Listening to the Conservative ads attacking the Green Shift I am struck by the failure to address the main issue -- the use of oil.
While it is helpful for parts of Canada in the short run, the massive industrial use of oil on a worldwide scale is highly problematic. Ignore for the moment the environmental issue (not that the environment is to be ignored -- we do have a duty to be good stewards). Look at who benefits -- often some of the most dangerous and repressive nations on earth. Look at the fate of Christians (and indeed some Muslims) in Saudi Arabia. Funding these regimes is just bad.
Some uses for oil cannot be eliminated. Electric jets just aren't going to happen. Canada's oil patch won't lose its business if we reduce oil dependence.
A revenue neutral tax structure that encourages a move away from oil where possible is a free market way to implement a necessary policy. The Dion Green Shift can work. Perhaps there are other approaches that could work but so far we haven't heard about them, at least from the Conservatives.
4 comments:
Canadians are responsible for approximately 3% of the world’s greenhouse gases. If we all stopped driving cars and taking airplanes as of today, in a year from now we might have reduced the amount to 2%. Big deal. The only thing we would have accomplished is making a statement to the rest of the world that we are doing something for the environment. That’s like having terminal cancer and donating money to the Cancer Society. It doesn’t do a thing to cure your illness but it does make you feel better. In the mean time, Asia is building approximately a coal-fired electric plant every week or two.
Secondly, if you think for a minute that companies who have to pay a carbon tax will not pass that cost on to consumers, you’re not looking at reality. And those companies will charge the companies they supply their goods to a fee to make up the difference they had to pay on their carbon tax. And companies never add the exact amount to their cost. They add a couple of points for all the extra paper work, etc. In other words, you will be paying more for 90% of all goods purchased.
If you make $50,000. a year, and you spend approximately $45,000 of that on goods and services to sustain yourself, you can be sure that you will be paying a minimum of 10% more on everything you buy.
On the plus side, your income tax might be reduced by 5% if you’re lucky.
I could be out to lunch but that doesn’t look like revenue neutrality to me?
Prairie Kid -- You have written a strong rebuttal. I guess my point would be that the fact that the "tragedy of the commons" exists doesn't mean we should ignore what (perhaps little) we can do for the environment. On the foreign policy note, anything that can be done to stop the flow of money to places like Saudi is good -- even today I heard of their efforts to destablize saouth asia by funding extremists. All that said, thanks for a great comment!
The numbers are not clear but using the using the liberal calculator that only calculates the income tax savings (very disingenuous it sould calculate both sides) and than trying to calculate the amount of increased costs for energy at different levels I get that on average it will cost the average middle class Canadian about 1/3 more in consumptuion taxes than it saves in income taxes. It will not be revenue neutral.
The Conservatives attack this in a derogeatory way withouth offering any alternative solutions. For years, environmentalists have been telling us to reduce consumption and very few have got that message. Yes, it's hard to change your habits but it must be done. Nearly $1.40 at the pumps and most people still aren't changing. It's going to take something drastic for the average person to change.
Post a Comment