Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
August1991

Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax

Recommended Posts

Now, I agree that the oil sands need to make some steps in improving their environmental sustainability. But taxing them for producing the fuels the rest of Canada upgrades into products is unacceptable.

Eastern companies that get their fuel from Hugo Chavez or Norway/North Sea wouldn't have to worry about paying anything.

Bit of trouble there.

I don't know how you manage to spin it this way, but this rambling is beyond ridiculous.

1) Canada uses very little of your oil, so stop pretending that ROC depends on your oil.

2) The US gets most of your oil and give it a few years, they'll start taxing it more - not our fault.

3) They'll keep using your oil even at a higher price - I don't see them going to Hugo for oil or getting it from Iraq.

4) Nobody is talking about taxing oil at production - but at the consumption level. This means that we'll be taxing Norway's oil and that one barrel of yours that you use/waste to take 3 barrels to market. It might just give you a nudge to waste half a barrel instead of a full barrel. It will also give us a nudge to use/waste less of Norway's oil.

5) Now keep the hysteric doomsday scenarios down to a minimum. Trimming down waste won't cause the end of the world. We may just end up breathing easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Canada uses very little of your oil, so stop pretending that ROC depends on your oil.

Speak for yourself Easterner, we use it. The country does depend on the revenue from that oil. Can you say taxes and transfer payments?

2) The US gets most of your oil and give it a few years, they'll start taxing it more - not our fault.

Maybe they will and maybe they won't tax it more. In the meantime we sell it to them for less than we have to pay for it. Sounds like the NEP in reverse. Again the whole country depends on revenues from that oil no matter who buys it. Can you say taxes and transfer payments?

3) They'll keep using your oil even at a higher price - I don't see them going to Hugo for oil or getting it from Iraq.

Oil is priced on a world market, raising the price of ours will either reduce the amount we sell or result in higher prices world wide because of increased competition for oil that is not subject to higher taxes. Canada will not benefit from more money leaving the country to buy oil.

4) Nobody is talking about taxing oil at production - but at the consumption level. This means that we'll be taxing Norway's oil and that one barrel of yours that you use/waste to take 3 barrels to market. It might just give you a nudge to waste half a barrel instead of a full barrel. It will also give us a nudge to use/waste less of Norway's oil.

Why not just set limits on emissions and have severe penalties for those who don't meet them. Government will not solve the techinal problems so why drag more money out of the economy which could be used to solve those problems and dump it into general revenue to be spent on god knows what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, another tax puts more money in your pocket? Ya right. How is increasing the cost of everything that involves the use of oil and gas in its production and transportation going to put more money in your pocket? Where is all this tax money going to go. I am always nervous of people who's simplistic answer to everything is transferring ever more money to government.

Go back and read my previous posts, specifically post #42 and #44 (on page 3 of this thread).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speak for yourself Easterner, we use it. The country does depend on the revenue from that oil.

Go read you bible, westerner. I'm yet to see anything useful come out of BC, financial or otherwise. Except for more religious fanatics from the bible belt.

Can you say taxes and transfer payments?

You've got to be joking.

Oil is priced on a world market, raising the price of ours will either reduce the amount we sell or result in higher prices world wide because of increased competition for oil that is not subject to higher taxes. Canada will not benefit from more money leaving the country to buy oil.

Nice thinking in theory but in reality there are plenty of political and geographical/transportation issues which will keep the americans buying canadian oil even at higher prices. Taxation of imported oil will reduce the amount of money leaving the country to buy oil (except you'll now proceed to argue further the raising the price of oil will give consumers incentives to buy more).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice thinking in theory but in reality there are plenty of political and geographical/transportation issues which will keep the americans buying canadian oil even at higher prices. Taxation of imported oil will reduce the amount of money leaving the country to buy oil (except you'll now proceed to argue further the raising the price of oil will give consumers incentives to buy more).

Really, why then does Eastern Canada import so much from outside Canada?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go read you bible, westerner. I'm yet to see anything useful come out of BC, financial or otherwise. Except for more religious fanatics from the bible belt.

That is one of the most asinine comments I have seen on this forum. Just because you may not use western oil and gas doesn't mean there aren't others in this country who rely on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go read you bible, westerner. I'm yet to see anything useful come out of BC, financial or otherwise. Except for more religious fanatics from the bible belt.

Wood. Pot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no other feasible solution to limiting Canada's CO2 emissions which are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

It's difficult to debate something whose premise is entirely, unequivocally and universally accepted as incorrect.

I don't know why the David Suzki foundation, in this comment refuses to accept in it's factual, yet completely distorted representation of reality, seems to think ANY action Canada takes on emission will have ANY meaningful impact on climate change.

It's just further evidence that the debate is being SPUN for political benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speak for yourself Easterner, we use it. The country does depend on the revenue from that oil.

Go read you bible, westerner. I'm yet to see anything useful come out of BC, financial or otherwise. Except for more religious fanatics from the bible belt.

What do we get that's useful from Ontario than second rate cars made more expensive by a silly union environment? I'll buy European or Japanese thanks.

Can you say taxes and transfer payments?
You've got to be joking.

Since your an economist, I'm going to say your just choosing to be ignorant of the new economic reality of Canada. You can no longer have your socialist paradise without Alberta's transfer dollars... it's not possible. Four times per capita higher than Ontario into equalisation, we're nearing you guys on absolute terms now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do we get that's useful from Ontario than second rate cars made more expensive by a silly union environment? I'll buy European or Japanese thanks.

Good, we make both.

Since your an economist, I'm going to say your just choosing to be ignorant of the new economic reality of Canada. You can no longer have your socialist paradise without Alberta's transfer dollars... it's not possible. Four times per capita higher than Ontario into equalisation, we're nearing you guys on absolute terms now.

Since you are in accounting, I'm going to say that you choose to be ignorant of the numbers and that our "second rate" automotive industry is nearly half the size of Alberta's entire economy and twice the size of your oil and gas industry. It's nice to see you making some contribution to the country after 130+ years but our socialist paradise is just fine without your dollars, thank you. We'd be even better without your attitude. You may want to trim it down to what you are actually worth because we know whose door you'll come knocking on when uncle Bush gets turfed out of office or some Saudi prince smiles and your newfound wealth evaporates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speak for yourself Easterner, we use it. The country does depend on the revenue from that oil.

Go read you bible, westerner. I'm yet to see anything useful come out of BC, financial or otherwise. Except for more religious fanatics from the bible belt.

What do we get that's useful from Ontario than second rate cars made more expensive by a silly union environment? I'll buy European or Japanese thanks.

I think you should be leery of taking up the ridiculous tactics of the Saturns of this world. Saturn and his ilk do not represent Ontario in any way - perhaps the problem of those in Ontario's mental health system, but not Ontario itself. His ridiculous anti-Western rants are simply due to his idiotic fanaticism on politics. Westerners generally don't share his hatred of the US or his ultra left politics - therefore they are all evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I am just a dumb Albertan, but it seems to me that any region making money and paying taxes benefits all of the other regions. Perhaps more to the point, a tax will not prevent anything other than transferring even more money from citizens to the government.

The problem is emissions. With that in mind I think we need to split up those emissions into harmful and non-harmful groups. For instance I don't think cows can really be blamed for global warming so lets not bother taxing the farmer to death so we have to pay 100 dollars a pound for ground beef to make hamburger helper. Lets look at the refineries and other production facilities that put actually harmful crap into the atmosphere. If you really want to tax something to pay for something then go to the root cause and use the revenue to off set the costs of the problem created by the harmful crap.

A carbon tax would do nothing to reverse the damages caused, nor would it serve to prevent the increased by products of industrial expansion and economic development. The only way to actuall reduce the harmful crap is to stop doing it!! So tax the freaking sources of the problem, forget trading credits and all that other hogwash. Stop pollution by making it too expensive to to the polluter.

Promote green thinking with the revenues from the polluter tax, convince citizens to avoid the purchase of products from polluters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A carbon tax would do nothing to reverse the damages caused, nor would it serve to prevent the increased by products of industrial expansion and economic development. The only way to actuall reduce the harmful crap is to stop doing it!! So tax the freaking sources of the problem, forget trading credits and all that other hogwash. Stop pollution by making it too expensive to to the polluter.

Promote green thinking with the revenues from the polluter tax, convince citizens to avoid the purchase of products from polluters.

That's exactly what a carbon tax is intended to do. Tax the use of carbon fuels to reduce overuse and waste. Of course the tax doesn't have to the same for all uses - you can target particular areas where there is more waste and where you'll cause less 'harm" and more reductions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's exactly what a carbon tax is intended to do. Tax the use of carbon fuels to reduce overuse and waste. Of course the tax doesn't have to the same for all uses - you can target particular areas where there is more waste and where you'll cause less 'harm" and more reductions.

You mean like maybe just the west. We do not need a carbon tax or any other silly tax. What we need are meaningful tax cuts. However, this thread shows that the left has finally admitted that taxes are the cause of a lower standard of living since they want to use taxes now to deliberately create a lower standard living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what a carbon tax is intended to do. Tax the use of carbon fuels to reduce overuse and waste. Of course the tax doesn't have to the same for all uses - you can target particular areas where there is more waste and where you'll cause less 'harm" and more reductions.

You mean like maybe just the west. We do not need a carbon tax or any other silly tax. What we need are meaningful tax cuts. However, this thread shows that the left has finally admitted that taxes are the cause of a lower standard of living since they want to use taxes now to deliberately create a lower standard living.

Nonsense. Countries with the the highest taxes have the highest standard of living and vice versa. Don't think so? Move to Uganda. Or go dig in the PM's backyard to find the taxes he's buried there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nonsense. Countries with the the highest taxes have the highest standard of living and vice versa. Don't think so? Move to Uganda. Or go dig in the PM's backyard to find the taxes he's buried there.

Wrong, no country yet has ever taxed it's way to prosperity. Taxes are the confiscation wealth not the creation of wealth. Why move to Uganda, the way this country is going Uganda will be coming here. Or maybe India. We already have the high priest from the kyoto alter running around the country like some kind of Gandi preaching poverty. Have you been out to kiss his ring yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll throw the Ireland example into there for Saturn to refute. Very low taxes, massive wealth.

Correlation doesn't equal causation yet again here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ideally, the feds must impose a tax on anyone who emits CO2 into the atmosphere. The tax should apply at the moment of emission (or as close to that as possible) so that we create the correct incentives to limit them. This would also create an incentive to develop mechanisms for sequestration.
Carbon dioxide sequestration already occurs naturally. Carbon dioxide released by man near ground level is heavier than air and sinks in air rather than rising up to the upper atmosphere to become a so-called greenhouse gas. While sinking, it stratifies from air. After sinking and stratifying, it tends to remain close to the ground and may find its way down to low-lying water bodies or down to ocean level where it can mix and react with water to form weak carbonic acid. Carbon dioxide is also removed from the lower atmosphere by rainfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carbon dioxide sequestration already occurs naturally.
Apparently, we are emitting more CO2 than can be naturally sequestered or absorbed. Indeed, that is why we apparently have a problem of global warming.

One problem with a carbon tax is that it does not offer an incentive to capture/sequester CO2 other than when it is emitted. There is no incentive to plant trees that presumably absorb CO2.

I think this one area that requires far more research. We don't understand well how forests sequester CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carbon dioxide sequestration already occurs naturally.
Apparently, we are emitting more CO2 than can be naturally sequestered or absorbed.

Is there proof that we are emitting more CO2 than can be naturally sequestered or absorbed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if trees form a natural carbon sink, and less trees equals less CO2 absorption, then logically we need to have more trees. Or at least stop cutting down the ones we have.

Hmmmm...

So the REAL culprits are the logging companies. And the pulp mills who hire the loggers. And the tree-huggers who use the paper from the pulp mills to print anti-GHG leaflets.

Hmmmm...

So let's get them tree-huggers. Tax em and tax em good.

And that is how we will raise the money to combat global warming. See how easy that was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if trees form a natural carbon sink, and less trees equals less CO2 absorption, then logically we need to have more trees. Or at least stop cutting down the ones we have.
Unfortunately, trees also die a natural death and then the CO2 that they've absorbed in their lifetime gets (mostly) released back into the atmosphere.

Planting new trees only delays the problem. It's not a long-term solution like pumping CO2 into oil wells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...