The Canadian Federal Election will probably be October 14th

[Victor Galis]

Well, I like the Green Shift, but then again I'd probably vote Liberal anyway.

[Asher]

There's nothing to like. You might as well set up a formalized wealth redistribution scheme, it's more honest.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher
There's nothing to like. You might as well set up a formalized wealth redistribution scheme, it's more honest.

Yup

If they had said they were going to take the money for green policies that would make some sort of sense. At least it would be green.

Instead they are proposing taxing certain consumption in order to give broad based tax breaks. Its wealth redistribution plain and simple. Since the carbon tax will get reflected in the price of everything we buy, its merely a very complicated way and environmentally dressed up way to redustribute wealth.

Heck it would be far more honest for them to raise income taxes in the upper bracket and then give a higher personal exemption.


But no they wanted something they could call green. The fact that its perceived as taking from Alberta to give to Ontario and Quebec is probably just a bonus given the electoral map at present

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Well, I like the Green Shift, but then again I'd probably vote Liberal anyway.

I can respect and understand a choice to vote Liberal-- heck I have done it myself often enough depending on candiadates and issues (and its not precluded this time )

But I do not understand support for the Green Shift based on what I know at present. What do you like about it specifically?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Flubber
What do you like about it specifically?

taking from Alberta to give to Ontario and Quebec

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Asher
There's nothing to like. You might as well set up a formalized wealth redistribution scheme, it's more honest.

Why? You could always try to cut your carbon emissions... you know... the thing the scheme is trying to promote.

Heck it would be far more honest for them to raise income taxes in the upper bracket and then give a higher personal exemption.

Except that would do nothing to encourage buying greener products. This way polluting products are disproportionately taxed.

But I do not understand support for the Green Shift based on what I know at present. What do you like about it specifically?

That it taxes things we want less of: carbon emissions. There are many ways to spend a dollar, some lead to more pollution than others. This tax will make those more polluting things more expensive while doing nothing to those things that are less polluting. It would alter consumption patterns in a way no other scheme can.

The fact that its perceived as taking from Alberta to give to Ontario and Quebec is probably just a bonus given the electoral map at present

I'm pretty sure BC and the Atlantic provinces also benefit (at least based on percentage of electricity that comes from renewables).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Why? You could always try to cut your carbon emissions... you know... the thing the scheme is trying to promote.

How can Alberta realistically do this within four years?

Magically grow magically funded nuclear power plants in a magical amount of time?
Magically grow magically funded public transit for rural citizens in a magical amount of time?
Magically develop zero emission trucks and airplanes?
Magically develop zero emission home heating technologies?

I understand promoting lower emissions. That's fine. But that's not what this does -- it immediately punishes the prairie provinces which do not have access to hydro for electricity like Ontario and Quebec. It immediately punishes people who do not live in densely populated urban areas with access to established public transit.

The problem is in a short period of time Dion is assuming everyone can "simply" switch to lower emission technologies. Most of these technologies don't even exist yet, and the rest take time to adopt.

It's intentionally designed to not tax automanufacturers in Ontario (that'd hurt the Ontario economy, even though they're the #1 emission source in the country of greenhouse gases) while it's designed to hurt the Alberta economy specifically.

The end result is it won't encourage anyone to magically grow environmentally friendly technologies, it'll just funnel money from Alberta to Ontario and Quebec. Period.

You need to try a lot harder than simply saying "it's simple, we're taxing something we want less of". You need to have viable alternatives and it needs to not specifically target one region with ridiculous exemptions for the Liberal vote-rich regions...

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Asher

How can Alberta realistically do this within four years?

Well, I imagine the scheme would stick around for awhile. You could reduce the transfer over time by improving efficiency.

I understand promoting lower emissions. That's fine. But that's not what this does -- it immediately punishes the prairie provinces which do not have access to hydro for electricity like Ontario and Quebec.

Ontario gets a lot of its electricity from nuclear and relatively little from Hydro. I'd need to find the chart again, but I'm pretty sure pretty much only Alberta and Sask. are on the losing end of this one, and Ontario isn't really a big winner.

It immediately punishes people who do not live in densely populated urban areas with access to established public transit.

Then maybe people shouldn't live in those places?

The problem is in a short period of time Dion is assuming everyone can "simply" switch to lower emission technologies. Most of these technologies don't even exist yet, and the rest take time to adopt.

No, he's assuming you'll pay in the short term and adapt in the long term... unless it's cheaper to just keep paying. The beauty of an emissions tax is that it puts a price on negative externalities and says to business, if you can cut your emissions for less than this, do it. If it's expensive to make further cuts than just pay the tax.

It's intentionally designed to not tax automanufacturers in Ontario (that'd hurt the Ontario economy, even though they're the #1 emission source in the country of greenhouse gases) while it's designed to hurt the Alberta economy specifically.

I'm a little confused, care to elaborate?

You need to try a lot harder than simply saying "it's simple, we're taxing something we want less of". You need to have viable alternatives and it needs to not specifically target one region with ridiculous exemptions for the Liberal vote-rich regions...

Well, I don't favor the exemptions, but even with it's better than doing nothing.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Ontario gets a lot of its electricity from nuclear and relatively little from Hydro. I'd need to find the chart again, but I'm pretty sure pretty much only Alberta and Sask. are on the losing end of this one, and Ontario isn't really a big winner.

Ontario gets a lot from hydro, and nuclear doesn't matter. Alberta and Sask have coal powerplants for a lot of reasons which can't disappear quickly.

Then maybe people shouldn't live in those places?

This is the kind of mental midget thinking we expect from Liberals. Thanks.

I'm a little confused, care to elaborate?

What is to be confused about? Dion has exemptions in the Green Shift to ensure that the auto manufacturers in Ontario are not taxed additionally. There's no reason for this except to win votes in Ontario. The reason there are no exemptions in Alberta is because he doesn't get votes there anyway. It's a plain and simple wealth distribution scheme. He creates this environmentally friendly concept that uninformed people such as yourself buy into, then adds exceptions to ensure places where his votes come from don't get affected, putting the entire onus onto areas that don't vote Liberal to fund the whole tax. He's dramatically increasing taxes to Alberta and lowering them in Ontario.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Why? You could always try to cut your carbon emissions... you know... the thing the scheme is trying to promote.

Right in this quote is the philosophical problem I have with the whole tone of the Green Shift plan. It talks about taxing "polluters" as if they exist in a vacuum nastily polluting away.

Most of the biggest emitters are power/energy producers. So I find it disingenuous at best when people talk about the fact that someone else i.e. 'you' need to cut "your emissions"

Victor where do you think the bulk of Alberta oil and gas production goes anyway? I hate to break it you but the Alberta emission becomes home heating for all of Canada.

Thats part of what I don't like -- it talks about polluters as some sort of " them" -- Obviously evil folks unlike the good folks that will adopt the green plan, vote Liberal -- BUt the key to reducing emissions is in people ACROSS the country reducing their own power/energy usage!!

THis plan actually stresses how little extra people will have to pay to heat their homes by paying the tax-- But if its so freaking painless and minimal how exactly will it change behaviors??

And for those big polluters-- if they slap on a tax and flow it through to their consumers, why exactly would they reduce emissions? Its not as if they have all sorts of emission free sources of power and heat just waiting to be turned on.

Either the green plan makes things more costly to consumers and causes reductions in usage or it doesn't. If you actually read the plan, the Liberals try to have it both ways-- They talk a fair bit about how little extra the price for home heating will be and people will get enough tax breaks to pay for it anyway

[Flubber]

Oh and you want a real long term green plan!!


Why doesn't Dion or Harper for that matter say they will creat or use create federal authority to allow other provinces to bring hydro-power across a neighboring province-- ie like natural gas lines are?

That would prevent Quebec from their continuing extortion with respect to hydro developments in Labrador. The original Churchill Falls deal is an awful deal for Newfoundland and great for Quebec but we have seen that if Quebec isn't ceded the lion's share they don't let the development happen. The hydro potential up there is massive !!

So you want green development-- Someone tell Quebec that power WILL go across their lands the same as provinces get told with respect to natural gas pipes-- With that assurance I think you would see hydro developments in Labrador quickly move toward development. The bottleneck they have is that the only other way to the US NE is far more challenging and expensive

Ya fat chance!! Electoral math again-- The natural gas went across Man and Sask to GET to Ontario and Quebec. POlitically I doubt anyone wants this particular fight with Quebec

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Flubber

Victor where do you think the bulk of Alberta oil and gas production goes anyway? I hate to break it you but the Alberta emission becomes home heating for all of Canada.

Then we're all going to get taxed? You can't be the victim then claim everyone else is complicit in the emissions generation. We're either part of it and being taxed, or not and not being taxed.

BUt the key to reducing emissions is in people ACROSS the country reducing their own power usage!!

And so we make power more expensive... I fail to see your point.

And for those big polluters-- if they slap on a tax and flow it through to their consumers, why exactly would they reduce emissions? Its not as if they have all sorts of meission free sources of power and heat just waiting to be turned on

How about we let them figure that out? Would you rather have the government telling people exactly what to do?

Either the green plan makes things more costly to consumers and causes reductions in usage or it doesn't. If you actually read the plan, the Liberals try to have it both ways-- They talk a fair bit about how little extra the price for home heating will be and people will get enough tax breaks to pay for it anyway

Well, if your carbon foot-print is smaller than average for your income, then you're probably getting money back. If you waste energy like crazy for fun, you'll be on the recieving end no matter where you live.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Flubber
Why doesn't Dion or Harper for that matter say they will creat or use create federal authority to allow other provinces to bring hydro-power across a neighboring province-- ie like natural gas lines are?

Because they might not be the brightest individuals we could put in charge?


Well, electricity is a lot harder to transport long distance than Natural gas. You lose a lot of it along the way. Once the natural gas pipe is built, barring leaks, you don't lose any of it along the way.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Because they might not be the brightest individuals we could put in charge?


Well, electricity is a lot harder to transport long distance than Natural gas. You lose a lot of it along the way. Once the natural gas pipe is built, barring leaks, you don't lose any of it along the way.

Irrelevent-- Labrador power is shipped to the US now because Quebec "owns" that power. They have consistently not permitted Newfoundland the option of sending newfoundland power across the province unless they get a lot. So your distinction is meaningless

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Then we're all going to get taxed? You can't be the victim then claim everyone else is complicit in the emissions generation. We're either part of it and being taxed, or not and not being taxed.

I never claimed victimization. I do claim that it is perceived as a wealth transfer from Alberta to elsewhere in the country. I don't know how that would turn out. It all depends how the tax works out. IF emitters can pass along the tax to consumers in some fashion, there shouldn't be such a transfer and it might reduce consumption a little. (although the Green plan docs from the Libs emphasize how little the incremental cost to individuals will be)

But if they cannot pass it on, there is a simple wealth transfer AND if it doesn't increase the cost of consumption-- So the net effect is to appropriate profits from energy producers. Since they are not about to walk away from the billions they sunk in the oilsands for instance, I don't see how this would change their production one little bit

Originally posted by Victor Galis
And so we make power more expensive... I fail to see your point.


.

The point was how much the Liberals Green Plan document emphasizes how little the costs will go up. On one hand they want it to alter behaviors but on the other hand they try to stress how little it will cost.

Originally posted by Victor Galis

How about we let them figure that out? Would you rather have the government telling people exactly what to do?

Nope but existing or planned regimes of cap and trade are simpler and actually have real emissions targets.This plan is more about Dion attempting to buy votes by planning to write cheques. Most of his credits are simply a promise to write a cheque.

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Well, if your carbon foot-print is smaller than average for your income, then you're probably getting money back. If you waste energy like crazy for fun, you'll be on the recieving end no matter where you live.

Perhaps-- It seems that most of the credits are targetted at lower income, not necessarily lower footprint-- So the poorer guy with more children, burning oil, will get more money back than me despite the fact that I paid for my own windmill or whatever . I missed where personal carbon footprint gets factored into this at all-- and a lot of a person's carbon footprint is vehicle usage but his plan calls for no change to gasoline taxes ??

Its mixed messages intended to buy votes!!

If Dion had proposed a carbon tax with the money to be actually used for green projects, I could see the point. But a revenue neutral plan that excluded key emitters is not 'green"

As for the tax plan-- I like tax reductions-- would never oppose them but I do wonder why so much of it was focused on writing cheques to people who don't actually pay taxes