax, “won’t get the job done.”
Speaking to the editorial board of the Sun papers, Dion candidly admitted: "I'm confident we will have significant reductions. I'm not telling you specific numbers because you would not trust me."
An interesting statement which begs an interesting question: Why would no one trust Dion on GHG reductions?
Is it because he “didn’t get the job done” when he was environment minister?
Is it because this is the fourth environment plan he launched in four years?
Is it because he flip-flopped on supporting Jack Layton’s cap and trade system in favour of a carbon tax?
It might be those things, but it’s really about this: it’s just impossible to give any specific numbers on emissions reductions because you can’t put specific targets or caps on emissions with a carbon tax. It’s like using a banana to open a beer bottle. It's not what it's designed to do.
That’s why the Green Shift doesn’t say how much GHGs are going down, only how much prices are going to go up.
But at least Dion’s being consistent: and that’s why he knows people won’t trust his numbers.
Those in the mainstream media are having trouble swallowing the contradiction of Dion transitioning from being the most vehement critic of carbon taxes, to being the poster boy for them now.
But at least Dion is being consistent today – consistent in letting people know that his carbon tax, “won’t get the job done.”
Speaking to the editorial board of the Sun papers, Dion candidly admitted: "I'm confident we will have significant reductions. I'm not telling you specific numbers because you would not trust me."
An interesting statement which begs an interesting question: Why would no one trust Dion on GHG reductions?
Is it because he “didn’t get the job done” when he was environment minister?
Is it because this is the fourth environment plan he launched in four years?
Is it because he flip-flopped on supporting Jack Layton’s cap and trade system in favour of a carbon tax?
It might be those things, but it’s really about this: it’s just impossible to give any specific numbers on emissions reductions because you can’t put specific targets or caps on emissions with a carbon tax. It’s like using a banana to open a beer bottle. It's not what it's designed to do.
That’s why the Green Shift doesn’t say how much GHGs are going down, only how much prices are going to go up.
But at least Dion’s being consistent: and that’s why he knows people won’t trust his numbers.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Dion admits carbon tax “won’t get it done”
If you happened to tune into CBC Radio’s The House this weekend, you no doubt heard Stephane Dion acknowledge that his carbon tax “won’t get it done.”
As has been noted here, of all the reasons Dion’s carbon tax disappoints, there’s only one that matters: It doesn’t contain a single target for greenhouse gas emission reductions. Not one.
Dion admits that his carbon tax may get us nowhere closer to meeting our GHG reduction targets:
KATHLEEN PETTY: What isn't in here is a calculation of what kind of reduction this plan will have on greenhouse-gas emissions. [You] don't have any numbers associated with this plan specifically of what kind of impact it's going to have on cutting greenhouse-gas emissions.
STÉPHANE DION: Yes, two things about that: First thing is all the economists that are expert in the environment came with the conclusion that the tax on carbon will decrease emissions -
PETTY: By how much, though?
DION: They don't agree about the how-much, because it's difficult to know, to be fair with them. We know emissions will go down. What we don't know is at which speed emissions will go down.
Unlike Jack Layton’s plan for a cap-and-trade system that puts a firm cap on emissions and is supported by both Obama and McCain, Dion’s plan is just a gamble. An enormous $15 billion gamble based on all the security of Stéphane Dion’s “we don’t know.”
Going with Dion’s plan instead of Layton’s is tantamount to the same leap of faith involved in allowing a passerby to perform “experimental” brain surgery, while an ambulance sits outside waiting to treat your sprained ankle.
As economist Marc Jaccard says: "This is going to be messy – really messy,"
It’s why former Liberal leader Bill Graham is sounding the alarm bells too.
As has been noted here, of all the reasons Dion’s carbon tax disappoints, there’s only one that matters: It doesn’t contain a single target for greenhouse gas emission reductions. Not one.
Dion admits that his carbon tax may get us nowhere closer to meeting our GHG reduction targets:
KATHLEEN PETTY: What isn't in here is a calculation of what kind of reduction this plan will have on greenhouse-gas emissions. [You] don't have any numbers associated with this plan specifically of what kind of impact it's going to have on cutting greenhouse-gas emissions.
STÉPHANE DION: Yes, two things about that: First thing is all the economists that are expert in the environment came with the conclusion that the tax on carbon will decrease emissions -
PETTY: By how much, though?
DION: They don't agree about the how-much, because it's difficult to know, to be fair with them. We know emissions will go down. What we don't know is at which speed emissions will go down.
Unlike Jack Layton’s plan for a cap-and-trade system that puts a firm cap on emissions and is supported by both Obama and McCain, Dion’s plan is just a gamble. An enormous $15 billion gamble based on all the security of Stéphane Dion’s “we don’t know.”
Going with Dion’s plan instead of Layton’s is tantamount to the same leap of faith involved in allowing a passerby to perform “experimental” brain surgery, while an ambulance sits outside waiting to treat your sprained ankle.
As economist Marc Jaccard says: "This is going to be messy – really messy,"
It’s why former Liberal leader Bill Graham is sounding the alarm bells too.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Liberal bumph’s carbon footprint crushes their credibility
Earlier this week Liberals posted the grammatically clumsy “50 Tips for a Green Living,” offering entirely coherent advice to us peasants like “Walk to the store” and “Buy food in bulk to avoid excess packaging.”So, while you are icing down a popped disk from huffing a 50 pound club pack of Steak-Ums back to the house, you’ll have time to consider what you have done for the environment so that Liberals can continue business as usual.
Turns out that the colour was the only thing green about the bumf Liberals were handing out at their Green Shift announcement yesterday. Elizabeth Thompson has found out that “the green ball caps reveal they were "Made in China" - one of the most recalcitrant countries on the planet when it comes to taking climate change and greenhouse gas emissions seriously.”
A suggestion Liberals might consider for Green Living Tip 51: if you need to deck MPs out in ball caps and plastic thundersticks to distract from the complete absence of any targets for GHG reductions in the fourth version of “Stephane Dion’s Plan to Save the World” consider walking the 12,000 kms to get them.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Dion’s carbon tax goes from “didn’t get it done” to “won’t get it done”
There’s plenty of reasons to be disappointed in today’s Liberal carbon tax announcement.
But there’s only one that matters: It doesn’t contain a single target for greenhouse gas emission reductions.
With the exception of a few climate change deniers in the Reform Party / Canadian Alliance, the debate since the Rio Summit in 1990 has been about how much GHGs to reduce and when.
The Liberal carbon tax can’t answer either question.
Liberals can tell you with deadly precision how much the price of natural gas to heat your home will increase (2 cents a GJ) and how much the cost of diesel to run city transit will increase (7 cents a litre) and how much the cost of gas for your Hummer-driving neighbour will increase (zero cents a litre), but they can’t tell you how much GHG emissions will decrease by 2012, 2020 or 2050.
To their credit, the Liberals never said their carbon tax would reduce emissions, just make them more expensive. Fair enough. But the name of the game is "reducing emissions on internationaly agreed upon timelines."
That's why the NDP is saying the Liberals have graduated from "not getting it done" to "won't get it done."
No wonder Liberals want the Auditor General to examine their carbon tax and not the Environment Commissioner -- because they are more focused on tax dollars going up than carbon emissions going down.
But there’s only one that matters: It doesn’t contain a single target for greenhouse gas emission reductions.
With the exception of a few climate change deniers in the Reform Party / Canadian Alliance, the debate since the Rio Summit in 1990 has been about how much GHGs to reduce and when.
The Liberal carbon tax can’t answer either question.
Liberals can tell you with deadly precision how much the price of natural gas to heat your home will increase (2 cents a GJ) and how much the cost of diesel to run city transit will increase (7 cents a litre) and how much the cost of gas for your Hummer-driving neighbour will increase (zero cents a litre), but they can’t tell you how much GHG emissions will decrease by 2012, 2020 or 2050.
To their credit, the Liberals never said their carbon tax would reduce emissions, just make them more expensive. Fair enough. But the name of the game is "reducing emissions on internationaly agreed upon timelines."
That's why the NDP is saying the Liberals have graduated from "not getting it done" to "won't get it done."
No wonder Liberals want the Auditor General to examine their carbon tax and not the Environment Commissioner -- because they are more focused on tax dollars going up than carbon emissions going down.
Mulcair moves Couillard story ahead
For months the Julie Couillard / Maxime Bernier story has been frozen in amber … until yesterday that is, when the RCMP revealed to NDP deputy leader Thomas Mulcair that they may be investigating the matter.
For Stephane Dion and Gilles Duceppe who have squandered hours upon hours of their time in question period on Couillard, that it took the NDP to unearth this key piece of information in committee must come as the cruelest of blows.
While the NDP has used the few spots they get in question period to probe the government on our hemorrhaging manufacturing sector, the war in Afghanistan, the environment and pocketbook issues, the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois have asked about virtually nothing other than Couillard since May – effectively turning question period into “45 Minutes with Peter Van Loan” – perhaps the lamest new show on cable this spring.
The near effortlessness with which Mulcair got to the information just shows how ineffective the Bloc and Liberals are in opposition – the former because they are past their expiry date and the latter because they have turned the House of Commons into a surrogate for the campaign they are too disorganized to trigger.
For Stephane Dion and Gilles Duceppe who have squandered hours upon hours of their time in question period on Couillard, that it took the NDP to unearth this key piece of information in committee must come as the cruelest of blows.
While the NDP has used the few spots they get in question period to probe the government on our hemorrhaging manufacturing sector, the war in Afghanistan, the environment and pocketbook issues, the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois have asked about virtually nothing other than Couillard since May – effectively turning question period into “45 Minutes with Peter Van Loan” – perhaps the lamest new show on cable this spring.
The near effortlessness with which Mulcair got to the information just shows how ineffective the Bloc and Liberals are in opposition – the former because they are past their expiry date and the latter because they have turned the House of Commons into a surrogate for the campaign they are too disorganized to trigger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
