Do McGuinty and Charest Reject Carbon Tax?

Whooee! I was just over to Steve V's fine blog, Far and Wide, where he's talkin' about the new cap-and-trade deal between McGuinty and Charest. Steve's post is mostly about how PitBullBoy Baird is all hot under the collar and don't like the idea of the provinces workin' independently for the sake of the planet. I hear Dubya says the same things about Schwartzenegger.

An anonymous commenter characterized the deal as a rejection of carbon taxes. Here's what the nameless one said.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that you do not note that the two Liberal premiers of the two largest provinces where the Liberals need to maintain and acquire new seats have REJECTED Mr. Dion's carbon tax and favour the NDP cap and trade approach.

I agree that a realignment in QC may be in the works but I wouldn't be gleeful about it if I were a Liberal activist.

The Charest/Dion enviro message will reinforce the NDP narrative come election time.

8:06 AM, June 02, 2008

I think we can safely assume the anonymous commenter is an NDP backer.

REJECTED? I ain't so sure about that.

I don't see this as a rejection of a carbon tax. In many European and Scandinavian jurisdictions, carbon taxes and cap-and-trade work side-by-side to reduce GHG's.

McGuinty has said he prefers the cap-and-trade tactic but I can't recall any quotes where he's rejected or even REJECTED a carbon tax. Dion did reject a carbon tax not long ago. I'm sure we'll all be reminded by anonymous NDP commenters soon enough. Dion changed his mind and the carbon tax idea is getting quite good acceptance. McGuinty and Charest won't be afraid of embracing a winning idea; especially, one that they haven't actually rejected.

If I purchase a new sofa, that does not mean I REJECT chairs. It simply means that I am adding one component to my living room seating capacity.

The Green Party is calling for a multi-pronged approach with two of those prongs being a carbon tax and sector by sector cap-and-trade implementation. Most observers and experts seem to think each system has merit. Proponents of each argue as to which is faster to implement.

In an interview last week, Iggy broadly hinted that the Grits will include cap and trade in their tax shift proposal.

The only ones who are REJECTING actions known to be positive are the NDP and the Con's. The NDP's rejection of a carbon tax flies in the face of EU experience and Kyoto target-meeting results.

Only the Con's are rejecting cap-and-trade and rejecting a carbon tax. Their plan: wait until after the US election to see what their masters dictate. Stall, obfuscate, nit-pick, demonise, scare and promote the status quo.

It is a well known fact that the federal government is the most effective arm of government when it comes to applying and collecting taxes. Outside of Quebec, we use the federal government to collect provincial income tax as well as most taxes. Also, wrt the revenue neutral tax shift idea, the provinces don't collect enough income tax to make a revenue neutral carbon tax a well-funded environmental solution.

Besides, somebody has to do something. The provinces, like some US states, are realizing that the federal level i sluggish and ill-inclined to act to save ol' Mother Earth. BC has introduced a carbon tax. The Western provinces are working on an international carbon market with some western states. Ontario and Quebec are collaborating on a cap-and-trade system.

The Fed's are doing just about nothing and the NDP is insisting it has the one and only solution.

JimBobby
(Note: This post is an edited version of a comment I posted at Far and Wide.)

Landmines, Mother Earth and the Salvation Army

Whooee! Well friends and foes, I've made this analogy before so forgive me (or not) if you've already seen this argument. When I see the specious position put forth by Baird in Bali, I question Canada's role in any international agreement that fails to include every country in the world. BTW, are there any agreements that include every country in the world?

Canada joined 121 nations and signed the anti-landmine treaty in 1997. The United States did not sign. Canada ceased production of landmines and, in 1997, committed $500 million to landmine eradication.

Just last week, Bev Oda announced another $80 million of increased funding for Canada's landmine eradication efforts. The commitment to eliminating landmines appears to have been embraced by the Harper government. Why else would they voluntarily increase funding?

International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda said Monday in Ottawa that the UN MineAction Centre for Afghanistan will receive the funds.

"Canada will continue its strong support of mine action activities in Afghanistan and the United Nations mine action service with a contribution of $80 million over the next four years," Oda told a press conference at the Canadian War Museum.

The Tories already budgeted $8.8 million for Afghan de-mining last February.
(CTV.ca)

But...but... but...

Landmine production and deployment continues unregulated by non-signatories such as the US. Canada's arms, weapons and munitions manufacturers have been cut out of the lucrative international trade in anti-personnel mines. It's not fair.

Canada is not responsible for the deployment of any significant percentage of the world's landmines. Canada alone cannot hope to remove all the landmines. At best, we can hope to eradicate maybe 2%. But what's the point when the US continues to produce landmines and they are still being deployed in various hotspots all over the world?

Over 50 years ago, when I was about 5 or 6, my Mum gave me a dime to put into the Salvation Army's Christmas bucket. She told me the money would buy Christmas dinners for poor folks. Even then, I had an idea of what could be bought for ten cents. I asked Mum how a dime would help. She replied, "Every little bit helps."

What a simple concept. At age 6, I had no trouble grasping the idea. Why can't our so-called leaders understand such a simple concept? With regard to landmines, they appear willing to act -- even without the co-operation of the big landmine producers. Why are they so intransigent regarding the environment?

Times have changed since 1955 but I'm willing to bet that if a 6 year old puts a dime in the Sally Ann bucket, the bellringin' believers will be thankful for every penny. My ol' Mum is now 82. I took her out Christmas shopping last week and we saw a Salvation Army guy in the mall. I won't say how much I gave but I know my Mum approved and we both know my little bit will help.

JimBobby

The Fat Man, The Doctor, The Diet and Intensity Targets

Whooee! I was just over to Eric's Gettin' it Right boog where he's tryin' to explain intensity targets by usin' an analogy of a Toyota vs. a gas guzzlin' Chev. The analogy's okay but I been tryin' to come up with a better one - one that's easier to understand. I think I got one that ain't too bad. It ain't politically correct, I reckon, an' some body-mass challenged victim of McCulture will probbly gimme shit but, here goes --

The Fat Man, The Doctor, The Diet and Intensity Targets

Once upon a time, there was a fat man. His name wasn't Steve. He was gettin' fatter an' fatter an' he was gainin' about a pound a week. That's about a half kilogram, fer you younger folks.

The fat guy goes to his doctor an' the doc sez, "Fatboy, yer killin' yer stoopidass self. You gotta lose weight an' fast or else yer headed fer a nasty life an' an early death." He tells the fat man he's gotta go on a diet, start exercisin' an' get thinner. Or else.

So, the fat feller starts walkin' down to the corner store instead drivin' the chugmobile. When he's there, he buys the small bag o' chips an' only half as many chocolate bars as before he got the death sentence from the sawbones. With his efforts at exercise an' dietin', the fat feller cuts down the rate at which he's gainin' weight.

He cuts it down to a pound a month from a pound a week. He's reduced the intensity of his weight gain by 75%. Sounds good. A 75% reduction must be good.

But.. but... but... the doctor told him he was gonna die if he didn't lose weight. Cuttin' down the rate at which he's gainin' weight ain't losin' weight. He's still gainin' an' he's still puttin' his stoopidass self into a early grave.

I reckon the fat boy (whose name ain't Steve) was only foolin' hisself. The epitaph on his gravestone can read -- "He reduced intensity by 75%. R.I.P."

JimBobby