 Big Oil to Rachel Notley: Bring on a carbon tax How much has the political landscape in Alberta changed? Big Oil is now pushing for a carbon tax.Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Steveo is starting to look seriously isolated here. Bring on a carbon tax on a national level so there's not a patchwork regime across the country. Start low and incorporate an annual riser. Hell use the money for boutique tax breaks if that's what it takes to get his base onside. I think it would be smarter tho to put the money toward boosting renewables.
Cost just gets passed on to the consumer, I don't think big oil really gives a rats ass either way. If it appears that their out there trying to be green it'll help move their product. This will prevent dick all.
Well said.
Cost just gets passed on to the consumer, I don't think big oil really gives a rats ass either way. If it appears that their out there trying to be green it'll help move their product. This will prevent dick all.
Pretty limited imagination you've got there. Of course cost will be passed to the consumer, who else would pay for it? The consumer will consume less, reducing ghg output for Canada and making Canada less of a laggard in climate change action. It's a good thing.
But you're right, it will cause less resistance to them moving their product, so I guess the greens should be advocating for no tax and a boycott instead. Won't be very good for the economy tho.
And that money from the carbon tax can be used to fund other things, or, if the tr's have their way, reduce other taxes. The basic principle of tax what you don't want.
Cost just gets passed on to the consumer, I don't think big oil really gives a rats ass either way. If it appears that their out there trying to be green it'll help move their product. This will prevent dick all.
Well said.
3rd
Pretty limited imagination you've got there. Of course cost will be passed to the consumer, who else would pay for it? The consumer will consume less, reducing ghg output for Canada and making Canada less of a laggard in climate change action. It's a good thing.
But what about the poor people, andy? How will the working poor afford to go to work? People can't afford to go to work less.
Increased fuel prices and transit prices will only drive those further into poverty.
And that money from the carbon tax can be used to fund other things, or, if the tr's have their way, reduce other taxes. The basic principle of tax what you don't want.
Yea, like social assistance for those who can't afford to drive their cars anymore and stay at home.
All for a solution that will do NOTHING to curb climate change.
But what about the poor people, andy? How will the working poor afford to go to work? People can't afford to go to work less.
Increased fuel prices and transit prices will only drive those further into poverty.
Make transit free. Great help in reducing ghg, subsidy for the poor you care so much about. Also wouldn't cost as much as you'd think. We wouldn't be spending 150 million and counting on a Compass Card system that doesn't work and is not expect to pay for itself in the foreseeable future, wouldn't have to collect all those coins out of the bus fare boxes, wouldn't need cops doing fare evasion checks, faster boarding on buses, those things all cost money.
And if you really care about the poor, have the govt give rebates for low income people, instead of tax cuts to the well off the way they do now. You'd support that, right. Or, never mind rebates, just increase the personal tax exemption. Instead of high income families being able to reduce their taxes with income splitting, put that towards giving the working poor a break. You'd support that, right, since you're so worried about them.
And that money from the carbon tax can be used to fund other things, or, if the tr's have their way, reduce other taxes. The basic principle of tax what you don't want.
Yea, like social assistance for those who can't afford to drive their cars anymore and stay at home.
All for a solution that will do NOTHING to curb climate change.
Funny, hasn't been necessary in BC, nobody lost their jobs because of the carbon tax. This is just the usual tr black and white drama queen thinking.
You really should write the oil patch with your concerns, they don't seem to get how dangerous a carbon tax is. And of course write Crispie Clark that she needs to rescind the BC tax immediately, because even tho none of the catastrophes you predict have happened, they must be just around the corner.
But it's really heartwarming to see your concern for first the homeless, now the working poor. Are you going to go "talk" to the working poor now? No way you'll support a tax regime that actually helps them, but hey, talking to them is just as good, right? Are all those crocodile tears you're shedding making your face all scaly? That's not a good look to with your Ms Piggy nose.
Oh, and studies have shown that the BC tax did work to reduce ghg. Not much, since it's a small tax and things like coal exports to China are exempt. But a start.
Pretty limited imagination you've got there. Of course cost will be passed to the consumer, who else would pay for it? The consumer will consume less, reducing ghg output for Canada and making Canada less of a laggard in climate change action. It's a good thing.
But what about the poor people, andy? How will the working poor afford to go to work? People can't afford to go to work less.
Increased fuel prices and transit prices will only drive those further into poverty.
And that money from the carbon tax can be used to fund other things, or, if the tr's have their way, reduce other taxes. The basic principle of tax what you don't want.
Yea, like social assistance for those who can't afford to drive their cars anymore and stay at home.
All for a solution that will do NOTHING to curb climate change.
People that poor are more likely to take transit/walk/bike/carpool already and the infrastructure that supports that will inevitably grow over time in reaction to increased prices. The market will also continue its response to this issue by offering more fuel efficient vehicles and alternative energy options. Similarly, employers are already starting to offer a range of options from private shuttle buses, carpool clubs and various commuter benefits (stipends, transit pass rebates, etc).
Don't worry OTI the apocalypse is not nigh
They've been doing that for years:
Ottawa is facing growing calls for a carbon tax from some surprising quarters as it pursues plans to regulate industrial sources of greenhouse-gas emissions.
...
Organizations as diverse as the Pembina Institute think tank and Imperial Oil Ltd. have criticized the federal regulatory approach and endorsed a �market-based� mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Imperial Oil believes any climate policy should ensure the cost is applied evenly across the economy, maximize market mechanisms and minimize complexity and administrative costs, company spokesman Jon Harding said.
A carbon tax �is aligned with more of these key principles� than the cap-and-trade systems or regulatory approaches, Mr. Harding said in an e-mail.
Manning Foundation CEO and Reform Party founder Preston Manning said he supports the idea of full-cost pricing �in principle.�
�It�s eventually got to come,� Mr. Manning said. �It�s just fairly basic concept that, with any production of energy, you�ve got to figure out what are the environmental impacts and then the cost of avoiding or mitigating them and then integrating that into the price of the product.�
That was from back in 2012.
Cost just gets passed on to the consumer, I don't think big oil really gives a rats ass either way. If it appears that their out there trying to be green it'll help move their product. This will prevent dick all.
Not necessarily-it all depends on the exact form that the carbon levy/tax/pricing takes in practice. Here's what Preston Manning had to say on the issue:
In September, Preston Manning was linked vaguely to a new call for a carbon tax�he was said to support the idea of full-cost pricing �in principle.�
For the sake of clarification, I passed along a question to him through his office: �Do you support establishing a price on carbon, either through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system?�
Here is the response I received via email yesterday.
�I support the concept of moving towards full cost accounting with respect to energy production � which means determining the negative environmental impacts associated with any energy project, adopting measures to avoid or mitigate those effects, and ultimately integrating the costs of those measures into the price of the product.
As you know, the two principal approaches to accomplishing this, with respect to the production of energy from hydrocarbons, are through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system. I believe that the carbon tax involves less interference by governments in the marketplace than the cap-and-trade approach.
However I also believe that the carbon tax is misnamed, as the public�s idea of a tax is a levy on income or the sale of a good or asset, the proceeds of which go to the government to pay for public services � which is fundamentally different from the economist�s idea of using a tax to internalize an externality. It is the communication of the carbon tax concept to the public which I feel was hopelessly bungled.
I also believe that if you are going to apply full cost accounting to the production of energy from petroleum sources, then the same concept should be applied to every other energy source, since none is environmentally neutral. For example when the oil sands producers tear up several hundred square kilometers of forests in northern Alberta, the cost of mitigating that activity are incorporated into the cost of the operations through reclamation bonds. But where then is the reservoir tax on the hydro producers of this country who have flooded forest areas in Canada the size of lake Ontario? And similarly, where is the radiation tax on nuclear power producers, and where are the environmental levies on wind and solar producers?
In my view the application of full cost accounting and pricing to hydrocarbon producers should be conditional upon the simultaneous application of this concept to all other energy producers.�
In short, what Manning is talking about, as I understand it, is a means to ensure that the costs of reclaiming the environment after energy development are reflected in the costs of the energy project, rather than simply leaving them to be picked up by outside parties-namely, us as taxpayers.
Notably, Manning is saying that we should only apply this to the oil and gas industry. He also says that it should be applied to the development of hydro, nuclear, wind, or solar producers too.
Jack Mintz agrees in many respects:
For the record, Mintz�s preferred policy in this regard is a carbon tax. Via email, I asked him about his position and he explains as follows.
I remain of the view that the appropriate approach to pricing carbon is a carbon tax, not a cap-in-trade system. Last week I was in Germany at IFO Institute which advocates a cap and trade system. There are pluses and negatives to each approach�I think a carbon tax is superior since capital intensive technologies need to be adopted that take some time and certainty in pricing is critical.
In the past, I have also argued with Nancy Olewiler that it would be an improvement in both efficiency and equity terms that the federal fuel excise tax should be converted into a broad-based environmental tax (carbon, sulphur or noxes or whatever). The current federal excise tax has little rationale except for half of it being a transfer to municipalities. I am still of that view even though the Liberal Greenshift plan that adopted this basic concept based on an academic paper that Nancy and I had written went down in flames.
Finally, I find it very irritating that parties might propose carbon policies without being honest with respect to their consequences for consumer prices or jobs. The NDP platform last election was a case in point. But so are current regulations and feed-in tariffs that are less optimally structured and have consequences that should be understood by voters.
So the devil, as with a lot of other things, is in the details.
Unfortunately, the Harper government has been all over the map when it comes to its position on climate change and carbon prices. The regulations, when they've come, haven't been particularly well designed, and even less well presented and explained to the public.
Just last week, he laid out a bunch of new emissions targets for Canada.
But late last year, he also said that it would be "crazy" to regulate the oil and gas industry.
There's also an extensive timeline, with citations, of Harper government quotes on the subject, some of them contradicting each other.
It'd be one thing if the government had to change course in the face of a policy that clearly wasn't working, or that had led to massive public protest. That's just responsible governance. But Harper's approach has been so inconsistent and contradictory that, as Sideshow Bob once made fun of Mayor Quimby for on The Simpsons, Harper doesn't seem to know whether he's coming or going on oil and gas development.
And if Harper doesn't know which way he's headed, how is the energy industry supposed to know?
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they're thinking that, at least with the NDP, they know what they'll get.
Make transit free. Great help in reducing ghg, subsidy for the poor you care so much about. Also wouldn't cost as much as you'd think. We wouldn't be spending 150 million and counting on a Compass Card system that doesn't work and is not expect to pay for itself in the foreseeable future, wouldn't have to collect all those coins out of the bus fare boxes, wouldn't need cops doing fare evasion checks, faster boarding on buses, those things all cost money.
And who will pay for free transit? Another fantasy idea from andy.
And if you really care about the poor, have the govt give rebates for low income people, instead of tax cuts to the well off the way they do now. You'd support that, right. Or, never mind rebates, just increase the personal tax exemption. Instead of high income families being able to reduce their taxes with income splitting, put that towards giving the working poor a break. You'd support that, right, since you're so worried about them.
Yea, that's right. Let's give everybody everything and worry about paying for it later. Brilliant idea. Free money, free housing, free everything. We'll change the world!
But it's really heartwarming to see your concern for first the homeless, now the working poor. Are you going to go "talk" to the working poor now? No way you'll support a tax regime that actually helps them, but hey, talking to them is just as good, right? Are all those crocodile tears you're shedding making your face all scaly? That's not a good look to with your Ms Piggy nose.
Like I've said andy, let the rest of us do the heavy lifting...you know, the adult stuff and you stay on here and do your part. You do a great job!
Don't worry OTI the apocalypse is not nigh
You missed the utter sarcasm of my point.
It was a clear dig at andy with all of his agenda's meeting head on.