I've always been firmly on team carbon tax. I've always felt that the real liberal/conservative dichotomy should be around revenue neutrality, not on the tax itself. Personally I am in favour of...
I've always been firmly on team carbon tax. I've always felt that the real liberal/conservative dichotomy should be around revenue neutrality, not on the tax itself.
Personally I am in favour of true revenue neutrality because I believe that's the only way for a carbon tax to maintain its legitimacy as a mechanism for influencing consumer spending.
HOWEVER: The carbon tax is also a means to an end. One thing I've realized as I've observed Canada's carbon tax is that people don't care about the rebates when they feel like the market isn't giving them sufficient choice. If people don't have lower-carbon options at their disposal, then they have no choice but to pay the tax. What good is a tax that is intended to influence choices, if there is no choice? Canada's marketplace in general, and the rural marketplace more specifically, don't offer many options.
The carbon taxes? No, they get rebated to taxpayers. This does mean that if you use proportionally less carbon, you are more positive on that cycle (since you would have paid less in passed down...
The carbon taxes? No, they get rebated to taxpayers. This does mean that if you use proportionally less carbon, you are more positive on that cycle (since you would have paid less in passed down carbon taxes, but get the same rebate).
It depends on the province, but in many of the jurisdictions, they'd keep the funds for high-income individuals, but they'd also put them into general revenues, and provide "just trust us"...
It depends on the province, but in many of the jurisdictions, they'd keep the funds for high-income individuals, but they'd also put them into general revenues, and provide "just trust us" assertions that the funds were being used for climate projects.
More than half of people make more than they’re taxed, borne on the backs of high income earners and corporations. 90% of the carbon tax is sent back to individuals. Use this calculator (halfway...
More than half of people make more than they’re taxed, borne on the backs of high income earners and corporations. 90% of the carbon tax is sent back to individuals. Use this calculator (halfway down that fluff piece) to see how much we’re going to lose when this system is rolled back. Lower income and rural Canadians even receive a bonus vs. higher income or urban Canadians.
This whole situation is a resounding failure of our elected leaders and press. Even this article buries the lede. There should’ve been a sticker on every gasoline pump in the country telling people to expect their money back (and then some) in the mail.
Even if we move past the Liberal failure to communicate the benefits of the carbon tax to Canadians, they are also failing at communicating that the only reason PP wants to end the carbon tax is...
Even if we move past the Liberal failure to communicate the benefits of the carbon tax to Canadians, they are also failing at communicating that the only reason PP wants to end the carbon tax is to help out his rich friends. It's just a bonus that idiots come along for the ride with him.
Personally, I think that the rebate is selling out the larger idea. Use all of that money to build out our terrible charging port infrastructure, launch that blimp goods transport program in...
Personally, I think that the rebate is selling out the larger idea. Use all of that money to build out our terrible charging port infrastructure, launch that blimp goods transport program in Canada's north or offer rebates to people who retrofit old houses.
For the majority of people, I don't think giving money back is a good idea.
The thing with a pollution tax is putting the money back in the hands of consumers should have a harmonious cycle. Consumers choose goods which cause less pollution then get rebates to continue...
The thing with a pollution tax is putting the money back in the hands of consumers should have a harmonious cycle. Consumers choose goods which cause less pollution then get rebates to continue supporting companies that make good environmental choices. Carbon taxes with a rebate are stupidly effective climate policy.
Interesting - I'd like to see studies of the lifecycle of a policy like this one to understand it better. Given that it's an extra couple hundred dollars a month, I highly doubt that people...
Interesting - I'd like to see studies of the lifecycle of a policy like this one to understand it better. Given that it's an extra couple hundred dollars a month, I highly doubt that people receive the money and put it to use on climate friendly expenses.
Given that many people don't even know what the deposit in their account is for (see encouragement for the government to send physical cheques as a means of remedying this) I think it's a stretch to assume that many people are capable of willing to make the expected choice.
It's not that they're doing it consciously, it's that the cost of goods and services that emit carbon will become more expensive, which will naturally caused people to buy them less (because they...
Given that it's an extra couple hundred dollars a month, I highly doubt that people receive the money and put it to use on climate friendly expenses.
It's not that they're doing it consciously, it's that the cost of goods and services that emit carbon will become more expensive, which will naturally caused people to buy them less (because they don't like expensive things). If your business uses less carbon, then you have an artificial supply advantage.
Of course, that will raise prices - inflation, which no one likes. But the idea is that the rebate will soften that.
I completely agree and in the long term, this is what we're after. That said, I think that with the volatility of politics, our election cycle, trade and all else, there are more useful places to...
I completely agree and in the long term, this is what we're after. That said, I think that with the volatility of politics, our election cycle, trade and all else, there are more useful places to put that money than back in the hands of voters.
There are plenty of green megaprojects looking for funding in this country that could transform how the biggest regions pollute. Run a home heating conversion across the Maritimes that aims to eliminate home heating from oil, explore a federally funded blimp transport program in the north for goods transport at a fraction of the cost of flying planes insto small communities. What about getting stalled transit megaprojects across the country over the line?
To me, it seems like 'two steps forward one step back' policy -- good politics as they say -- and not prudent, targeted spending that could have the biggest impact.
Well what are they spending money on that doesn't have a climate impact? Even if they bought services instead of goods, that could be a climate-friendly choice. Carbon taxes are anti-pollution...
Well what are they spending money on that doesn't have a climate impact? Even if they bought services instead of goods, that could be a climate-friendly choice. Carbon taxes are anti-pollution taxes. If goods have their environmental impact added to their price (priced-in), consumers will frequently choose the cheaper goods (which should be more environmentally friendly). It doesn't require any deep thinking.
That would be the ideal, though I think there are far easier ways to funnel taxed dollars into green projects that benefit the consumer. Is your suggestion that a climate impact tax be built into...
That would be the ideal, though I think there are far easier ways to funnel taxed dollars into green projects that benefit the consumer.
Is your suggestion that a climate impact tax be built into everything from the food you buy (packaging, transport, growing) through to building materials (sourcing practices, end of life, etc), and that consumers would (ideally) have an open landscape of already vetted and taxed climate-friendly goods and services available to them?
Carbon taxes are more effective than the majority of climate policies because they don't require any central planning and encourage emissions reductions for everything everywhere. Carbon taxes are...
Carbon taxes are more effective than the majority of climate policies because they don't require any central planning and encourage emissions reductions for everything everywhere.
Carbon taxes are built into everything you buy through taxing energy and certain industries. Everything uses energy, so whatever uses less polluting energy and produces fewer emissions will be cheaper. Consumers avoid buying high-pollution goods because they will have a higher price due to the carbon tax. This is essentially how Canada's tax works right now.
...And I don't think that anybody would dispute the efficacy of the heavy emitters tax if that's what you mean by select industries. I'm not opposed to how things are being run. As (you said) it's...
...And I don't think that anybody would dispute the efficacy of the heavy emitters tax if that's what you mean by select industries.
I'm not opposed to how things are being run. As (you said) it's agreed on internationally that this is the best option we have at the moment, though I'm still not convinced that the consumer tax - as implemented - changes consumer spending behavior at all.
Especially with inflation driving prices up, a population of people who aren't even aware of what they're getting a rebate for are not cognizant of the fact that some of those increases come with a greener spending recommendation.
Even if they were aware, the landscape of greenwashing for products and services in this country is the wild wild west - how could they possibly spend their money a way that has an impact?
Admittedly, I'll have to look at your link for breakdown of how much of tax collected excited accounts for rebate given out and exactly how that money is spent for a fuller picture of what I'm missing. That said,
I really would like to see/hope that the money is used to do big things. Public transit megaprojects, grant programs like the Greener Homes grant, stimulus money for widespread charging stations and grid upgrades - the kind of stuff that makes a dent.
I've always been firmly on team carbon tax. I've always felt that the real liberal/conservative dichotomy should be around revenue neutrality, not on the tax itself.
Personally I am in favour of true revenue neutrality because I believe that's the only way for a carbon tax to maintain its legitimacy as a mechanism for influencing consumer spending.
HOWEVER: The carbon tax is also a means to an end. One thing I've realized as I've observed Canada's carbon tax is that people don't care about the rebates when they feel like the market isn't giving them sufficient choice. If people don't have lower-carbon options at their disposal, then they have no choice but to pay the tax. What good is a tax that is intended to influence choices, if there is no choice? Canada's marketplace in general, and the rural marketplace more specifically, don't offer many options.
Do the taxes get used on carbon sequestration, low carbon innovation, or really anything related to climate change?
The carbon taxes? No, they get rebated to taxpayers. This does mean that if you use proportionally less carbon, you are more positive on that cycle (since you would have paid less in passed down carbon taxes, but get the same rebate).
That depends on the province.
It depends on the province, but in many of the jurisdictions, they'd keep the funds for high-income individuals, but they'd also put them into general revenues, and provide "just trust us" assertions that the funds were being used for climate projects.
More than half of people make more than they’re taxed, borne on the backs of high income earners and corporations. 90% of the carbon tax is sent back to individuals. Use this calculator (halfway down that fluff piece) to see how much we’re going to lose when this system is rolled back. Lower income and rural Canadians even receive a bonus vs. higher income or urban Canadians.
This whole situation is a resounding failure of our elected leaders and press. Even this article buries the lede. There should’ve been a sticker on every gasoline pump in the country telling people to expect their money back (and then some) in the mail.
Even if we move past the Liberal failure to communicate the benefits of the carbon tax to Canadians, they are also failing at communicating that the only reason PP wants to end the carbon tax is to help out his rich friends. It's just a bonus that idiots come along for the ride with him.
Personally, I think that the rebate is selling out the larger idea. Use all of that money to build out our terrible charging port infrastructure, launch that blimp goods transport program in Canada's north or offer rebates to people who retrofit old houses.
For the majority of people, I don't think giving money back is a good idea.
The thing with a pollution tax is putting the money back in the hands of consumers should have a harmonious cycle. Consumers choose goods which cause less pollution then get rebates to continue supporting companies that make good environmental choices. Carbon taxes with a rebate are stupidly effective climate policy.
Interesting - I'd like to see studies of the lifecycle of a policy like this one to understand it better. Given that it's an extra couple hundred dollars a month, I highly doubt that people receive the money and put it to use on climate friendly expenses.
Given that many people don't even know what the deposit in their account is for (see encouragement for the government to send physical cheques as a means of remedying this) I think it's a stretch to assume that many people are capable of willing to make the expected choice.
It's not that they're doing it consciously, it's that the cost of goods and services that emit carbon will become more expensive, which will naturally caused people to buy them less (because they don't like expensive things). If your business uses less carbon, then you have an artificial supply advantage.
Of course, that will raise prices - inflation, which no one likes. But the idea is that the rebate will soften that.
I completely agree and in the long term, this is what we're after. That said, I think that with the volatility of politics, our election cycle, trade and all else, there are more useful places to put that money than back in the hands of voters.
There are plenty of green megaprojects looking for funding in this country that could transform how the biggest regions pollute. Run a home heating conversion across the Maritimes that aims to eliminate home heating from oil, explore a federally funded blimp transport program in the north for goods transport at a fraction of the cost of flying planes insto small communities. What about getting stalled transit megaprojects across the country over the line?
To me, it seems like 'two steps forward one step back' policy -- good politics as they say -- and not prudent, targeted spending that could have the biggest impact.
Well what are they spending money on that doesn't have a climate impact? Even if they bought services instead of goods, that could be a climate-friendly choice. Carbon taxes are anti-pollution taxes. If goods have their environmental impact added to their price (priced-in), consumers will frequently choose the cheaper goods (which should be more environmentally friendly). It doesn't require any deep thinking.
That would be the ideal, though I think there are far easier ways to funnel taxed dollars into green projects that benefit the consumer.
Is your suggestion that a climate impact tax be built into everything from the food you buy (packaging, transport, growing) through to building materials (sourcing practices, end of life, etc), and that consumers would (ideally) have an open landscape of already vetted and taxed climate-friendly goods and services available to them?
Carbon taxes are more effective than the majority of climate policies because they don't require any central planning and encourage emissions reductions for everything everywhere.
Carbon taxes are built into everything you buy through taxing energy and certain industries. Everything uses energy, so whatever uses less polluting energy and produces fewer emissions will be cheaper. Consumers avoid buying high-pollution goods because they will have a higher price due to the carbon tax. This is essentially how Canada's tax works right now.
...And I don't think that anybody would dispute the efficacy of the heavy emitters tax if that's what you mean by select industries.
I'm not opposed to how things are being run. As (you said) it's agreed on internationally that this is the best option we have at the moment, though I'm still not convinced that the consumer tax - as implemented - changes consumer spending behavior at all.
Especially with inflation driving prices up, a population of people who aren't even aware of what they're getting a rebate for are not cognizant of the fact that some of those increases come with a greener spending recommendation.
Even if they were aware, the landscape of greenwashing for products and services in this country is the wild wild west - how could they possibly spend their money a way that has an impact?
Admittedly, I'll have to look at your link for breakdown of how much of tax collected excited accounts for rebate given out and exactly how that money is spent for a fuller picture of what I'm missing. That said,
I really would like to see/hope that the money is used to do big things. Public transit megaprojects, grant programs like the Greener Homes grant, stimulus money for widespread charging stations and grid upgrades - the kind of stuff that makes a dent.