The economics of Trudeau's carbon tax

[Anonymous]

Carbon tax costs hit families most, PBO reveals



What is the point of the federal carbon pricing scheme? Or, more to the point, what does Prime Minister Justin Trudeau claim is the point of his beloved carbon tax?



"We're making big polluters pay, and giving the money right back to Canadians." Those are the exact words from a social media post by the PM from the other week. He's repeated this line almost verbatim many times before and there's good reason to believe he will again.



The idea is that the carbon tax is a sort of punishment for all the big, bad corporations out there that are thoughtlessly polluting our environment with their nasty emissions. The tax is then taken from those meanies and given to you, the little guy.



It's like a Robin Hood tax, except there's an added bonus – it magically cleans the environment at the same time. Who can dispute that?



There's a bit of a problem though.



It's not entirely accurate.



For starters, there is no way to confirm that the money a Canadian household has actually shelled out is equivalent to the amount they'll get back by claiming the rebate on their taxes.



"There is absolutely zero accounting done to determine how much we've actually paid in carbon pricing," Anthony Furey explained in a recent column.



The plot now thickens though thanks to a recent report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer on the costs and returns of the carbon tax.



Now, the PBO does endorse Trudeau's broad claim that the tax will leave some people better off. "The net benefits are broadly by income group," the report notes. "That is, lower income households will receive larger net transfers than high income households."



Although they do not address the issue of how this can be proven on a specific, individual level — because it can't.



More to the point though, they reveal it's not the case that the burden will be shouldered by "making big polluters pay".



They look at all the cash the carbon tax will rake in to federal coffers and calculate that "household consumption of energy and nonenergy products will generate threequarters of carbon pricing revenue."



Where's the money coming from? It's coming from you.

[Anonymous]

How we went from environmentalism to millions for a grocery store



The Trudeau Liberals are careful stewards of the environment and appropriately concerned about climate change. The Conservatives, by contrast, have no plan for the environment. Such is the narrative the Liberals are hoping to sell Canadians in the lead up to this year's federal election.



Many Canadians, however, aren't buying it. Behind the veil of thoughtful, pious environmentalism that the Liberals spent the last four years constructing, Canadians have found an expensive tax on carbon dioxide emissions that the federal government is battling five provinces to impose and an increasingly haphazard redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to rent-seekers.



The level of absurdity in Environment Minister Catherine Mckenna's recent declaration that a $12-million gift to Loblaw's was in the public interest rivalled that of a certain Mr. Snrub — identical in appearance, except for a mustache, to The Simpsons' energy baron Mr. Burns —cheerfully suggesting to Springfield residents at a town meeting that the government "invest" millions of dollars in the local nuclear plant.



The only difference is that Mr. Burns didn't get his taxpayer handout (Springfield built a monorail instead), but Loblaw's got their $12-million.



To be sure, there is nothing environmentally or economically irresponsible about energy efficient refrigeration. If Catherine Mckenna is for some reason determined to spend money on refrigerators to improve the environment for her fellow Canadians, that is excellent behaviour and should be applauded — as long as she is spending her own money, not everybody else's money.



The problem with government, as Milton Friedman said, is that "it's always so attractive to be able to do good at somebody else's expense." Many taxpayers disagree with Catherine Mckenna on the virtues of improving Loblaw's refrigerators. Indeed, the handout was too rich even for the NDP, though leader Jagmeet Singh's opposition to the corporate fridge giveaway was based more on the NDP'S hostility towards big business than saving taxpayers' money.



The do-goodery of Mckenna's handouts to Loblaw's is matched in wastefulness by new federal subsidies of up to $5,000 for the purchase of electric vehicles beginning in May. The standard estimate of economists is that these subsidies cost about $400 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions reduced. By comparison, the federal carbon tax this year is $20 per tonne.



The uneconomic nature of such subsidies have made them a staple in the platforms of profligate governments, such as the former Ontario Liberal government, trying to buy votes from middleand upper-income households while appearing to be friends of the environment.



The hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent on electric vehicle subsidies are in addition to the many millions of dollars more for charging stations, corporate welfare for automobile manufacturers, and government agencies to help manufacturers get these vehicles to market.



Big federal climate dollars are also being poured into various programs which fund the green initiatives of provincial, municipal, and First Nation governments.



So in addition to paying for these green projects themselves, taxpayers also pay for the employment of provincial and municipal bureaucrats to write environmental grant applications, as well as the federal bureaucrats needed to approve the applications and dispense the funds.



This is a splendid way to oppress taxpayers and ensure environmental bureaucrats and corporate welfare recipients are able to capture a larger share of the national wealth. But like refrigerator subsidies and other Liberal initiatives rolled out under the banner of environmentalism, it more resembles counterproductive wealth redistribution than wise environmental policy.

[Anonymous]

Just because the carbon tax is legal doesn't make it right



Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna hasn't seemed too pleased on camera all that much recently.



But she was all smiles on Friday following the split decision by the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan on the carbon tax case.



The court sided 3-2 with the federal government and against the Saskatchewan provincial government that the Trudeau Liberals do have the constitutional authority to force a carbon tax on provinces against their will.



Premier Scott Moe voiced his disapproval at this ruling by vowing to continue fighting it, pledging to appeal the ruling. There is a good chance that this issue will wind its way up to the Supreme Court of Canada.



In the meantime, the Liberal government and the climate alarmists who enable them are doing a victory lap over what they see as a big win for their cause.



Following the elections of Moe, Doug Ford in Ontario and Jason Kenney in Alberta, the Liberals were no doubt feeling against the ropes on this issue.



Now they feel they have a reprieve.



But they shouldn't celebrate for long. Because while the Court of Appeal has – just barely – sided with the feds, that doesn't mean public opinion will magically join them.



The carbon tax may for now be considered legal but that doesn't make it right.



McKenna used her time in front of the cameras to offer a gloating statement where she chastised the Premiers opposed to the carbon tax and called on them to drop their opposition and join her in the climate change crusade she's waging.



The minister has it backwards though. It's the Liberal government that needs to cut out the antics.



Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is only imposing the national carbon pricing backstop on provinces whose plans he doesn't like.



He's basically acknowledging that carbon taxes are a provincial issue and that they should be free to have their own plan – he'll just wade in if they're not doing what he wants.



This isn't a healthy way to govern. The entire approach by the Liberals on this issue is needlessly divisive.



[size=150]There are many ways to be stewards of the environment without forcing taxes on regular people. Let's talk more about those options.[/size]

https://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-just-because-the-carbon-tax-is-legal-doesnt-make-it-right">https://torontosun.com/opinion/editoria ... e-it-right">https://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-just-because-the-carbon-tax-is-legal-doesnt-make-it-right



Trudeau doesn't want to talk about other options because they don't bring in over half a billion bucks in GST revenues in the first year alone like a tax on a tax does.

[Anonymous]

It's time the feds realized the carbon tax must go



Now that Albertans have elected the United Conservative Party as their government, that brings the number of provinces fighting the carbon tax up to five.



Incoming Premier Jason Kenney will see his government join Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick in opposing the deeply unpopular tax.



A tipping point has been reached. With the population of Alberta tossed in to the mix, these five provinces now represent more than half the population of Canada.



You'd think this would be a wake-up call to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. It's pretty simple math. If five provinces are trying to get out from under the yoke of the carbon tax, if leaders representing the majority of the people are opposing it, that should tell Trudeau and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna something.



That something is that this tax should be put aside, placed on hold, axed, finished, removed. It's a public policy mess. It's a political disaster. And so far it's been deeply divisive.



This week we had the Ontario court hearings into whether or not the feds have the right to impose this tax on the provinces.



That's the second such court process, after a previous one happened in Saskatchewan. Then there could be a contentious Supreme Court battle.



What is Trudeau thinking? This is tearing the country apart. The mature thing to do would be to back away from this plan.



But no, not Trudeau. And certainly not McKenna.



They dug in their heels after Kenney's promise to eliminate his province's version of the carbon tax. McKenna has already signalled that the feds will impose the national carbon pricing scheme on Alberta if necessary and that their plans will not be derailed.



Why though? Why the stubbornness? Why the inability or unwillingness to see the damage this is causing to the federation?



There are many ways to be responsible stewards of the environment and if some provinces don't care for the elaborate scheme that is carbon pricing, so be it.



The federal Liberals need to respect the provinces and respect the will of provincial voters.



Instead, they are acting like true believers who are willing to risk everything on imposing the carbon tax even if it leads to their downfall. And it very well may.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-its-time-the-feds-realized-the-carbon-tax-must-go">https://torontosun.com/opinion/editoria ... ax-must-go">https://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-its-time-the-feds-realized-the-carbon-tax-must-go



The majority of Canadians have shown they do not believe Trudeau's blatant revenue grab is how to adapt or slow climate change. Dictator Trudeau and his lieutenant McKenna refuse to listen.

[Anonymous]

The carbon tax rebate will make you money?! Really?



A big part of the sell around the federally mandated carbon tax that came into effect for four provinces on April Fool's Day is that it will somehow be profitable for Canadians.



It's the carrot the Liberals have been dangling to get Canadians to buy in to this whole scheme in the first place and we've heard this message on repeat.



"Starting today, we're making big polluters pay, and giving the money right back to Canadians – to keep our communities clean & healthy, and make your life more affordable," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau posted to social media.



A graphic the Liberal's have been sending around claims the tax "reduces pollution and puts more money in your pocket".



More money?! As in, more than you had before you were dinged by the tax? That's quite something.



But how is it going to happen? How do you prove it? Good question.



The way they talk about it and then bandy about the phrase "revenue neutral" it makes it sound like if you shell out, say, $782.67 in carbon tax fees throughout any given calendar year then you will get a full rebate of $782.67.



That's not how this work. Not at all.



[size=150]So how do they figure out how much money you should get back? They don't.

[/size]

The Climate Action Incentive, as they're calling it, isn't a complicated calculation at all. It's just one line on your income tax return, Line 449.



To claim it, you need to complete a one-page Schedule 14 on your tax return. (I'm now going to use the Ontario numbers below as an example, although they differ from province-to-province.)



An individual then claims the basic amount of $154. If you're married, you can claim a spouse to add $77. If you have kids, you get to add $38 per kids. If you live in a rural area, you increase your total rebate by 10%.



This is where the Liberals are getting the magic number of $307 for the average family of four that they've been shopping around.



Here's the thing though. The credit is the same for everyone.



If you're struggling to make ends meet, you'll get the $307. But if you're pulling in a big six-figure income, you'll also get the $307. It's the same for everyone.



And what does the rebate number have to do with how much you the individual has shelled out in carbon tax cash? It doesn't. There is absolutely zero accounting done to determine how much you've actually paid in carbon pricing.



It could be costing you less than $307 (which is what the Liberals hope you'll conclude) or it could be way, way more. The numbers they're working with are government estimates and they haven't disclosed the details of how they came to those figures.



Yes, we know the tax is going to raise the price of gas by about 4 cents per litre. What we don't know is how other emitters and producers are going to respond to their increased costs and to what degree they will pass them off to the consumer.



How then can you figure out on your own if this rebate actually has left you better off? You can't.



When the government first announced they'd be giving people their money back and then some, it left the impression that we'd somehow be tallying our receipts, like maybe from some carbon tax line item at the bottom of our bills alongside the other taxes, and then sending in the total to the taxman. That's not how it's happening at all.



The Liberals have made quite the claim with the carbon tax. A claim that we have absolutely no way of verifying.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-the-carbon-tax-rebate-will-make-you-money-lets-fact-check-that-questionable-claim">https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnis ... able-claim">https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-the-carbon-tax-rebate-will-make-you-money-lets-fact-check-that-questionable-claim



First of all, even if everyone got back all the extra costs of Trudeau's carbon cash grab, how is that a disincentive to use less heat and gasoline. It's like refunding every dollar people pay in sin taxes on booze and cigarettes that are there in the first place to discourage smoking and drinking.



More importantly, Trudeau and McKenna are lying their asses off about everybody getting their carbon tax money back. A family of four living in a bedroom community of Toronto with a combined income of $120 will get $307 back. That would be likely less than half of what the carbon tax would cost them in the first year. And the tax goes from $20 to $50 per tonne by 2022. Everything about Trudeau's carbon cash grab are lies.

[Anonymous]

Trudeau thinks the carbon tax scam will energize the leftist base.

[Anonymous]

By Kenneth Green, Fraser Institute Environmental Analyst



Canada's flawed carbon pricing needs changes



The first test, that provinces will be able to resist the new federal carbon tax, has concluded.



And opponents of the federal carbon tax have come away empty-handed.



In a split 3-2 decision, last week the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal found that the federal government has authority over greenhouse gas emissions.



Writing in the National Post, Andrew Coyne (with whom I often agree) said this decision is just wonderful — "a victory for the planet, federalism and the rule of law, not to say common sense."



If there was any chance that a federal carbon price could be levied according to optimal economic theory, I might agree with Coyne.



The problem is, as the Fraser Institute has repeatedly shown, the way that Canada has implemented carbon pricing flies directly in the face of what economic theory dictates for an efficient tax.



Let's start at the beginning. Much is being made of the fact that the federal carbon tax will be revenue neutral (it won't actually be fully revenue neutral, only 90% will be rebated).



And indeed, economic theory states that a carbon tax should indeed be revenue neutral.



But there's a caveat here — to offset the harm the carbon tax does to the economy, the tax revenues must be used to reduce existing distortionary taxes such as the personal income tax or the corporate income tax.



Rebating the revenues as lump sum rebates eliminates the opportunity to offset the harm of the tax by reducing other distortionary taxes.



Another explicit assumption about optimal carbon taxation is that it must be emplaced in lieu of regulations — not layered on top of them.



Layering a carbon tax on top of regulations makes the regulations even more economically damaging.



But the Trudeau government shows no indication that it's ready to make that trade.



In fact, the government plans to implement a "Clean Fuel Standard" that "would incent the use of a broad range of low carbon fuels, energy sources and technologies, such as electricity, hydrogen, and renewable fuels, including renewable natural gas.



"It would establish lifecycle carbon intensity requirements separately for liquid, gaseous and solid fuels, and would go beyond transportation fuels to include those used in industry and buildings."



That does not sound much like a swap of a carbon tax for regulations.



Finally, as a 2017 Fraser Institute study showed, no government in Canada has adopted or long-maintained a genuinely revenue neutral carbon tax that satisfies the conditions for pricing carbon efficiently while protecting the environment.



The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision has carbon tax aficionados celebrating.



The Saskatchewan suit will likely head to the Supreme Court of Canada, offering a slender reed of hope for carbon tax opponents.



Unfortunately for Canadians, having the case come down to "to tax or not to tax" obscures the fact that Canada's carbon taxes will not be the economically benign greenhouse gas control regime Canadians were promised.



It will be an economically damaging carbon tax that only extends federal control over emissions — control that's best utilized by provinces, which have specific knowledge of their economies and how their people would respond to incentives to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

[Anonymous]

'Completely inconsistent': Carbon taxes applied unequally between provinces, new report says

In provinces whose carbon pricing plans have the federal government's approval, the increase in gas prices is substantially smaller than those under the federal tax



OTTAWA — Carbon taxes have been applied unequally in different provinces, a new report from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is pointing out, with some Canadians paying as little as half a cent more per litre of gas than they were before carbon pricing came into effect.



The federal carbon tax, which was rolled out in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick on April 1, has added about 4.4 cents to the price of a litre of gasoline. The tax was applied to those four provinces because they refused to develop their own carbon prices, and is supposed to increase to 11 cents per litre by 2022.



But in other provinces whose carbon pricing plans have the federal government's approval, the actual increase in gas prices is substantially smaller than that. Both Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island have offset their carbon taxes by cutting existing provincial gas taxes, such that Newfoundlanders are now paying just 0.42 cents more per litre than they were before the carbon tax was levied, and Islanders are paying just one cent more. P.E.I. also plans to increase its carbon tax by just one cent per litre in 2020 — less than the federal backstop, which is expected to increase by 2.2 cents per litre next year — and it's not clear whether it will continue to increase past 2020.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/completely-inconsistent-carbon-taxes-applied-unequally-between-provinces-new-report-says">https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ ... eport-says">https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/completely-inconsistent-carbon-taxes-applied-unequally-between-provinces-new-report-says



Provinces that kissed Trudeau's ass were charged less than provinces that stood up to his virtue signalling tax grab.

[Anonymous]

'Completely inconsistent': Carbon taxes applied unequally between provinces, new report says

In provinces whose carbon pricing plans have the federal government's approval, the increase in gas prices is substantially smaller than those under the federal tax



OTTAWA — Carbon taxes have been applied unequally in different provinces, a new report from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is pointing out, with some Canadians paying as little as half a cent more per litre of gas than they were before carbon pricing came into effect.



The federal carbon tax, which was rolled out in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick on April 1, has added about 4.4 cents to the price of a litre of gasoline. The tax was applied to those four provinces because they refused to develop their own carbon prices, and is supposed to increase to 11 cents per litre by 2022.



But in other provinces whose carbon pricing plans have the federal government's approval, the actual increase in gas prices is substantially smaller than that. Both Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island have offset their carbon taxes by cutting existing provincial gas taxes, such that Newfoundlanders are now paying just 0.42 cents more per litre than they were before the carbon tax was levied, and Islanders are paying just one cent more. P.E.I. also plans to increase its carbon tax by just one cent per litre in 2020 — less than the federal backstop, which is expected to increase by 2.2 cents per litre next year — and it's not clear whether it will continue to increase past 2020.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/completely-inconsistent-carbon-taxes-applied-unequally-between-provinces-new-report-says">https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ ... eport-says">https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/completely-inconsistent-carbon-taxes-applied-unequally-between-provinces-new-report-says



Provinces that kissed Trudeau's ass were charged less than provinces that stood up to his virtue signalling tax grab.

Provinces with Liberal premiers are charged less.

 

[Gaon]

'Completely inconsistent': Carbon taxes applied unequally between provinces, new report says

In provinces whose carbon pricing plans have the federal government's approval, the increase in gas prices is substantially smaller than those under the federal tax



OTTAWA — Carbon taxes have been applied unequally in different provinces, a new report from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is pointing out, with some Canadians paying as little as half a cent more per litre of gas than they were before carbon pricing came into effect.



The federal carbon tax, which was rolled out in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick on April 1, has added about 4.4 cents to the price of a litre of gasoline. The tax was applied to those four provinces because they refused to develop their own carbon prices, and is supposed to increase to 11 cents per litre by 2022.



But in other provinces whose carbon pricing plans have the federal government's approval, the actual increase in gas prices is substantially smaller than that. Both Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island have offset their carbon taxes by cutting existing provincial gas taxes, such that Newfoundlanders are now paying just 0.42 cents more per litre than they were before the carbon tax was levied, and Islanders are paying just one cent more. P.E.I. also plans to increase its carbon tax by just one cent per litre in 2020 — less than the federal backstop, which is expected to increase by 2.2 cents per litre next year — and it's not clear whether it will continue to increase past 2020.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/completely-inconsistent-carbon-taxes-applied-unequally-between-provinces-new-report-says">https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ ... eport-says">https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/completely-inconsistent-carbon-taxes-applied-unequally-between-provinces-new-report-says



Provinces that kissed Trudeau's ass were charged less than provinces that stood up to his virtue signalling tax grab.

It seems to be common in big countries like Canada for the central government to pit regions against each other. Moscow does it too.

[Anonymous]

Despite all the evidence showing a carbon tax in Canada can't do anything, Trudeau and McKenna refuse to believe the facts and are ignoring the science.



Justin Trudeau and Catherine McKenna often claim to use 'facts' and 'science' to justify the hated carbon tax they're imposing on Canadians.



Yet, the actual facts, and the actual science shows a carbon tax in Canada is a total waste of time, and will do nothing about global emissions.



Take a look at the charts below shared by Bloomberg writer Noah Smith on Twitter, which destroy any possible justification for a carbon tax in Canada:

https://www.spencerfernando.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Emission-Chart-7-768x560.jpg">

https://www.spencerfernando.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Emission-Chart-6-768x566.jpg">

https://www.spencerfernando.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Emission-Chart-5-768x560.jpg">

[Anonymous]

https://www.spencerfernando.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Emission-Chart-3-768x538.jpg">

https://www.spencerfernando.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Emission-Chart-2-768x604.jpg">

https://www.spencerfernando.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Emission-Chart-1-768x445.jpg">

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/10/11/these-charts-totally-destroy-any-possible-justification-for-a-carbon-tax-on-canadians/?fbclid=IwAR3foqFtUmP1bJKkmwnec8EREqUX077IJ-c6wVW8vovoSlueWr90BgqwK1I">https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/10 ... r90BgqwK1I">https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/10/11/these-charts-totally-destroy-any-possible-justification-for-a-carbon-tax-on-canadians/?fbclid=IwAR3foqFtUmP1bJKkmwnec8EREqUX077IJ-c6wVW8vovoSlueWr90BgqwK1I

[Anonymous]

By Greg Vezina, chairman of Hydrofuel



There's no real price on most pollution — all we have is feckless carbon tax



Fossil fuel and green energy supporters are crying the blues over Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's energy and environmental policies.



Trudeau crows about winning a narrow three-to-two split decision of the Saskatchewan government's appeal of his Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (GGPPA) that concluded putting a price on pollution is constitutional, but he neglects to mention not just any climate change plan works.



Trudeau's carbon tax faces more legal challenges by Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and perhaps other provinces, and final review by the Supreme Court of Canada.



Meanwhile, Trudeau's failure to advance the effort to get Canada's fossil fuel resources to tidewater for sale to global markets, and his proposed legislation on the environmental review of energy projects, have fossil energy supporters upset.



By contrast, the federal Trans Mountain pipeline purchase, LNG subsidies, carbon dioxide emission exemptions for large emitters, the use of natural gas and so-called green energy food-based ethanol as "bridges" away from hydrocarbons has upset the greens.



The real problem is these incentives are costly, inefficient and focused in the wrong places, thereby precluding better industrial technologies and best environmental practices.



An April 2019 University of Chicago study found 30 U.S. state-level programs upped electricity prices as much as 17%, concluding: "The global experiences from carbon markets and taxes make clear that much less expensive ways to reduce CO2 are available right now."



For example, using a June 2017 joint Concordia University and Montreal Economic Institute study, "Subsidizing electric vehicles inefficient way to reduce CO2 emissions", as a benchmark, the new $5,000 federal battery vehicle subsidy will cost $200 per ton of emissions — 10 times the current federal carbon tax.



By contrast, producing ammonia (NH3) from natural gas causes 2% of global GHG emissions, and the 90% carbon tax exemption, along with additional exemptions from life cycle emissions, is much less expensive.



It puts the actual "price on pollution" at $4 per ton of emissions, compared to the current federal carbon tax of $20 per ton, rising to $10 per ton in 2022, when Trudeau's carbon tax will be $50 per ton.



The incremental cost of sequestering carbon in hydrocarbons when making ammonia is 15%, or about $30 per ton, declining in the next five years from nine to five times the cost of polluting under the carbon tax exemption.



In November 2015 "Energy Report" cited a Carnegie Mellon University study on the "Use of NH3 fuel to achieve deep greenhouse gas reductions from U.S. transportation."



It concluded aggressive implementation of Nh3-fueled vehicles to replace gasoline vehicles, would eliminate 96% of the annual light duty vehicle CO2 emissions projected for 2040, a 718 million metric ton CO2 reduction.



The same backwards situation in Canada exists with respect to the use of better waste remediation technologies for municipal liquid, solid and plastic waste we bury, burn or ship elsewhere.



The Japan Times reported in a June 2017 article that over 1,000 workers process 195 tons of waste plastic a day, making 175 tons of ammonia sold for industrial and medical uses.



In 2014, Washington, D.C., opened North America's first large-scale high-tech system to turn 1,500 tons of sewage a day into a safe, rich soil amendment and in 2024, Maryland's Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission will start production.



We need an honest and fair user pay "price on pollution" which includes all life cycle emissions with no exemptions, except for big improvements in state of the art technologies.

[Anonymous]

I don't follow all of this, but I know Trudeau's tax is revenue policy, not environmental policy.

[Anonymous]

Don't say that you weren't warned: For Justin Trudeau's carbon tax to accomplish its goals, it will have to go up significantly.



The latest warning comes from the non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).



According to the PBO, Canada will need to boost its carbon tax from $50 a tonne in 2022 to between $102 and $138 a tonne by 2030 if Canada is to meet its Paris Agreement targets on greenhouse gas emissions.



The difference between $102 and $138 a tonne is dependent on the state of the economy and the price of oil over the next 11 years.



However, the PBO's main estimate is that the carbon tax will need to rise to $102 a tonne by 2030 to close a gap of 79 Mt of emissions in order to meet Canada's Paris Agreement targets. If the economy grows and oil and gas production increases, emissions could be 55 Mt higher meaning a gap of 134 Mt.



"The additional carbon price needed to achieve the Paris target with a gap of 134 Mt would rise from $10 per tonne in 2023 to $88 per tonne in 2030," the report reads.



Let's be honest, talking in mega tonnes and a carbon price per tonne is gibberish to most of us. What does it mean in real terms?



After speaking with Dan McTeague, former Liberal MP and senior analyst with gasbuddy.com, I find out the numbers are staggering.



The increased carbon tax price would mean as much as an extra 26.3 cents per litre for gasoline, once you add in the HST the change would boost the price per litre by at least 29.7 cents per litre. For diesel, it would be at least 35 cents per litre.



"That's your jet fuel, that's your bus transportation, that's your freight. If you want to cripple the economy, be my guest," McTeague said.



The PBO even suggests that at just $102 a tonne, the carbon tax would shave off 1% of Canada's GDP by 2030. How much worse will it be if the tax goes to $138 a tonne?



Justin Trudeau has been reluctant to say that the carbon tax will need to rise yet every expert analysis says that it must to achieve his stated goal.



A study by the bureaucrats inside Environment Canada in 2015 said that the carbon tax would have to rise to as much as $300 a tonne to meet Canada's objectives.



When pushed on the potential rise of the carbon tax, Trudeau has stayed true to form and attacked those that question him. The Liberals have tried to deflect criticism by pointing out that a Nobel prize winning economist has called for a carbon tax to fight climate change.



William Nordhaus won the Nobel Prize for Economics last fall for his work on carbon pricing. Yet the strange thing is that while Trudeau points to this fact as proof that he is on the right track, his proposal is nothing like that of Nordhaus.



Nordhaus, a Yale professor who has been writing on this issue for decades, calls for a very steep carbon tax to change people's behaviour while lowering other taxes.



Trudeau hasn't reduced other taxes such as income tax; he has simply introduced a carbon tax on top of other taxes — a carbon tax most experts say is too low to have the desired effect.



As we head towards the October vote and Trudeau tries to make the carbon tax and his fight against climate change a central theme, it will be up to individual voters to hold him to account and ask him how high the tax will go.



We've heard from the PBO, now it's time to hear from Trudeau.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-independent-report-says-trudeaus-carbon-tax-will-rise-by-a-lot">https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnis ... e-by-a-lot">https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-independent-report-says-trudeaus-carbon-tax-will-rise-by-a-lot



The only people that will be able to afford to heat their homes, take flights, and drive a car will be the Trudeaus if we give JT another term.