Tories oppose carbon tax

Why the big push from the advisory committee? The scam that is global warming is starting to fall apart. Talk of global cooling is starting to appear. Carbon tax has nothing to do with global warming. Never did. It’s about control and cash.
That’s what it should be called, “Control and Cash” not “Cap and Trade”.

I’m not a big fan of Stephen Harper or his govt, I am however, a big fan of Canada and it’s people. Carbon trading will have adverse affects on the economy and the jobs people depend on and therefore it should not be implemented. I am therefore asking that you encourage Mr. Harper to base his policy on up to date science.

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

Tories oppose carbon tax

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has flatly opposed the idea of a carbon tax in the past, as has Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.

On Monday, the federal Liberals seemed to be more receptive to the idea.

At a press conference in Ottawa, long-time Liberal and environmental activist John Godfrey said his party currently favours a carbon trading system, but will keep an open mind about carbon taxes and is waiting to see what research emerges on the topic.

The Conservatives, however, stuck to their position.

Environment Minister John Baird said Monday that he welcomes the report’s call for fixing a price on carbon, but would not consider a carbon tax. He said his government is instead working to regulate industry emissions by pushing for major polluters to significantly reduce their emissions by 2010 and encouraging an eventual carbon trading system in North America.

“What we’re not going to do is be like Stéphane Dion and the Liberals who constantly change their position and their policy,” Baird told reporters outside the House of Commons, referring to the Liberal’s apparent softening stance on a carbon tax.

“I understand the Liberals are now entertaining dumping their current policy — policy No. 8 by my count — and adopting a completely new policy. Every time a report comes out, you can’t change your mind.”

Murray said he is optimistic that Parliament will support carbon prices and measures like carbon taxes and carbon trading.

“It’s time to move the discussion forward because there isn’t a realistic case that we have seen yet where we can achieve reductions without a price [on carbon],” Murray said.

“You’ll now quietly hear people talking very seriously about cap and trade systems,” he added. “Our job [as an advisory panel] is to push government, not just the governing party, but Parliament and Canadians.”

‘Significant’ impact on Ontario, Alberta

Murray noted that the costs of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system could particularly be “significant” on Alberta’s oil producers and Ontario’s manufacturing sector.

But he stressed that in the development of any new policy, there would be investments in green technologies that would ultimately benefit both provinces significantly.

He said any policy would have to be created to ensure all regions are treated fairly, and that Canada’s industry as a whole doesn’t suddenly find itself on an “unlevel playing field” with the rest of the world.

Murray said the development of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system must include industry officials, environmentalists and representatives from all regions of the country.

Representatives from all sectors were already involved in the creation of the panel’s report, he said, noting that 65 groups were consulted and extensive economic modelling was done.

GDP wouldn’t be seriously affected

David McLaughlin, CEO of the advisory panel, said the report has concluded that Canada can feasibly reach its 2050 target of a 65 per cent emissions reduction, and that reaching this target will not be detrimental to the Canadian economy as a whole.

Canada has enough green technology in place to meet the goals, although the development of more technology would be encouraged, according to the panel’s findings.

“Our findings suggest in the long run the overall effect on Canada’s gross domestic product will not be significant, amounting to the equivalent of approximately one to two years of lost growth of GDP between now and 2050,” McLaughlin said at the press conference with Murray.

While the Liberals applauded parts of the report, they accused the Conservatives of putting constraints on the advisory panel, giving it a mandate to work with the Conservative government’s environmental targets, instead of the targets proposed under the international Kyoto Protocol.

“The report reminded us once again that this Conservative government has unilaterally abandoned Canada’s international legal obligations,” Godfrey said.

The Kyoto Protocol, which Canada signed under a Liberal government in 1998, requires that the country reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent from 1990 levels by 2012.

The Conservative government created new environmental goals in April 2007 that see Canada meeting its Kyoto commitments years behind schedule. Under the new plan, Canada’s overall emissions will be cut by up to 65 per cent by 2050 and 20 per cent cut by 2020, all based on 2006 levels.

McLaughlin said the panel used the new targets because they are feasible and focused on the long-term, giving Canada enough time to make necessary changes.

Kyoto’s targets are too focused on the short-term, McLaughlin said.


Tags: , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Tories oppose carbon tax”

  1. Paul W. Smith Says:

    “What we’re not going to do is be like Stéphane Dion and the Liberals who constantly change their position and their policy,”
    Excuse me Mr. Baird but wasn’t it your Conservatives government that abandoning Canada’s international obligations to the “Kyoto Accord” two years ago?
    Since then Mr. Harper has quite successfully put off coming up with anything to replace it.
    First Rona Ambrose embarrassed Canada at the International Conference on the environment. So Steve fired her and since you could yell louder he put you incarge of the file. You then became only an even bigger embarrasment at the next comferance on the enviornmnet.
    Neither you nor Rona have done anything but complain about the Liberals. Well I for one am tired of your rants.
    I suggest you crawl back into your office and don’t come out again or open your big mouth untill you have something intelligent to say.
    Your yelling and blaming others has definitely not impressed me.
    It’s time for you to grow up and try to do something constructive. That is what we Canadians are paying you and the rest of our poletician to do.
    So, shut-up and get on with your job! Do something yourself!

  2. black Sheep Says:

    Per a sampling of comments on the G&M, judging by the reaction of the public, our democracy is in good hands.

    People have caught on to the scamming and deception.
    Now it comes down to the integrity of the Harper government.
    I recall an election when the former conservatives were returned to Ottawa with 2 seats in parliament!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This NRTE panel seems to think that farmers and business people can park their P/Us and start taking public transit.

    “As the group’s president, David McLaughlin, said in one interview yesterday: “If you are going to change behaviour, you have to put a price on carbon (emissions).”

    Did I hear someone say there is no public transit in rural Ontario? Then why would you tax an activity & penalize people into making a behaviour change when they have no options to change behaviour? If Ontario’s energy plan is to burn natural gas to back up wind farms-we have no option but to burn natural gas to cook meals with the lights on? What’s next? Herd us into ghettos? Wall us up and feed us soylent green while they jet-set to their guarded vacation compounds-all offset by carbon credits of course?

    Which is it: communist central planning OR a fascist program of the corporate elites?

    “The influential panel “joins a chorus of the country’s top economists and major banking institutions who say the only way to alter Canada’s emissions is to change market behaviour with a tax.”

    “Environmentalists from the Sierra Club of Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation praised the report for its emphasis on carbon pricing. “Whether it’s capping carbon emissions or charging for them, the key is for government to start moving now,” Dale Marshall, a climate change policy analyst with the Suzuki Foundation, said in a press release.”

    The panel proposes a cap & trade system like the Europeans have.
    In time all systems will be merged into a global system.

    In Europe, businesses cheated and got handed bonus permits to pollute by governments. Looks like both parties colluded.
    Utilities that were given free permits then charged consumers for them.
    Former commie countries were given bonus permits as a bribe to sign onto Kyoto.
    They now sell credits to companies that need to pollute more.

    Under the EU cap & trade system, the common public owned atmosphere was turned into a dumping ground and given to private industry gratis. Industry can now trade and profit from trading those rights to dump into the atmosphere. If the public now want industry to reduce pollution being dumped into the atmosphere, the public will have to buy back permits that industry was given.

    The bottom line. Cape& trade sells off the air we all commonly own.
    Similarly private companies and governments have been turning water and rain into a commodity that they then charge people for.

    Your greenie environmentalists support the plan.
    The federal Liberals say that a cap and trade system ensures businesses — not consumers — would shoulder the burden of reducing emissions. AS IF BUSINESS WON”T PASS THE COSTS ON TO CONSUMERS. Another fib.
    The Liberals have been working at getting the scam in place for over 15 years now under a Cloak of Green (as documented by Elaine Dewar) through their man at the inside of the UN and Canada’s co-opted environmental NGOs have provided cover!
    These people do not operate by democratic principles.

    Now if Kyoto and that includes the mechanisms like cap & trade are a socialist scam, then the Harper government best explain why it is entertaining any notions of imposing a cap & trade system.

    The planet is cooling. Science does not support the conclusion that man-made CO2 emissions are the cause of a recent warming cycle.

    If you stand for democracy where policy gets made by the people for the people vs. elites and self-interest groups on appointed panels, let the government of PM Harper know.

    We get the government we deserve. Now let the government of PM Harper know your expectations.

  3. Lynne Says:

    I am quite sure that the Tories will come up with a plan to limit emissions, without destroying the entire Canadian economy while they are at it. There would be no benefit to acting precipitously.This needs to be well thought out. All our futures depend upon it.

  4. 654321a Says:

    The globe and mail stated that a trading system forces polluters to pay a penalty while rewarding those who cut back.
    That means corporation 1 (c1)will have to buy carbon credits to offset over pollution(whatever that limit is.)They can buy credits off the stock market off c2.c2 got his credits by some form of overvalued renewable project like wind.c2 keeps on polluting and can now right the tax off.c1 invests in renewables and sells that to c3 so he can keep on polluting.
    The taxpayers pay for the renewables and corporations right them off and recieve free credits that they can sell probably tax free.
    c1 states that the price of doing business has now increased so prices go up.
    Gore makes a fortune with his emission credit business and all taxpayers are ripped off at every possible angle.
    Suzuki stated he was not polluting when he drove across the country in a diesel spuing bus because he bought carbon credits to offset his journey.
    We now live in an age of moronic activity!

  5. black Sheep Says:

    Everyone confused between cap & trade and tax and permits that get auctioned and offsets that get traded?

    At this time the plan of the federal government wrt to Kyoto is to allow …”companies to pay $15 per tonne into a Climate Change Technology Fund to comply with yet-to-be-published regulations that will take effect in 2010. The plan calls for the price to increase to $20 during the 2010 to 2017 period. Companies can use this method to comply with 70 per cent of their targets in the beginning, but by 2017, only 10 per cent of their target can be achieved by paying into the fund.”
    The government plan will also allow Canadian companies to use a cap and trade system. Limits will be based on an intensity approach. The NRTE panel is proposing a trading scheme similar to the European model, where a company’s emissions are fixed or capped. The Liberals support the EU scheme.
    An intensity approach can allow emissions to grow as production increases. AN INTENSITY APPROACH MAKES SENSE unless we stop procreating and growing our export industries.
    Its conceivable that under both intensity and absolute cap schemes, companies can trade /sell bonus permits (allowance to emit a unit of pollution) they don’t need.
    Environment Minister Baird has not explicitly stated that the government will be implementing a scheme similar to the EU scheme that allows for permits to be created and traded per the Kyoto mechanisms.

    Per the 2007 federal budget….Developing New Markets…………….
    ” The commitment of Canada’s New Government to significantly reduce GHG emissions and air pollutants over the medium and longer term has the potential to make Canada a leader in emissions trading. Recognizing this opportunity, Canada’s exchanges have been positioning themselves to launch Canada’s exchanges have been positioning themselves to launch trading when the regulatory framework is finalized.”
    Does this sound like a regional cap & trade system that Ontario and US states have in place for SO2?or more like the EU scheme? What is the final objective? to create a global scheme?

    Carbon offsets or emission reduction credits (not to be confused with permits under proposed cap & trade regulations) are already being traded. These are purchased voluntarily for “green” washing or being forced on industry by government. The Federal government has also purchased offsets so bureaucrats can fly to all these “save the planet” conferences without increasing CO2 emissions.
    *********“On July 12, 2006, the Montreal Exchange and the Chicago Climate Exchange announced the establishment of the Montreal Climate Exchange, which would allow for a GHG emissions trading market to emerge in Canada. However, the absence of a concrete emissions trading framework in the proposed Clean Air Act is likely to present a major setback for the Montreal Exchange. Industry continues to express interest in emissions trading both internationally and domestically. For example, in 2004 TransAlta completed a deal with Agricola Super Ltd. in Chile to purchase 1.74 million tons of GHG emissions. Furthermore, several companies are voluntarily investing in credits to help reduce GHG emissions for certain projects. For example, the companies involved in the Athabasca oil sands project have taken advantage of offsets opportunities. Companies are also looking at emissions trading and joint investments in developing countries to help reduce their GHG emissions.
    At a provincial level, the Alberta government has required new coal-fired generators to effectively reduce the intensity of GHG emissions to the same level as those emitted by natural gas combined-cycle plants. As a result, new coal-fired generators are required to purchase offsets to meet the government-imposed requirements, and there are no geographical, jurisdictional or sectoral restrictions on offsets. In addition, Ontario established an emissions trading scheme for NOx and SO2 in December of 2001. The Ontario Emissions Trading Regulation sets stringent emission caps on NOx and SO2 in order to reduce air pollution through a combination of “cap-and-trade” and “baseline-andcredit” features of the regulation.

    An emissions trading market, albeit a voluntary market, already seems to be emerging in Canada. As more and more Canadian investors and industrial sectors continue to participate in emissions trading, domestic support seems to be growing for the establishment of a Canadian system that is compatible with emissions trading systems already existing in other countries. ************
    Per the 2004 Trans Alta & Agricola Super Ltd. de Chile deal for 1.75 million tonnes of certified emission reduction credits….**********The supplier of the credits is Chilean food producer Agricola Super Limitada (Agrosuper), which has installed innovative technology to reduce the GHG emissions of their industrial pork operations. TransAlta plans to use the credits in the period from 2008 to 2012, as part of Canada’s anticipated climate change program. The deal is a first for a Canadian company under Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism program, whereby companies in nations with emission reduction obligations can buy credits from companies in the developing world that have created projects to cut their GHG emissions. ***************
    $9 million goes to Chile. Chinese get to have pork for supper and Alberta consumers pick up the tab. And is the air in Alberta any cleaner? Remember we must reduce CO@ emissions by 70% + to save the planet. Has the scheme in this instance reduced CO2 emissions by 1 tonne? We are also assuming that whatever technology gets used to collect the emissions per these Kyoto mechanisms is being properly maintained and not allowed to break down. And that is not the case.
    Since the planet is cooling off again and the latest science doesn’t support the theory of man-made carbon warming, we don’t have to be too concerned that $billions are being spent and CO2 emissions are still going up. We could be slowing the arrival of the next ice age. However, one must wonder how all these interests who have positioned themselves in the carbon trading market will respond to the changing science. Are they supporting an environmental energy policy that is based on the best evidence going forward?
    Hundreds of scientists reject global warming at Canadian taxpayer Federation

  6. Lynne Says:

    It makes one wonder where all these schemers and con artists came from and what were they doing before the global warming gravy train arrived?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: