Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "seoulbro"

Quote from: "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?

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.

Quote from: "Herman"All you need to know Joe is that either one of them means you pay more.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Herman"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.

Quote from: "Herman"

Quote from: "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.

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

Quote from: "Fashionista"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.

Quote from: "RW"

Quote from: "Fashionista"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?

Quote from: "Fashionista"

Quote from: "RW"

Quote from: "Fashionista"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.