What is Carbon Tax & Cap 'n Trade?

[JOE]

...I confess...I know nothing about them.

Thus, I haven't made up my mind to support or be against them.

I'm firmly undecided.



Why did the government introduce them?



What do they pay for?



Who benefits from.them?



Who doesn't?



Which countries have introduced them, and what are their results?



What is the difference between a carbon tax & cap 'n trade?



I know many of you don't like them, but at least try to be impartial explaining or defining them.



...Perhaps seoulbro can weigh in?

[Anonymous]

...I confess...I know nothing about them.

Thus, I haven't made up my mind to support or be against them.

I'm firmly undecided.



Why did the government introduce them?



What do they pay for?



Who benefits from.them?



Who doesn't?



Which countries have introduced them, and what are their results?



What is the difference between a carbon tax & cap 'n trade?



I know many of you don't like them, but at least try to be impartial explaining or defining them.



...Perhaps seoulbro can weigh in?

The idea behind both is to limit CO2 emissions. However, they have almost no impact on climate. As I said in another thread they are both political gestures.

[JOE]

Well, you didn't answer the question in as detailed a way as I'd hoped but thanks for the attempt anyway.



Actually, I think the fundamental reason for the CO2 problem is too many people who've been introduced to the planet in such a short period of time.



The population has practically doubled in 1 to 2 generations. Of course somethings gotta give.



Its the equivalent of doubling the population of an apartment building overnight and still expecting the quality of life for its residents to remain the same.



At this rate, the planet is living on borrowed time. The human species has this voracious appetitie to reproduce, but has not found the common sense to slow down its population growth.



Anyways, the Club of Rome warned us 40 years ago when our current PM was a toddler of the population bomb, but nobody listened. So we're paying the price and trying to implelment bandaid solutions to cover up what is the real prblem.

...I confess...I know nothing about them.

Thus, I haven't made up my mind to support or be against them.

I'm firmly undecided.



Why did the government introduce them?



What do they pay for?



Who benefits from.them?



Who doesn't?



Which countries have introduced them, and what are their results?



What is the difference between a carbon tax & cap 'n trade?



I know many of you don't like them, but at least try to be impartial explaining or defining them.



...Perhaps seoulbro can weigh in?

The idea behind both is to limit CO2 emissions. However, they have almost no impact on climate. As I said in another thread they are both political gestures.

[Anonymous]

Let's take the world's second largest CO2 emitter, the USA as an example. How much global warming will result from U.S. emissions over the course of this century, and how much of that could be prevented by a carbon tax? These two questions have the same simple answer—virtually none. One or two tenths of a degree a century out with–and without–a carbon tax makes the whole climate debate a peculiar exercise.

[Anonymous]

All you need to know Joe is that either one of them means you pay more.

[Anonymous]

All you need to know Joe is that either one of them means you pay more.

I read how much our carbon tax will cost the average family like mine per year..



I hope whoever replaces the NDP in 2019 will get rid of her carbon tax.

[Anonymous]

It's hard to tell whether it was deliberate or a gaffe — meaning what happens when a politician accidentally tells the truth — but Ontario Climate Change Minister Glen Murray told the truth last week.



In an interview with the Sun's Shawn Jeffords, he said cap-and-trade and other government decarbonization initiatives will be very expensive, which politicians almost never do.



As Murray put it in responding to a Globe and Mail story about Ontario's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: "It costs a lot of money. It's going to cost the private sector, and it's an investment, and it's going to cost the public sector money."



The only thing I would have added is an acknowledgment that having the private and public sector pay a lot more means all of us are going to pay a lot more.



Too often, politicians talk about carbon pricing in terms of "making the polluter pay", implying the costs will be magically absorbed by carbon intensive industries.



That's nonsense. In fact, we are the polluters, since we buy the goods and services that fossil fuel energy creates and we are the ones who will end up paying more.



Murray also acknowledged meeting goals such as having 1.7 million electric and hybrid vehicles on the roads by 2024, will require "a generous subsidy for the first generation of that change".



Less impressive in terms of candour was Murray's observation that, "there are incredible savings and returns on that (carbon pricing) investment for everyone."



Not quite. This is similar to the happy talk former federal Liberal leader Stephane Dion used when he introduced his Green Shift plan prior to losing the 2008 election.



At the time, he said: "Canada will cut megatonnes of emissions, but we will also make megatonnes of money."



The reality is that decarbonizing a country like Canada — big, cold, sparsely populated, resource-based — is going to be very hard and very costly.



Worse, Premier Kathleen Wynne plans to do it in the worst way possible — through a cap-and-trade system that has been a disaster in Europe and that will take almost $2 billion annually out of the Ontario economy to start, beginning next year.



That, plus the government picking winners and losers in terms of who it will subsidize and who it won't.



That's as far away from an effective carbon pricing scheme as you can get — a 100%, revenue neutral carbon tax, verified by the provincial auditor general every year, in which the government returns all the money it raises through carbon pricing to the public in the form of an annual cash dividend, or income tax cuts and cash grants to the poor who don't pay taxes.



That would be a plan actually designed to encourage people to adopt a less carbon intensive lifestyle, as opposed to a mere cash grab for the government, which is what Ontario's plan is.



But at least Murray was honest about the costs.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/04/30/carbon-pricings-dirty-secret">http://www.torontosun.com/2016/04/30/ca ... rty-secret">http://www.torontosun.com/2016/04/30/carbon-pricings-dirty-secret



At least the Ontario climate minister is honest about the costs of decarbonization.

[RW]

I don't think the purpose is truly to lower CO2 emissions by the tax itself but to amass money for more significant changes like paying for transit systems and other big ticket things.

[Anonymous]

I don't think the purpose is truly to lower CO2 emissions by the tax itself but to amass money for more significant changes like paying for transit systems and other big ticket things.

Exactly, it's about raising revenue. Just like a consumption tax.

[Anonymous]

It's hard to tell whether it was deliberate or a gaffe — meaning what happens when a politician accidentally tells the truth — but Ontario Climate Change Minister Glen Murray told the truth last week.



In an interview with the Sun's Shawn Jeffords, he said cap-and-trade and other government decarbonization initiatives will be very expensive, which politicians almost never do.



As Murray put it in responding to a Globe and Mail story about Ontario's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: "It costs a lot of money. It's going to cost the private sector, and it's an investment, and it's going to cost the public sector money."



The only thing I would have added is an acknowledgment that having the private and public sector pay a lot more means all of us are going to pay a lot more.



Too often, politicians talk about carbon pricing in terms of "making the polluter pay", implying the costs will be magically absorbed by carbon intensive industries.



That's nonsense. In fact, we are the polluters, since we buy the goods and services that fossil fuel energy creates and we are the ones who will end up paying more.



Murray also acknowledged meeting goals such as having 1.7 million electric and hybrid vehicles on the roads by 2024, will require "a generous subsidy for the first generation of that change".



Less impressive in terms of candour was Murray's observation that, "there are incredible savings and returns on that (carbon pricing) investment for everyone."



Not quite. This is similar to the happy talk former federal Liberal leader Stephane Dion used when he introduced his Green Shift plan prior to losing the 2008 election.



At the time, he said: "Canada will cut megatonnes of emissions, but we will also make megatonnes of money."



The reality is that decarbonizing a country like Canada — big, cold, sparsely populated, resource-based — is going to be very hard and very costly.



Worse, Premier Kathleen Wynne plans to do it in the worst way possible — through a cap-and-trade system that has been a disaster in Europe and that will take almost $2 billion annually out of the Ontario economy to start, beginning next year.



That, plus the government picking winners and losers in terms of who it will subsidize and who it won't.



That's as far away from an effective carbon pricing scheme as you can get — a 100%, revenue neutral carbon tax, verified by the provincial auditor general every year, in which the government returns all the money it raises through carbon pricing to the public in the form of an annual cash dividend, or income tax cuts and cash grants to the poor who don't pay taxes.



That would be a plan actually designed to encourage people to adopt a less carbon intensive lifestyle, as opposed to a mere cash grab for the government, which is what Ontario's plan is.



But at least Murray was honest about the costs.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/04/30/carbon-pricings-dirty-secret">http://www.torontosun.com/2016/04/30/ca ... rty-secret">http://www.torontosun.com/2016/04/30/carbon-pricings-dirty-secret



At least the Ontario climate minister is honest about the costs of decarbonization.

Of course it will be expensive.

[JOE]

I don't think the purpose is truly to lower CO2 emissions by the tax itself but to amass money for more significant changes like paying for transit systems and other big ticket things.

Exactly, it's about raising revenue. Just like a consumption tax.

That's the trouble with a tax where the government doesn't explain where the money is going. They should put up a website to inform the public how much carbon tax is collected and what its being spent on, similar to a debt clock:



 http://www.debtclock.ca/">http://www.debtclock.ca/



I suppose if the taxpayer knew where their taxes were being spent, maybe they'd be more supportive of it. But of course, they're not. Plus we don't see any evidence of any massive spending on meaningful carbo reduction projects. They mayor of Vancouver says he wants to make the city the greenest on the planet. So he paints the crosswalks green. However, this doesn't do anything for the city. Where are the solar panel roofs? The highway from Whistler to LA with the hydrogen powered cars and fueling stations we were promised? Or did our carbon taxes go towards that taxpayer funded extravaganza in Paris?



Vancouver likes to call itself green, but many cities nations are already doing it. If vancouver is an indication where the city and country are at, then we're at least 20 years behind the Europeans in carbon reduction and energy consumption. So I hope the results of all this carbon taxing show up soon.

[Anonymous]

I would find the new carbon tax in Alberta a lot easier to swallow if it produced tangible results, but the government itself admits it will not stop the climate from changing.

[RW]

I would find the new carbon tax in Alberta a lot easier to swallow if it produced tangible results, but the government itself admits it will not stop the climate from changing.

Nothing will stop it.  The idea is to slow our impact on it.



Doing things that pollute our planet less will ALWAYS be a good thing.  The question is, how smart are we going to be about it?

[Anonymous]

I would find the new carbon tax in Alberta a lot easier to swallow if it produced tangible results, but the government itself admits it will not stop the climate from changing.

Nothing will stop it.  The idea is to slow our impact on it.



Doing things that pollute our planet less will ALWAYS be a good thing.  The question is, how smart are we going to be about it?

The excuse in Alberta for our carbon tax was climate change, not reducing pollution.

[Anonymous]

I would find the new carbon tax in Alberta a lot easier to swallow if it produced tangible results, but the government itself admits it will not stop the climate from changing.

Nothing will stop it.  The idea is to slow our impact on it.



Doing things that pollute our planet less will ALWAYS be a good thing.  The question is, how smart are we going to be about it?

The excuse in Alberta for our carbon tax was climate change, not reducing pollution.

It was supposed to gain social license for new pipelines to tidewater, but apparently mayors in greater Montreal and Vancouver did not get the memo.