Red Tory v.2.0
red: your right gas is comparably cheap and it shouldn't be. BUT our culture and economy is inextricably tied to fuel (gas and heating). We are not prepared socially or economically for a significant rise in energy costs. It would cripple the Ontario and Quebec economies, it will leave a considerable number (perhaps majority) of Canadians struggling to pay food and heating.
The demands for fuel/energy in Europe and southern countries are different. Warmer countries don't have as much concern with heating costs and European countries have grown over centuries to be more bike, walker friendly. They also have much better public transport, in most cases well funded by govt.
That is why the NDP idea to focus first on cap and trade to reduce GHG emission is more feasible. Is it the only answer, of course not but it is a very good first step.
If the LPC had actually done anything to address global warming while they were in power we would be much further ahead today.
From a practical political perspective, we (centre/left and enviro folk) need to ensure that we have buy-in from average Canadians and if the climate change solutions are too economically painful to sustain they will turn to the Cons for the easy answer even if they know in their hearts in the long term it will harm the environment.
Jay, are you seriously trying to tell us that Norway is one of those "warmer countries (that) don't have as much concern with heating costs"?
I think it's more important (at least for the citizen) to get the information out there rather than jump into discussions about politics and policy (which will happen with our ruling elite, no matter what we do).
It's never been clear to me how exactly gas prices in America have remained as low as they have, although its complex of taxation, infrastructure, political and corporate corruption, class and income stratification and, very importantly, debt are admittedly, very daunting.
wondering: no I am not - maybe I inadvertently conflated two points. The point about Norway was not specifically related to the cost of heating - I simply wanted to point out that there are countries that have tried a carbon tax that have decided it isn't working. Norway has shifted (pun intended) away from carbon tax to cap and trade. Now Norway may have done that because the carbon tax on consumers was too onerous - i don't know the details. Hope that clears things up.
I'm always amused to see these articles and how they compare it.
If we use the same arguments, we should all be paying about 8 trillion dollars for a computer if we compare them to the price that they cost in the 1960s...
And while it's nice to compare with prices in other countries what does it prove? Does one take into account the taxes on petrol in those countries? Maybe we should also be arguing that the price of lumber should increase a fourfold because in Britain wood is much more expensive...
I don't buy the argument that prices have been cheap too long - just look at the profit that some of these companies have been making.
This does not mean that I don't think we should be working on alternate fuel sources or more efficient cars. Just that if you want to sell something, it has to be more efficient and/or less expensive.
Should we get into a debate how stupid some of these new lightbulbs are?
CWTF — I believe those world prices are "at the pump" figures that include all taxes. Also, I'm not sure if you can compare finished products like computers (which in hindsight were heinously expensive... man, when I think what I paid for some in the past) with a commodity like oil. Looking at the price over time is fair enough in that case, just as it would be for grains, etc.
It would cripple the Ontario and Quebec economies, it will leave a considerable number (perhaps majority) of Canadians struggling to pay food and heating.
The tax is on oil, natural gas, and coal--Quebec depends on hydro-electric plants for most of its energy so it would be the least hit by it. A poster named Ivan seems to have crunched the numbers here. The costs appear to vary, but Quebec and Ontario wouldn't be hit as high as the Maritime and Prairie provinces (coal burning provinces). Looking at the numbers and factoring that it's going to be spread out over the year... I had expected something bigger from all of the doomsday predictions.
As for the whole carbon tax vs. cap 'n' trade, I think some one of the reason politicians support a cap 'n' trade is that that cap 'n' trade avoids the "T" word (taxes). Cap 'n' trade, though, has the potential of obscuring the full costs of the program and increase volatility in prices in a wide range of things (see below).
Cap-and-trade schemes cause unnecessary economic damage because the price of permits can be volatile. Both big cap-and-trade schemes in existence today—Europe's Emissions-Trading Scheme for carbon and America's market for trading sulphur-dioxide permits (to reduce acid rain)— suggest this volatility can be acute. America has had tradable permits for SO2 since the mid-1990s. Their price has varied, on average, by more than 40% a year. Given carbon's importance in the economy, similar fluctuations could significantly affect everything from inflation to consumer spending.
Also disturbing potentially of fraud (see pg 19 of the report. Basic scenario is that A buys credits from B, but then B ends up polluting more than B was suppose to. End result--net increase in pollution.)
Con't
Comparing cap and trade vs. carbon taxes in terms of reducing greenhouses gases, there's evidence of a slight edge to carbon taxes. With Norway, the CT resulted in 1/7th the reduction of CO2. Per capita emissions in Norway have also remained flat since 1991, whereas Canada's have risen by 6%. The European Trading Scheme which deals with carbon credits is predicted to have no effect on GHG production (and the system isn't really suppose to if you think about it since whatever is conserved is given out to others as credits to pollute).
Both programs have their merits and their problems--(cap and trade was good at bringing SO2 down in the US by 80%. I also like the potential that environmental groups could buy CO2 credits and then refuse to sell them)--but I don't think either is the magic bullet for climate change. Maybe we need a mixture of both rather than having one or the other.
Commenting by HaloScan
