It's time to start talking about a post-carbon tax Canada

[Anonymous]

Opposition to carbon taxes in Canada is growing by the day. There was a time when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's advocacy for the issue went largely unchecked and conservative politicians such as former Ontario PC leader Patrick Brown were on board.



Things have changed. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall has called the federal carbon tax a "ransom note" and Canadians now broadly oppose the plan to punish consumers for their use of gas, home heating and other goods.



A new poll from Ipsos commissioned by Global News shows [size=150]72% of Ontarians believe it's just a tax grab while 68% discount it as a purely symbolic gesture.[/size]



We agree.



The most interesting part is the opinion of average people has evolved over time. This wasn't a knee-jerk reaction to a new policy. The more Canadians learn about the carbon tax, the less they like it.



Sun columnist Lorrie Goldstein has been pointing out for years that this isn't just a tax on, say, evil polluters who disobey completely reasonable environmental protection laws. Quite the opposite. It puts a price on all carbon emissions. This means the price of all consumer goods will soon increase.



As columnist Anthony Furey recently noted, even the experts struggle with this issue. They bicker over how to calculate the total cost of the tax and dodge tough questions about its impacts.



Meanwhile, columnist Candice Malcolm has argued this is really the policy fight of our time. No kidding.



While the federal government refuses to release a report that discloses how much a national carbon tax is expected to cost the average family on a yearly basis, there are various estimates floating around.



Once the full price of $50 per tonne is set by 2022, it looks like the minimum average cost will be around $600 per household. It could go higher. Much higher. And there are academics and activists who argue for just that.



Since Canadians are increasingly opposing the tax though, it's becoming clear imposing it will be politically toxic.



Moving forward, the national conversation should shift to the pragmatic things businesses and communities can do to be better stewards for the environment, ones that don't focus on regressive and punitive taxes.

http://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-its-time-to-start-talking-about-a-post-carbon-tax-canada">http://torontosun.com/opinion/editorial ... tax-canada">http://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-its-time-to-start-talking-about-a-post-carbon-tax-canada



It will shave a half percentage point off of our GDP, kill jobs and drive lower income families into poverty. And for what? It won't slow climate change.

[Anonymous]

Dr. Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph, explains, "Any policy to achieve our Paris Agreement on climate change emission targets will be expensive, with or without a 'carbon tax.' The Conservatives will likely propose regulations alone; the Liberals are proposing regulations plus taxes. Economic theory says taxes alone (which no one is offering) could be cheapest but it doesn't tell us which of the others will be costliest."



Canadians are justified to wonder what will actually be accomplished by such plans?



Environment and Climate Change Canada estimates that the adoption of carbon pricing (taxes plus emissions trading), if done in all provinces and territories, will reduce national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80-90 million tonnes below the levels that would otherwise apply in 2022. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Director of the Center for the Study of Science at The Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based public policy research organization, explained that, using the model employed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a 90 million tonne per year reduction will result in between 0.001 and 0.002 degress Celsius less global warming by 2100 than would otherwise occur, depending on the assumed sensitivity of the atmosphere to changes in GHG.



If asked about this by the Conservatives, the government would likely ignore the question and assert that Canada must set an example for the world to follow in the fight to 'save the climate.' Indeed, that was the approach of former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy when she was asked in Congressional hearings about the climatic impact of the U.S. Clean Power Plan. The Institute for Energy Research speculated after her 2014 hearing, "The likely reason McCarthy is reticent to discuss the actual effect on climate is because the impact is very small. It turns out that if you use EPA's MAGICC model, the impact of this rule would reduce the rise in global temperatures by only 0.137 degrees Celsius by 2100."



Setting a good example would make sense if a man-made climate crisis was known to be imminent and developing nations, the source of most of the world's emissions, were likely to follow our lead.



But many scientists question man's role in climate change, and developing countries clearly have no intention of limiting their development for 'climate protection' purposes. Besides the fact that, under the Paris Agreement, China, for example, can increase its emissions until 2030, developing nations may never have to restrict their emissions.



Article 4 in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the foundation of Paris, states: "Economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties." This stipulation does not apply to developed nations.



Actions to significantly reduce GHG emissions in developing countries would usually require cutting back on the use of coal. However, as coal is typically the least expensive source of power, reducing emissions by restricting coal use would undoubtedly interfere with development priorities. So, developing countries almost certainly won't do it, citing UNFCCC Article 4 as their excuse.



Thus, no matter what one believes about the causes of climate change, Canada's actions will have negligible impact. Why will no one bring this up in the House of Commons?

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-column-canadas-climate-change-plans-all-pain-no-gain">http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnist ... in-no-gain">http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-column-canadas-climate-change-plans-all-pain-no-gain



The Paris Agreement, carbon taxes, cap and trade are all expensive exercises in futility.

[Anonymous]

Some inconvenient truths in your  articles Seoul that Premier Notley and Prime Minister Trudeau don't want to admit.

[Bricktop]

We dumped ours.

[Anonymous]

We dumped ours.

Most provinces have either a carbon tax or cap and trade. True Dope wants to force a punitive $50/tonne confiscation tax on the entire country. The people are saying no, but he isn't listening.

[Bricktop]

Idiot Politician - "We're going to introduce a carbon tax"

Sheeple - "Why?"

Idiot Politician - "To save the planet from global warm...er...I mean climate change"

Sheeple - "How will a tax save the planet"

Idiot Politician - "It will reduce emissions"

Sheeple - "How?"

Idiot Politician - "By forcing people to use renewable energy"

Sheeple - "How much will that reduce global warming?"

Idiot Politician - "Do you like my new car. Its green".

[Anonymous]

Idiot Politician - "We're going to introduce a carbon tax"

Sheeple - "Why?"

Idiot Politician - "To save the planet from global warm...er...I mean climate change"

Sheeple - "How will a tax save the planet"

Idiot Politician - "It will reduce emissions"

Sheeple - "How?"

Idiot Politician - "By forcing people to use renewable energy"

Sheeple - "How much will that reduce global warming?"

Idiot Politician - "Do you like my new car. Its green".

Sheeple: How much will it cost the average family and how much will it slow climate change?

Sleazy Politician: YOU'RE A DENIER!!!

[Bricktop]

Bingo!

[Anonymous]

Bingo!

You and SL know how the scam works.

[Anonymous]

As polling across Canada shows support for carbon pricing plummeting now that it's a reality as opposed to an idea, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau must be wondering what went wrong?



Ditto Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.



Last year, with great, self-congratulatory fanfare, she imposed a cap and trade scheme, another name for a carbon tax, on Ontarians. That's one reason she's poised to lose her job in the province's June 7 election, her Liberal government trailing both the Progressive Conservatives and NDP in the polls.



An Ipsos/Global poll released Monday found more than seven in 10 eligible Ontario voters — 72% — believe carbon taxes are just an excuse by government to grab more money from them, with 68% calling them mere symbolism.



A similar fate appears to await Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, whose NDP government introduced a carbon tax last year and is now trailing far behind Jason Kenney's United Conservative Party in public support.



A poll released last month by Janet Brown Opinion Research and Trend Research for the CBC, found almost seven in 10 Albertans surveyed — 66% — want Notley's carbon tax scrapped.



An Angus Reid Institute poll released in July, 2017 found most Canadians — 56% — oppose Trudeau's national carbon price, with majorities against it in every province surveyed except Quebec, (55% support) and B.C. (50% support).



Meanwhile, 59% were opposed in Ontario; 68% opposed in Alberta; 71% opposed in Saskatchewan; 60% opposed in Manitoba; 67% opposed in New Brunswick; 62% opposed in Newfoundland and Labrador and 57% opposed in Nova Scotia.



It's all evidence of growing skepticism about carbon pricing as Canadians increasingly realize that when Trudeau and Co. talk about "making polluters pay" for carbon emissions, they really mean making us pay.



Having followed polling on carbon pricing and climate change for more than a decade, my rule of thumb is this: Ask people if they support efforts to combat man-made climate change and most say yes. Ask them if they support having to pay for it and most say no.



While the Canadian intelligentsia mock the public for holding these seemingly contradictory views, the reality is the public's skepticism about carbon pricing is justified.



That's because no government in Canada has instituted the most effective, open and transparent form of carbon pricing — a 100%, revenue neutral carbon tax in which all the money is returned to the public in broad-based income tax cuts — verified by the federal and provincial auditors general.



The reason no government in Canada is doing this is that no government in Canada wants to reduce industrial carbon dioxide emissions linked to climate change in the most effective way possible, which has nothing to do with raising government revenues.



The fact is that to significantly reduce emissions, carbon taxes would have to be set so high today (hundreds of dollars per tonne of emissions, as opposed to Trudeau's price of $50 per tonne by 2022) that, without revenue neutrality, the only reason emissions would drop would be due to a massive national recession.



So instead, what Trudeau and Co. are doing, is to nickel-and-dime Canadians to death through carbon pricing, putting a permanent drag on our economy without provoking a full recession, while hoping Canadians won't notice as the costs increase over time, with little impact on emissions.



What the polling on carbon taxes shows is that Canadians are coming to the correct conclusion that our carbon emperors have no clothes.

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-and-co-losing-the-fight-on-carbon-taxes">http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnist ... rbon-taxes">http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-and-co-losing-the-fight-on-carbon-taxes



Canadians are  right, carbon pricing is a cash grab and mere symbolism.

[Anonymous]

As polling across Canada shows support for carbon pricing plummeting now that it's a reality as opposed to an idea, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau must be wondering what went wrong?



Ditto Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.



Last year, with great, self-congratulatory fanfare, she imposed a cap and trade scheme, another name for a carbon tax, on Ontarians. That's one reason she's poised to lose her job in the province's June 7 election, her Liberal government trailing both the Progressive Conservatives and NDP in the polls.



An Ipsos/Global poll released Monday found more than seven in 10 eligible Ontario voters — 72% — believe carbon taxes are just an excuse by government to grab more money from them, with 68% calling them mere symbolism.



A similar fate appears to await Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, whose NDP government introduced a carbon tax last year and is now trailing far behind Jason Kenney's United Conservative Party in public support.



A poll released last month by Janet Brown Opinion Research and Trend Research for the CBC, found almost seven in 10 Albertans surveyed — 66% — want Notley's carbon tax scrapped.



An Angus Reid Institute poll released in July, 2017 found most Canadians — 56% — oppose Trudeau's national carbon price, with majorities against it in every province surveyed except Quebec, (55% support) and B.C. (50% support).



Meanwhile, 59% were opposed in Ontario; 68% opposed in Alberta; 71% opposed in Saskatchewan; 60% opposed in Manitoba; 67% opposed in New Brunswick; 62% opposed in Newfoundland and Labrador and 57% opposed in Nova Scotia.



It's all evidence of growing skepticism about carbon pricing as Canadians increasingly realize that when Trudeau and Co. talk about "making polluters pay" for carbon emissions, they really mean making us pay.



Having followed polling on carbon pricing and climate change for more than a decade, my rule of thumb is this: Ask people if they support efforts to combat man-made climate change and most say yes. Ask them if they support having to pay for it and most say no.



While the Canadian intelligentsia mock the public for holding these seemingly contradictory views, the reality is the public's skepticism about carbon pricing is justified.



That's because no government in Canada has instituted the most effective, open and transparent form of carbon pricing — a 100%, revenue neutral carbon tax in which all the money is returned to the public in broad-based income tax cuts — verified by the federal and provincial auditors general.



The reason no government in Canada is doing this is that no government in Canada wants to reduce industrial carbon dioxide emissions linked to climate change in the most effective way possible, which has nothing to do with raising government revenues.



The fact is that to significantly reduce emissions, carbon taxes would have to be set so high today (hundreds of dollars per tonne of emissions, as opposed to Trudeau's price of $50 per tonne by 2022) that, without revenue neutrality, the only reason emissions would drop would be due to a massive national recession.



So instead, what Trudeau and Co. are doing, is to nickel-and-dime Canadians to death through carbon pricing, putting a permanent drag on our economy without provoking a full recession, while hoping Canadians won't notice as the costs increase over time, with little impact on emissions.



What the polling on carbon taxes shows is that Canadians are coming to the correct conclusion that our carbon emperors have no clothes.

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-and-co-losing-the-fight-on-carbon-taxes">http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnist ... rbon-taxes">http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-and-co-losing-the-fight-on-carbon-taxes



Canadians are  right, carbon pricing is a cash grab and mere symbolism.

Living in a province with a punitive carbon tax, I'm not surprised by Canadians cynicism.

[Anonymous]

As polling across Canada shows support for carbon pricing plummeting now that it's a reality as opposed to an idea, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau must be wondering what went wrong?



Ditto Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.



Last year, with great, self-congratulatory fanfare, she imposed a cap and trade scheme, another name for a carbon tax, on Ontarians. That's one reason she's poised to lose her job in the province's June 7 election, her Liberal government trailing both the Progressive Conservatives and NDP in the polls.



An Ipsos/Global poll released Monday found more than seven in 10 eligible Ontario voters — 72% — believe carbon taxes are just an excuse by government to grab more money from them, with 68% calling them mere symbolism.



A similar fate appears to await Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, whose NDP government introduced a carbon tax last year and is now trailing far behind Jason Kenney's United Conservative Party in public support.



A poll released last month by Janet Brown Opinion Research and Trend Research for the CBC, found almost seven in 10 Albertans surveyed — 66% — want Notley's carbon tax scrapped.



An Angus Reid Institute poll released in July, 2017 found most Canadians — 56% — oppose Trudeau's national carbon price, with majorities against it in every province surveyed except Quebec, (55% support) and B.C. (50% support).



Meanwhile, 59% were opposed in Ontario; 68% opposed in Alberta; 71% opposed in Saskatchewan; 60% opposed in Manitoba; 67% opposed in New Brunswick; 62% opposed in Newfoundland and Labrador and 57% opposed in Nova Scotia.



It's all evidence of growing skepticism about carbon pricing as Canadians increasingly realize that when Trudeau and Co. talk about "making polluters pay" for carbon emissions, they really mean making us pay.



Having followed polling on carbon pricing and climate change for more than a decade, my rule of thumb is this: Ask people if they support efforts to combat man-made climate change and most say yes. Ask them if they support having to pay for it and most say no.



While the Canadian intelligentsia mock the public for holding these seemingly contradictory views, the reality is the public's skepticism about carbon pricing is justified.



That's because no government in Canada has instituted the most effective, open and transparent form of carbon pricing — a 100%, revenue neutral carbon tax in which all the money is returned to the public in broad-based income tax cuts — verified by the federal and provincial auditors general.



The reason no government in Canada is doing this is that no government in Canada wants to reduce industrial carbon dioxide emissions linked to climate change in the most effective way possible, which has nothing to do with raising government revenues.



The fact is that to significantly reduce emissions, carbon taxes would have to be set so high today (hundreds of dollars per tonne of emissions, as opposed to Trudeau's price of $50 per tonne by 2022) that, without revenue neutrality, the only reason emissions would drop would be due to a massive national recession.



So instead, what Trudeau and Co. are doing, is to nickel-and-dime Canadians to death through carbon pricing, putting a permanent drag on our economy without provoking a full recession, while hoping Canadians won't notice as the costs increase over time, with little impact on emissions.



What the polling on carbon taxes shows is that Canadians are coming to the correct conclusion that our carbon emperors have no clothes.

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-and-co-losing-the-fight-on-carbon-taxes">http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnist ... rbon-taxes">http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-and-co-losing-the-fight-on-carbon-taxes



Canadians are  right, carbon pricing is a cash grab and mere symbolism.

Living in a province with a punitive carbon tax, I'm not surprised by Canadians cynicism.

Governments that implement carbon pricing are counting on collective ignorance and fear.

[Wazzzup]

Apparently the last two years have only NOT gotten warmer, they cooled down.

 

[size=150]Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling[/size]

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/">https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... edia-bias/">https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/



I'm sure the climate "scientists" will find a way to "fix" these numbers just like they fixed the 15 year hiatus.

[Anonymous]

Apparently the last two years have only NOT gotten warmer, they cooled down.

 


if another ice age comes it's climate change. They got all their bases covered. Only kneecapping the West's economy with crippling new costs will save mother earth.

[Anonymous]

Trudeau's climate of intolerance

PM likens disbelief in manmade climate change to belief in FGM



TORONTO — If any more proof is needed that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's brain is an irony-free zone, he provided it in his speech to the graduating class of New York University at Yankee Stadium last week.



Trudeau, awarded an honorary doctor of laws by NYU, was at his grandiose best, or worst, in his commencement address.



The whole affair was tailor-made for Trudeau's ego.



He was introduced to the students with gushing praise from university officials that sounded as if it had come straight out of the Prime Minister's Office.



Given how much Trudeau likes to dress up, he was clothed in the official robes of the university.



To satisfy his theatrical bent, he had before him an adoring audience of young people, who hung on his every word.



Ever the actor, Trudeau played his part to the hilt.



He smiled and half-bowed before the cheering and applauding students, mouthed the words "thank you" in appreciation, employed the familiar "hand on heart" gesture he uses when he wants to show he's being really, really sincere.



Then Trudeau revealed his superficial understanding of the theme that ran throughout his address on the importance of listening to and respecting the views of people you disagree with, if you hope to bring them around to your way of thinking.



Because in the middle of his stirring speech about respecting diversity of opinion, Trudeau compared people who don't believe in human-influenced climate change to people who do believe in female genital mutilation.



Having gone on for 20 minutes about being open to the views of others, Trudeau said in a voice rising with indignation, complete with dramatic arm-waving and hand gestures for effect:



"Now let me be very clear, this is not an endorsement of moral relativism, or a declaration that all points of view are valid.



"Female genital mutilation is wrong, no matter how many generations have practised it.



"Anthropogenic climate change is real, no matter how much some folks want to deny it," he thundered. Think about that. [size=150]FGM is a crime in Canada and Trudeau's comparing it to not believing in man-made climate change.

[/size]

A recent Abacus Data poll found 21 per cent of Canadians surveyed don't believe in man-made climate change. They believe climate changes due to natural causes.



So [size=150]Trudeau is saying that more than one in five Canadians are in the same league as people who believe in female genital mutilation.

[/size]

How can we take a PM who says something that ridiculous seriously?



FGM is an illegal assault on a woman in Canada, so of course we don't debate whether it's a valid idea.



Not believing in manmade climate change isn't endorsing a crime, it's expressing an opinion.



That Trudeau doesn't seem to understand the difference is appalling.



Indeed, a cynic might suggest Trudeau has more tolerance for believing in FGM than he does for not believing in anthropogenic climate change.



Recall that in opposition, Trudeau chastised the then Conservative government for calling FGM a "barbaric" practice in its citizenship guide, because, Trudeau said, this did not demonstrate "responsible neutrality".



This before Trudeau had to promptly apologize in the face of outrage expressed by Canadians across the country.



Today, Trudeau's government, belatedly, calls FGM, "abhorrent".



What's truly abhorrent is his linking of people who disagree with him about climate change, to supporters of an illegal, barbaric, practice that mutilates women.



That Trudeau doesn't know the difference, is appalling.



I don't support any of the so called solutions being offered by Western governments to address climate change. I guess Trudeau would lump me in with people who practice FGM.