The world has never seen such freezing heat

[CrONoS]

I do not believe a carbon tax can be recovered by producers in local or global markets. It will thus place them at a disadvantage in local and global trade. Considering that most of the world pays zero carbon tax this should not require brain surgery for you to grasp.

I don't understand what you are saying by recovered?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by CrONoS

I don't understand what you are saying by recovered?

I am saying it would amount to a tax on production in Canada.

Canada is overwhelmingly an exporting nation. Our economy lives and dies on international trade.

Our largest trading partners have shown little interest in carbon taxes or other such schemes.

It would be monumentally stupid for Canada to go it alone.

Edit: recovered would mean that the increased costs will not be able to be passed on to buyers for a lot of what Canada produces.

The fact we might have a carbon tax will have zero impact on the price paid by buyers for Canadian wheat, oil, metals, lumber, auto parts, etc., etc., etc.

The tax will have to be eaten by the producers. That's a very bad tax.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I am saying it would amount to a tax on production in Canada.

Canada is overwhelmingly an exporting nation. Our economy lives and dies on international trade.

Our largest trading partners have shown little interest in carbon taxes or other such schemes.

It would be monumentally stupid for Canada to go it alone.

Edit: recovered would mean that the increased costs will not be able to be passed on to buyers for a lot of what Canada produces.

The fact we might have a carbon tax will have zero impact on the price paid by buyers for Canadian wheat, oil, metals, lumber, auto parts, etc., etc., etc.

The tax will have to be eaten by the producers. That's a very bad tax.

Ok, now it's very much more clear and I also agree with you. (at some extent). The reason why ? Canada is mainly a price taker in the international market, so, he would have to pay the tax. Does it will be the the owner of labor or capital who will pay the price? Even if I bet that at some extent the government will have to pay the price. (by giving subsidy)

But at the same time; something must be done, like KH pointed out, the carbon tax, is actually a good tax. It should represent the social cost of polluting. (I think economist based the price at 30-50$/tons).

One month ago, I supported the cap n'trade scheme in a debate with you, and you pointed out to me the fact that cap 'n trade could lead to uncertainty in price. I made some research, and you were right. I didn't thought about it, but the uncertainty in price, it's the major issue with cap 'n trade.

IMO, you don't want volatility in price. Usually, business don't like it. I will even think that there could be a premium paid on the risk associated to this uncertainty and this could even lead to an higher cost for co2 permit. If the information would be perfect; CO2 tax and carbon cap 'n trading would be equal.

That's the reason why, right now, I'm supporting a carbon tax over a cap 'n trade scheme.

But we need to do something about CO2, and that's the very reason why we need to sit with other country in order to do something about it.

[Theben]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No, America stands to benefit from free-riding off the research and sacrifice of others.

And lose patent rights and the resulting profits...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Theben


And lose patent rights and the resulting profits...

If the profits are there then why would the government have to incentivize companies to research the associated technologies?

[KrazyHorse]

I think economist based the price at 30-50$/tons

There are lots of different estimates. The range of reasonable estimates is much bigger than 30-50.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


If the profits are there then why would the government have to incentivize companies to research the associated technologies?

Is it only US companies which aren't researching the technologies, or all companies?

US companies are infamously short sighted.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Is it only US companies which aren't researching the technologies, or all companies?

US companies are infamously short sighted.

JM

I call BS on the idea that US companies are any more shortsighted than companies from other countries.

[KrazyHorse]

They tend to be more innovative and risk-taking, if anything (which is key for research of new technologies)

[KrazyHorse]

If I could I would give control of all Canadian companies to US owners and compensate the previous owners with ownership of US companies.

It's been shown that Canadian companies owned by US interests, US companies owned by Canadian interests and US companies owned by US interests all show similar rates of labour productivity growth. Canadian companies owned by Canadian interests show much lower labour productivity growth. The difference is concentrated in the so-called multi-factor productivity section (this is the catch-all category for "**** we don't understand")

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I call BS on the idea that US companies are any more shortsighted than companies from other countries.

Maybe it is just car companies

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Heavy manufacturing companies are not representative of US companies. In fact, they're highly unrepresentative.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by CrONoS


Ok, now it's very much more clear and I also agree with you. (at some extent). The reason why ? Canada is mainly a price taker in the international market, so, he would have to pay the tax. Does it will be the the owner of labor or capital who will pay the price? Even if I bet that at some extent the government will have to pay the price. (by giving subsidy)

That would be worse.

It would introduce political meddling to a greater extent in the Canadian economy.

But at the same time; something must be done, like KH pointed out, the carbon tax, is actually a good tax. It should represent the social cost of polluting. (I think economist based the price at 30-50$/tons).

I don't disagree with the idea of changing human behaviour through public policy.

I disagree that Canada should go out ahead of our trading partners without concern for the effects it would have on our economy.

Furthermore, I have a problem with schemes where the most polluting countries on Earth are under no compulsion to do anything other than to throw up another dirty-coal power plant every week to feed the factories for cheap plastic crap that we have shipped to their shores for the priviledge of paying to have the products shipped back to us across oceans.

One month ago, I supported the cap n'trade scheme in a debate with you, and you pointed out to me the fact that cap 'n trade could lead to uncertainty in price. I made some research, and you were right. I didn't thought about it, but the uncertainty in price, it's the major issue with cap 'n trade.

IMO, you don't want volatility in price. Usually, business don't like it. I will even think that there could be a premium paid on the risk associated to this uncertainty and this could even lead to an higher cost for co2 permit. If the information would be perfect; CO2 tax and carbon cap 'n trading would be equal.

That's the reason why, right now, I'm supporting a carbon tax over a cap 'n trade scheme.

But we need to do something about CO2, and that's the very reason why we need to sit with other country in order to do something about it.

Good idea. Sit with other countries, like the US (our largest trading partner) and see what direction they are going. Try to influence them and tailor our strategy to yield best results within the framework of the policies of the largest parts of our trading bloc.

Ideally, the producers of products we compete with will also accept some responsibility for the issue, and we won't have our resource extraction industries nackered by well-intentioned efforts to be good boy scouts without regard for how the rest of the world works.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.

While the new Obama administration promises aggressive, forward-thinking environmental policies, Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D’Aleo and other scientists are organizing lobbying efforts to take aim at the cap-and-trade bill that Democrats plan to unveil in January.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D0C4924D-18FE-70B2-A808D77A9C1FFFD3

[Asher]

I would just like to say how awesome it is that KH is back.

Especially his exchange with Nikolai.

It's interesting that the same people on this site push our buttons the same way. I'm not crazy, see!