Cap-and-Trade Promoter on My Doorstep

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I been in a few yammerin' comments section gabfests with boogers like Cam and Steve and Scott and Pogge and StageLeft. One thing we been talkin' about on the boogs is, "Which is faster -- carbon tax or cap'n'trade?" It's been rainin' here again today and I just looked out the front door. Danged if there weren't a buncha cap'n'traders on my doorstep. I took a photo of one of 'em.


I reckon the cap'n'traders'll get to where they're headed... eventually.

JimBobby

Woo, Woo, Woo Your Vote - Dion Targets Greens

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I was just over to Jason Cherniak's boog and I seen a quote from Stephane Dion that makes it even more clear that the Grits are casting a covetous eye at us treehuggin' Greens. Here's what Jason said that Dion said:

"We will ask Canadians to join our growing coalition - one that crosses party lines and moves us beyond outdated notions of what it means to be right-wing or left-wing".

Coalition? I ain't sure what coalition he's talkin' about. His reiteration of Green Party policy was sure to get support from Greens but I don't think there's much of a coalition beyond a non-compete agreement that affects just 2 of 308 ridings. Greens will be running against Liberals in 306 ridings.

It ain't the "coalition" part that says Dion's targeting Greenies, though. It's the part about "outdated notions of what it means to be right-wing or left-wing." Sheesh! The gal I adore, Earth Mother Lizzie May, has been describing the Greens as neither right nor left forever. Jimmy Harris was on that theme before Lizzie.

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. That's the mantra us treehuggin' Greenies been chantin' since day one. Neither right nor left.

It's flattering that Dion has been so eager to adopt GPC policy. First, he says he's going to impose a "price on carbon." Then, he morphs it into a a carbon tax, straight out of Vision Green. Then, he lets everybody know that it ain't just a new tax but it's a tax-shift and it's revenue neutral. If you've been keepin' up with Green Party policy, you'll know that these are longtime GPC planks.

Now, Dion is not just taking our policies, he's starting to describe his party as neither right nor left. I can't really blame Dion for trying to siphon off soft Green support. He may just find, however, that Green support isn't as soft as it was once considered. In the recent by-elections as well as the October 2007 Ontario election, Green support at the ballot box was pretty much the same as Green support in pre-election opinion polls. Even so, there was no concerted Liberal effort to grab Green votes. Next time will be different.

With the Liberals and Conservatives polling at a see-sawing virtual dead heat, the double-digit support that the Greens have been getting looks mighty attractive, I'm sure. If Dion could woo just half of GPC supporter into the Liberal fold, he could win a minority. If he could reduce GPC support back to the 4%-5% we got in the last two elections, he might even get a majority.

It's gonna be a lot tougher than just talkin' the talk on a few lifted GPC policies, I reckon. A lotta new Green support is coming from disgruntled Grits who had their fill of talk-no-walk.

JimBobby

Elizabeth May Pens NatPo Article on Carbon Tax

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, the gal I adore, Earth Mother Lizzie May, has written an article for the dang National Post. I reckon she's gotta go where she can get readers and maybe win over a few converts or shore up some soft support.

The article's all about tax shiftin' and carbon taxin' and cappin'n'tradin'. Lizzie spells out some details of the Green Party plan. So far, Dion's been stealin' GPC policy so if anyone wonders what the Liberals might come up with, the Green policy oughta offer a dang good clue.

The Simple Solution

Elizabeth May, National Post
Published: Wednesday, June 04, 2008

"Pollution must have a price tag. It is currently too cheap to pollute and too expensive not to."

-Don Drummond, Chief Economist, TD Bank (March 7, 2007)

The debate on the various ways to put a price on carbon--a goal now endorsed by a wide range of think tanks and NGOs, from the National Round Table on Environment and Economy to the Canadian Council of Chief Executive Officers --needs to take place in a proper factual context.

A carbon tax is a policy response to two crises: higher energy prices brought on by declining reserves of conventional, accessible oil; and the gathering storm of climate instability. Before plunging into the rationale for carbon taxes, one thing needs to be clear: Doing nothing is not an option. Energy prices will continue to climb if we do nothing. And the ultimate costs of the climate crisis -- as estimated by Sir Nicholas Stern, former senior economist to the World Bank -- will be in the trillions. We are faced with nothing less than a catastrophic threat to our children's future.

In order to bring down greenhouse gases at anything like the rate recommend by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we will need a wide array of programs and regulations. We will also need to harness the market to send a meaningful pricing signal to the economy. In this regard, the most popular mechanisms to harness the market are cap-and-trade and a carbon tax.

This need not be an either/or proposition. The Green party believes a cap-and-trade system -- of the type advocated by the NDP, for instance -- can help bring down emissions from the largest polluters. In particular, such an approach might be used in certain sectors -- allowing coal-fired electrical plants to trade carbon credits amongst one another, for instance, as the cap goes down on their collective emissions.

But to bring down emissions in the nation as a whole, and provide the fiscal flexibility needed to significantly reduce the tax burden and alleviate energy poverty, we also need a carbon tax.

A carbon tax has the advantage of minimal new bureaucracy. It can be implemented quickly, and most economists see it as the most effective approach. As The Economist magazine put it in a 2006 editorial: "Ideally, politicians would choose the more efficient carbon tax, which implies a relatively stable price that producers can build into their investment plans." In contrast, cap-and-trade has high transactional costs and a greater risk of fraud. It is likely best reserved for targeted sectors.

The essence of the Green party plan is the Green Tax Shift. We propose a tax of $50/tonne on carbon. This would be applied at the tar sands and at the pumps. Our carbon tax would bring in $40-billion to the federal treasury every year -- thereby allowing significant decreases in income and payroll taxes, as well as income-splitting within families.

The funds also would allow us to raise the minimum level at which our lowest-earning taxpayers start paying income tax, as well as increasing income supports to seniors and the poor. Any carbon-reduction plan also needs to exhibit regional sensitivity, for the benefit of rural Canadians who are reliant on fossil fuels as we also want to buffer effects for those who use fossil fuels to earn a living, like farmers and fishers.

It is nonsense to claim that consumers can be shielded from price increases under either cap-and-trade or a carbon tax. But the benefit of the tax shift I advocate is that cuts to income taxes and payroll taxes will reduce the pain of rising fuel prices. In fact, most Canadians will be better off. They will also make sensible decisions, such as getting a more fuel-efficient vehicle or a home energy audit.

Such a plan must evolve. Over time, a carbon tax would have to rise as the amount of carbon being used shrinks. Eventually, over decades, with carbon virtually eliminated, another tax shift will be needed.

As noted recently in these pages, some Canadians are skeptical that a government would ever keep the carbon tax revenue-neutral by returning the newly levied funds to the taxpayer. One advantage of the Green party approach is that, with the generation of $40-billion in new revenue, no government could get away with failing to use such an enormous cash influx to improve Canada's economy.

Overall, our Green Tax Shift is all about cutting taxes while cutting greenhouse gases.

It all makes sense, sez I. When Dion finally does unveil the Liberal tax-shift plan, I reckon it'll look a lot like what Lizzie's described.

JimBobby

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.)