Carbon toll is price to avert environmental `catastrophe'

[michaels]

taxes..the answer for all problems!:laugh:
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/222051

OTTAWA?The Green party wants Canadian drivers to pay an extra 12 cents a litre at the gas pumps as the price of averting environmental "catastrophe."

Leader Elizabeth May is boasting that her party is the only one politically brave enough to call for carbon taxes that would discourage automobile use and finance other tax cuts that would allow consumers to make smarter environmental choices.

"Right now, the Green Party of Canada is the only Canadian political party prepared to state this obvious reality," May said yesterday. "We will use those carbon taxes to reduce taxes elsewhere."

May rolled out her party's environmental plan yesterday in part to coincide with the G-8 meeting starting today in Germany, where Canada's action on this issue ? or lack of it ? is a major story.

The Green leader had harsh words for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his announced intentions to be a "bridge" between countries that have signed on to the Kyoto air quality accord and the United States, which hasn't.

"If we stop being with the rest of the world and start siding with George Bush, we are global saboteurs and that's what Mr. Harper is doing right now in Germany," May said.

The environmental challenge is similar to the space race about 50 years ago in which then-president John F. Kennedy said the United States would put a man on the moon, May said.

"He couldn't prove it when he said it. He could mobilize the resources, fix the political will, and engage the public's spirit and imagination in a bold, collective venture," she said. "Surely we can do the same thing for purposes of survival."

May sees the political landscape divided on the environment, with Harper's government on one side and the Greens, Liberals, New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois, with differences on their degrees of activism, on the other.

 

[mfs378]

Yes... obviously this is a untenable position deserving of ridicule. :disgust:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mfs378
Yes... obviously this is a untenable position deserving of ridicule. :disgust:

Of course it is. There's a serious disconnect here. It makes the government even more reliant on a source of revenue that it should be trying to discourage. Or... how is the government going to replace this source of revenue when we do get off carbon fuels AND how is this tax going to encourage the government to even want to help in the development of alternative fuels?

 

[sandorski]

Greens are not the Government and likely never will be.

 

[skwicz212]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mfs378
Yes... obviously this is a untenable position deserving of ridicule. :disgust:

Of course it is. There's a serious disconnect here. It makes the government even more reliant on a source of revenue that it should be trying to discourage. Or... how is the government going to replace this source of revenue when we do get off carbon fuels AND how is this tax going to encourage the government to even want to help in the development of alternative fuels?

When do you forseen being ween off normal fuel source? The alternative isnt going to cover it.
More spin, using and enriching themselves and covering their ass as usual.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
Of course it is. There's a serious disconnect here. It makes the government even more reliant on a source of revenue that it should be trying to discourage. Or... how is the government going to replace this source of revenue when we do get off carbon fuels AND how is this tax going to encourage the government to even want to help in the development of alternative fuels?

The only way I could see this being a logical bill is if the revenues generated went to building railroads or directly to DOE research for non-carbonaceous alternative fuels.

 

[CyberDuck]

12 cents is a laughably low number. If taxing is to be used effectivly it has to be much higher than that. To those who don't understand it, taxing fuel does work very well in reducing the size of the vehicles used, but it has to be high for it to be effective. What the money is used for does not matter, they can be used for lowering other taxes.

Our taxes in Norway is about 4.1US$ / gallon, that works, 12 cents will not work. But i guess you have to start somewhere.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Vic
Of course it is. There's a serious disconnect here. It makes the government even more reliant on a source of revenue that it should be trying to discourage. Or... how is the government going to replace this source of revenue when we do get off carbon fuels AND how is this tax going to encourage the government to even want to help in the development of alternative fuels?

The only way I could see this being a logical bill is if the revenues generated went to building railroads or directly to DOE research for non-carbonaceous alternative fuels.

I don't think many Canadians would support giving their tax money to the DOE.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: CyberDuck
12 cents is a laughably low number. If taxing is to be used effectivly it has to be much higher than that. To those who don't understand it, taxing fuel does work very well in reducing the size of the vehicles used, but it has to be high for it to be effective. What the money is used for does not matter, they can be used for lowering other taxes.

Our taxes in Norway is about 4.1US$ / gallon, that works, 12 cents will not work. But i guess you have to start somewhere.

Look at the bright side.

It will keep the poor off the road so the rich can drive their hummers without worrying about who they hit! :roll:


oh, Canada is by litre, so that is a substantial tax

 

[Blain]

"To keep P&N a discussion forum and reduce the amount of inflamatory troll posts, please post more than simple links or complete quotes of articles that can be found by anyone. If you believe something is important enough to post, you must have some opinion of your own about the content of the article or link."

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Blain

"To keep P&N a discussion forum and reduce the amount of inflamatory troll posts, please post more than simple links or complete quotes of articles that can be found by anyone. If you believe something is important enough to post, you must have some opinion of your own about the content of the article or link."

Uh, whatever.

With the mods we have we certainly don't need trolls, let alone enforce rules the clique does not have to adhere to.

 

[Rainsford]

If we're going to do anything with gas and oil prices, instead of adding a tax (which probably won't be all that useful) add a FLOOR to the price. Not only will that not result in a tax at all when prices are high, but it will encourage free market research into alternative fuels. While prices are high right now, any alternative fuel trying to enter the market will be quickly undercut by predatory pricing by oil companies...they'd be willing to take short term losses to get long term gains, so right now it's difficult to build a business model around competing with gas. If there was a price floor alt-energy companies could count on, they'd have a lot more incentive to compete.

 

[laFiera]

and how does the taxing avert the environmental catastrophe?
global warming is just way govt is gonna try to tax the living hell out of people! 🙂

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: laFiera
and how does the taxing avert the environmental catastrophe?
global warming is just way govt is gonna try to tax the living hell out of people! 🙂

It doesn't, but the idea is that by making fossil fuels LESS attractive, cleaner, alternative fuels become more attractive. It doesn't work when it's a per gallon tax, unless it's EXTREMELY high, but the basic idea makes sense. There are a lot of reasons to stop using fossil fuels whenever possible, and like it or not, there will be a time before too long when we have to give them up, why not jumpstart the process?

 

[CyberDuck]

Originally posted by: laFiera
and how does the taxing avert the environmental catastrophe?
global warming is just way govt is gonna try to tax the living hell out of people! 🙂

Taxation to change people habits have been used for a long time all around the globe. It's not really about getting money into the government?s pockets; it?s about discouraging unwanted behaviour. You simply rise taxes on things you want people to use less of (e.g. gasoline and polluting cars), and lower them on things you want them to use more off (e.g. ethanol or hybrids). If you don't have any taxes in the first place such behaviour changes in the population can not be endorsed in any easy way. In my country we have high taxes on gasoline and cars, depending on their characteristics. We have lower taxes on diesel, ethanol and hybrids. Because of this 80% of new cars this year are low pollution diesel vehicles with a high mileage because it makes economic sense for people to buy these cars.