NationStates Jolt Archive

The Liberals are currently debating the merits of a Carbon Tax, a measure which TD Economics (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070308.RECONOMY08/TPStory/?query=carbon+tax)says would go a long way to helping Canada reduce Greenhouse gas emissions. The Conservatives are claiming that this would be a massive tax increase (although as the Green Party has shown, any tax increase for a carbon tax can easily be offset by a reduction in other forms of taxation, such as income tax).

What do people think about the merits of a carbon tax? Personally it is not my preferred option, as I would prefer to see a simple cap and trade system. The risk with a carbon tax is if the price is set too low, we won't meet our emissions targets, and if it is set too high, then it causes unecessary economic pain. I think the government should restrict it's role to setting the maximum level of emissions based on sound science and our international obligations, and should leave the task of setting the price to the market. I also think the optics of a "tax" are not favourable. However, it is a better option than anything that either the Liberals and certainly the Conservatives have looked at so far.

And feel free to make general comments and observations abotu carbon taxes, not just about the Canadian political context ...

The problem with a simple cap ans trade is that you can set the cap too high or too low, which would produce the same problems as you list for the carbon tax scheme (as evidenced by the EU carbon trading scheme).

a similar thing was suggested by the liberals (european sense, not the american). they wanted to replace most other taxes with carbon taxes. car tax would be replaced with a tax on carbon emission, taxes on your house would be replaced with taxes on how much energy your house spills because of bad insulation etc.

i think that's a good idea, but in practice it would fail. moslty because it targets the poorest people, who can't afford good insulation or newer cars that don't emit a lot of carbondioxide.

a similar thing was suggested by the liberals (european sense, not the american). they wanted to replace most other taxes with carbon taxes. car tax would be replaced with a tax on carbon emission, taxes on your house would be replaced with taxes on how much energy your house spills because of bad insulation etc.

i think that's a good idea, but in practice it would fail. moslty because it targets the poorest people, who can't afford good insulation or newer cars that don't emit a lot of carbondioxide.This is where the welfare state comes in. It can partly or wholly subsidise much of the technology that will reduce carbon emissions for the poorer parts of society.

This is where the welfare state comes in. It can partly or wholly subsidise much of the technology that will reduce carbon emissions for the poorer parts of society.

yeah, that would be necessary. i still don't know if this would work though. but i hope so, because we really have a problem here with our insulation. iirc we have the least insulated houses in Europe. it would also give a small boost to our economy if we started to isolate all our buildings way better.

The problem with a simple cap ans trade is that you can set the cap too high or too low, which would produce the same problems as you list for the carbon tax scheme (as evidenced by the EU carbon trading scheme). Too true. I think the default at this point would be to set the cap at the highest level that would enable Canada to meet it's Kyoto targets, which is still technically and economically feasible using such a system.

I should mention that the solution TD is advocating is closer to a cap and trade system than a "carbon tax". Drummond is absolutely right that "tax" is a misnomer in this case. The Liberals were looking at something a bit closer to a tax and rebate system.

I'd favor it in the US if--and this is a huge if--a percentage of the tax was put aside strictly for public transportation infrastructure, because what was said above is right. This will screw the lower and working classes significantly without that. One way to really reduce emissions is to get people off the roads, but you can't do that without alternatives, and outside a handful of large cities in the US, public transportation is a bad joke.

I am still waiting for the conservatives to come out and say 'the free market will sort out climate change' or something ludicrous like that. But either way it's a win-win, if the conservatives agree to a tax their hypocrites for betraying their own failed small government ideology, and if they say what the oil companies are paying them to do, they'll look like idiots, win-win.

I am still waiting for the conservatives to come out and say 'the free market will sort out climate change' or something ludicrous like that. But either way it's a win-win, if the conservatives agree to a tax their hypocrites for betraying their own failed small government ideology, and if they say what the oil companies are paying them to do, they'll look like idiots, win-win.

Conservatives in england have just come in favor of a carbon tax for air travel.

What I find hardest to accept about a carbon tax is that unless all the proceeds of the tax goes to investment in clean alternatives to what you are taxing, there really is little or no point in a carbon tax.

For example, I see no point taxing air travel in england unless the government will invest that moneny in say, a better train system which could in a country as small as the UK replace air travel to most destinations.

Conservatives in england have just come in favor of a carbon tax for air travel.

What I find hardest to accept about a carbon tax is that unless all the proceeds of the tax goes to investment in clean alternatives to what you are taxing, there really is little or no point in a carbon tax.

For example, I see no point taxing air travel in england unless the government will invest that moneny in say, a better train system which could in a country as small as the UK replace air travel to most destinations.
On a tangent, I looked at the BBC HYS page on the Tory Tax. Bullshit central!

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5765&edition=1&ttl=20070311102957&#paginator

taxing carbon, redistributing co2 credits, all that sort of thing, ala that wherever it was in japan protocall, is certainly way better then doing nothing. but soner or later all use of combustion to generate energy or propell transportation is going to have to be outright banned if we are to avoid destroying the web of life on planet earth and of course ourselves, who are still very much an intigral part of it, along with it.

a possibly step in the right dirrection, but still far short of what is despirately needed. and needed yesterday. like from about 1971 forward!

that and putting something in the drinking water to lower human firtility.
ALL human fertility, accorss the board, without bias or exception!

=^^=
.../\...

that and putting something in the drinking water to lower human firtility.
ALL human fertility, accorss the board, without bias or exception!

Massive increases in lifespan and health would probably have the same effect without the need for engineering fertility, which might have untold physical side effects. Birthrates fall like a rock as people age even without the loss of fertility that comes with age, and really old people would probably have no kids at all. So would cyborgization, for that matter, but AFAIK that's unfortunately still rather far away; I wouldn't mind trading my ability to have biological kids for a nice robotic body and all the benefits that entails.

I would be against it because I don't think the government should use the tax code to shape and mold an individuals lifestyle. Taxes are for the government to raise omney for their functions, not to try and funnel citizens inot doing what it wants without righting a law.

All taxation is illegitimate, regardless of the purpose.

The end does not justify the means.

All taxation is illegitimate, regardless of the purpose.

The end does not justify the means.

:rolleyes: how would you lower CO2 emissions then?

That's not a concern of mine.

If the entities doing wish to do so, they are more than free to. If not, they don't have to. It's their business, to run as they please.

The end does not justify the means. Individual liberty is more important than anything else.

Yes, so long as other regressive taxes are reduced, and the wealthy cannot offset it away.

The obvious offset will be what the rich often do anyway: pay for it and make no attempt whatsoever to change their polluting ways. (Who honestly can afford Hummers?)

Individual liberty is more important than anything else.

aren't they limiting my individual liberty by emiting CO2 and warming up the planet where I live?

The obvious offset will be what the rich often do anyway: pay for it and make no attempt whatsoever to change their polluting ways. (Who honestly can afford Hummers?)

that's true, but the profit can be used for things to lower CO2 emission.

I am still waiting for the conservatives to come out and say 'the free market will sort out climate change' or something ludicrous like that. But either way it's a win-win, if the conservatives agree to a tax their hypocrites for betraying their own failed small government ideology, and if they say what the oil companies are paying them to do, they'll look like idiots, win-win.

Sadly, right now they are doing the all taxes are evil shtick, and passing a few token regulations that will do nothing but which they hope will provide a nice greenwash for their brown policies.

I would be against it because I don't think the government should use the tax code to shape and mold an individuals lifestyle. Taxes are for the government to raise omney for their functions, not to try and funnel citizens inot doing what it wants without righting a law.

Taxes can serve many purposes, including social policy objectives. Taxation is actually much less coercive than regulation.

What I find hardest to accept about a carbon tax is that unless all the proceeds of the tax goes to investment in clean alternatives to what you are taxing, there really is little or no point in a carbon tax.


Subsidies for cleaner alternatives are really a seperate but related measure. The government should invest in cleaner alternatives until they get past the point where they achieve the necessary economies of scale to compete with fossil fuels. Then the subsidies should be phased out.

Public transit should be better subsidized for many reasons, not just environmental.

All taxation is illegitimate, regardless of the purpose.


Care to back that glib statement up

Yes, so long as other regressive taxes are reduced, and the wealthy cannot offset it away.

I'd say cut income taxes at the lowest levels; eliminate all taxation below the poverty line. Or better yet, introduce a negative income tax/guaranteed liveable income.