I've made correction. Thanks for pointing that out early - I was just about to post it to all my social media accounts. I'm glad I have at least a few readers that have taken on the mantle of grammer cop.
I’m not sure if you’re fully understanding the purpose behind ‘carbon taxes’ in general. In free market economies, we have the usual forces of supply and demand - individuals will make decisions how and where to spend their money, and businesses will try to meet consumer demands. One way to deal with a problem like carbon emissions is simply make fossil fuels more expensive to the consumer, with an added sales tax.
If petroleum is noticeably more expensive, when the time comes to trade in the F-150 pick up truck for something new, consumers may give more consideration to gas mileage and they may (just may) go with something more efficient. This raises the demand for more efficient vehicles and the automakers will hopefully start to make more efficient cars. It’s a rather gentle government intervention in the market, and it’s worked quite well at reducing the demand for things like alcohol and tobacco, while still allowing people to have freedom of choice. Of course, it should be done in a way that doesn’t punish consumers, eg if you increase taxes on fuels, you should reduce taxes elsewhere, or offer some kind of rebate.
From what I gather in your article, all this seems to be working as intended, though the results will be slow and gradual as the taxes are gradually increased. I presume you’re not demanding something MORE drastic, so what is the complaint exactly?
It's working? How? I'm not driving any less. I still heat my house. I don't have money to buy a new truck, but if what they tell us is true, that we're all making money with this tax - what's the incentive?
Say you commute to work and your fuel costs $70 per week, then you realize that using a hybrid car would reduce that to just $50, this is a financial incentive to get a hybrid car. The more expensive fuel becomes, the more incentive to use it efficiently, even if you’re getting the money back in your pocket as rebate. I’m just explaining how it’s supposed to work. Canada is moving in the right direction on emissions reduction, while not putting any more financial burden on people, you showed that in the article.
Great point about spending money on an electric vehicle. It must be nice to have that option. I've never spent more than $6,000 on a vehicle in my life and that was a 15 year-old Buick. But all the ones I've bought have no trouble running in any kind of weather - even -40. They've got great range that is consistent all year long and I can fuel up anywhere I like.
What I believe I showed in this article is that the carbon tax has done NOTHING they told us it would do: it hasn't reduced emissions, there is no incentive unless you happen to be someone with money. And if you happen to be someone with money, you can do what you want with or without the tax. This tax hits the poor the hardest - as usual. Is that what you mean by "moving on the right direction"?
You quoted the authors of a study on the carbon tax: “there is evidence for a significant reduction in emissions from transportation”. Surely that indicates that it’s working. You also indicated that those with lower income receive a rebate which ends up putting them ahead. If we put these things together, doesn’t this mean that the carbon taxes have an effect on reducing emissions without negatively impacting people economically? Your main point seems to be that it isn't drastic enough in its effects, but you don’t say how extreme you would like these carbon taxes to be. Is your suggestion that you and others like you should be forced to stop using fossil fuels tomorrow?
My suggestion is that we should be replacing coal with natural gas on a global scale because obviously simply reducing emissions from transportation does diddly-squat for aggregate emissions. Well, it's not really my suggestion, I just happen to think it's one that makes sense. Do you see a problem with that?
If we really want to decrease emissions, why wouldn't we be pushing natural gas and LNG? Isn't that supposed to be the end goal here? Or is it something else?
One of the stupidest things constant complainer Jen has written.
The carbon tax redistributes revenues from corporations who are actively destroying the environment to the people who are subsequently affected by negative outcomes not traditionally accounted for in financial statements. Simple as. Hence the excess of rebates over carbon taxes paid for the vast majority of private individuals. It would be better if the money was used to stimulate green technology development as the CPC have proposed rather than redistributed to the people as a form of material populism.
Whether you like it or not, regardless of your feelings and fragility, this is the direction that global industry is moving as a result of incontrovertable changes in the global climate. Stick your head in the sand all you want. You simply don't matter.
The numbers are publically available. Rebates exceed individual financial burdens, the difference is due to the excessive contribution by industry, which is primarily based on resource extraction in Canada.
The purpose of a carbon tax as initially proposed by the CPC is clear. It is a market oriented solution to deal with the negative externalities of corporate Canada and the aggregation of our individual pollution. At present, it seems the idea is that most of these taxes are redistributed to offset household purchases of things like EV, etc.
The effect is to provide disincentive to corporations who have an outsize impact on the environment in Canada, and at present redistribute most of that to invididuals to help offset the cost of reducing individual carbon footprint.
I can't wait to lose a few brain cells hearing your conspiracy theory about how it's all Century Intitiative WEF 2025 bullshit. Do you even know who Milton Friedman is? Do you even know where you can look up the publically available data about how taxes are collected and used in Canada? You pay for their collection and publication, but you don't seem to ever use primary government sources of data for your arguments about the government. Wonder why that is.
No, it is not being realized hence the excess of rebates over taxes paid for the average Canadian tax payer. Anything else you are struggling to understand?
It’s delusional to think that the intention, or the effect, of carbon taxes is to ‘redistribute revenues from corporations…to the people who are subsequently affected by negative outcomes”. Profits of the big energy companies only increase, any taxes at the pump will come out of our pocket, not theirs. Canada’s PM, like most world leaders, is a de facto employee of those energy companies and if there was ever a hint that he plans to take action that could meaningfully hurt their bottom line, he’d be gone tomorrow. Ken’s correct in that it’s largely for show, but he doesn’t offer any alternative ideas on how to reduce emissions more effectively. I suspect this is because he doesn't believe that human fossil fuel use is driving climate change.
Why bother writing or engaging if you're going to be intellectually dishonest and disingenuous. NG is only nominally better than coal, and just marginally better than burning wood for energy. We, the inventors of the CANDU reactor technology, can do much better. We can become world leaders in nuclear technology development for example. We have huge uranium reserves on the prairies.
According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, you're totally out to lunch, because they say NG is TWICE as good as coal, and way more energy dense than coal or wood. There link is there if you're at all curious.
Obviously nuclear is the way to go, but we have natural gas NOW and LNG would solve many of these supposed problems NOW.
Incorrect as obviated by the ***excess of rebates over carbon taxes paid for the average Canadian***. There is no other way to achieve that inequality between rebate and tax. So yes, given that emissions have not appreciably declined due to taxation burdens associated with pollution, then it's obvious that what is happening is that firms are paying more in carbon pricing than they pass down to consumers, who subsequently receive some of this excess in the form of a rebate. The stated purpose of the rebate is to empower Canadians to make greener consumption and lifestyle choices, this is direct from the GoC communications.
Canada's PM is not an employee of any private energy corporation in Canada. You obviously don't understand how resource rights work in this country. Resource extraction cannot occur in Canada without the GoC's explicit approval. Rather, the energy corporations are beholden to the government in power (or at least the mechanations of the civil service)
"Excess over rebates" is a meaningless phrase. Who cares if the average person gets back more than they pay in taxes when those taxes are making EVERYTHING ELSE more expensive? Talk about disingenuous.
And why is it obvious to you that firms are paying more than they pass on to consumers? I already know what I'll be getting for a rebate this year. That rate is set regardless of how much these companies pay.
Simply put, Trudeau - like every other government employee - never, EVER, practices what he preaches. "Laws and rules are for thee, not for me."
https://rumble.com/v2bpiy4-justin-trudeau-on-climate-change-confronted-with-his-private-jet.html
Would you also discredit the advice of a chronic alcoholic who tells you not to drink, and that drinking is bad for your health?
Try using common sense some time instead of immediately reacting.
Hey Ken...thought you'd want to know about a type-o....I think you meant "actively" in this sentence: "which we've been activity doing for decades"...
Your friendly neighborhood grammar police :)
Ah! That is what I meant, yes.
I've made correction. Thanks for pointing that out early - I was just about to post it to all my social media accounts. I'm glad I have at least a few readers that have taken on the mantle of grammer cop.
*grammar
(Sorry, had to)
Ha! I'm not fixing that one. 😀
Reader singular. Despite spamming your links all over, you really don't seem to be very successful at this writing thing.
I’m not sure if you’re fully understanding the purpose behind ‘carbon taxes’ in general. In free market economies, we have the usual forces of supply and demand - individuals will make decisions how and where to spend their money, and businesses will try to meet consumer demands. One way to deal with a problem like carbon emissions is simply make fossil fuels more expensive to the consumer, with an added sales tax.
If petroleum is noticeably more expensive, when the time comes to trade in the F-150 pick up truck for something new, consumers may give more consideration to gas mileage and they may (just may) go with something more efficient. This raises the demand for more efficient vehicles and the automakers will hopefully start to make more efficient cars. It’s a rather gentle government intervention in the market, and it’s worked quite well at reducing the demand for things like alcohol and tobacco, while still allowing people to have freedom of choice. Of course, it should be done in a way that doesn’t punish consumers, eg if you increase taxes on fuels, you should reduce taxes elsewhere, or offer some kind of rebate.
From what I gather in your article, all this seems to be working as intended, though the results will be slow and gradual as the taxes are gradually increased. I presume you’re not demanding something MORE drastic, so what is the complaint exactly?
It's working? How? I'm not driving any less. I still heat my house. I don't have money to buy a new truck, but if what they tell us is true, that we're all making money with this tax - what's the incentive?
Say you commute to work and your fuel costs $70 per week, then you realize that using a hybrid car would reduce that to just $50, this is a financial incentive to get a hybrid car. The more expensive fuel becomes, the more incentive to use it efficiently, even if you’re getting the money back in your pocket as rebate. I’m just explaining how it’s supposed to work. Canada is moving in the right direction on emissions reduction, while not putting any more financial burden on people, you showed that in the article.
Great point about spending money on an electric vehicle. It must be nice to have that option. I've never spent more than $6,000 on a vehicle in my life and that was a 15 year-old Buick. But all the ones I've bought have no trouble running in any kind of weather - even -40. They've got great range that is consistent all year long and I can fuel up anywhere I like.
What I believe I showed in this article is that the carbon tax has done NOTHING they told us it would do: it hasn't reduced emissions, there is no incentive unless you happen to be someone with money. And if you happen to be someone with money, you can do what you want with or without the tax. This tax hits the poor the hardest - as usual. Is that what you mean by "moving on the right direction"?
You quoted the authors of a study on the carbon tax: “there is evidence for a significant reduction in emissions from transportation”. Surely that indicates that it’s working. You also indicated that those with lower income receive a rebate which ends up putting them ahead. If we put these things together, doesn’t this mean that the carbon taxes have an effect on reducing emissions without negatively impacting people economically? Your main point seems to be that it isn't drastic enough in its effects, but you don’t say how extreme you would like these carbon taxes to be. Is your suggestion that you and others like you should be forced to stop using fossil fuels tomorrow?
My suggestion is that we should be replacing coal with natural gas on a global scale because obviously simply reducing emissions from transportation does diddly-squat for aggregate emissions. Well, it's not really my suggestion, I just happen to think it's one that makes sense. Do you see a problem with that?
If we really want to decrease emissions, why wouldn't we be pushing natural gas and LNG? Isn't that supposed to be the end goal here? Or is it something else?
One of the stupidest things constant complainer Jen has written.
The carbon tax redistributes revenues from corporations who are actively destroying the environment to the people who are subsequently affected by negative outcomes not traditionally accounted for in financial statements. Simple as. Hence the excess of rebates over carbon taxes paid for the vast majority of private individuals. It would be better if the money was used to stimulate green technology development as the CPC have proposed rather than redistributed to the people as a form of material populism.
Whether you like it or not, regardless of your feelings and fragility, this is the direction that global industry is moving as a result of incontrovertable changes in the global climate. Stick your head in the sand all you want. You simply don't matter.
You really think that's the purpose of a carbon tax? I think you need to go back into your basement and do a bit of reading on the matter.
The numbers are publically available. Rebates exceed individual financial burdens, the difference is due to the excessive contribution by industry, which is primarily based on resource extraction in Canada.
The purpose of a carbon tax as initially proposed by the CPC is clear. It is a market oriented solution to deal with the negative externalities of corporate Canada and the aggregation of our individual pollution. At present, it seems the idea is that most of these taxes are redistributed to offset household purchases of things like EV, etc.
The effect is to provide disincentive to corporations who have an outsize impact on the environment in Canada, and at present redistribute most of that to invididuals to help offset the cost of reducing individual carbon footprint.
I can't wait to lose a few brain cells hearing your conspiracy theory about how it's all Century Intitiative WEF 2025 bullshit. Do you even know who Milton Friedman is? Do you even know where you can look up the publically available data about how taxes are collected and used in Canada? You pay for their collection and publication, but you don't seem to ever use primary government sources of data for your arguments about the government. Wonder why that is.
Do you really believe that this disincentive is being realized?
And can you point me to a specific fact (not a theory) that shows how much we have reduced GHGs with this tax?
Because our government doesn't seem to be able to. Do you even know who Steven Guilbeau is?
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-government-doesnt-know-how-much-its-carbon-tax-reduces-emissions
No, it is not being realized hence the excess of rebates over taxes paid for the average Canadian tax payer. Anything else you are struggling to understand?
It’s delusional to think that the intention, or the effect, of carbon taxes is to ‘redistribute revenues from corporations…to the people who are subsequently affected by negative outcomes”. Profits of the big energy companies only increase, any taxes at the pump will come out of our pocket, not theirs. Canada’s PM, like most world leaders, is a de facto employee of those energy companies and if there was ever a hint that he plans to take action that could meaningfully hurt their bottom line, he’d be gone tomorrow. Ken’s correct in that it’s largely for show, but he doesn’t offer any alternative ideas on how to reduce emissions more effectively. I suspect this is because he doesn't believe that human fossil fuel use is driving climate change.
But I did offer a solution. You need to read to the end.
Why bother writing or engaging if you're going to be intellectually dishonest and disingenuous. NG is only nominally better than coal, and just marginally better than burning wood for energy. We, the inventors of the CANDU reactor technology, can do much better. We can become world leaders in nuclear technology development for example. We have huge uranium reserves on the prairies.
According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, you're totally out to lunch, because they say NG is TWICE as good as coal, and way more energy dense than coal or wood. There link is there if you're at all curious.
Obviously nuclear is the way to go, but we have natural gas NOW and LNG would solve many of these supposed problems NOW.
😆 this guy gets his research from chambers of commerce. Neat.
Incorrect as obviated by the ***excess of rebates over carbon taxes paid for the average Canadian***. There is no other way to achieve that inequality between rebate and tax. So yes, given that emissions have not appreciably declined due to taxation burdens associated with pollution, then it's obvious that what is happening is that firms are paying more in carbon pricing than they pass down to consumers, who subsequently receive some of this excess in the form of a rebate. The stated purpose of the rebate is to empower Canadians to make greener consumption and lifestyle choices, this is direct from the GoC communications.
Canada's PM is not an employee of any private energy corporation in Canada. You obviously don't understand how resource rights work in this country. Resource extraction cannot occur in Canada without the GoC's explicit approval. Rather, the energy corporations are beholden to the government in power (or at least the mechanations of the civil service)
"Excess over rebates" is a meaningless phrase. Who cares if the average person gets back more than they pay in taxes when those taxes are making EVERYTHING ELSE more expensive? Talk about disingenuous.
And why is it obvious to you that firms are paying more than they pass on to consumers? I already know what I'll be getting for a rebate this year. That rate is set regardless of how much these companies pay.