Posts Tagged ‘carbon tax’

The Green Scam

September 23, 2008

The green scam

The Lehman crash opens wide a vein of which we had begun to explore with our examination of carbon capture. It may be obvious when you think about it, and start doing some digging, but it has not been to forefront of the debate – the simple precept that one of the main beneficiaries of “climate change” is big business.

To that extent, simply to position the climate change issue as greenie propaganda is to miss the point. Green politics itself is a money-spinner, which makes the green agenda advocates beneficiaries in their own right. Big government, and especially the tranzis like the European Union and the United Nations gain considerably, as indeed do national governments which are able to expand their tax bases with rafts of green taxes.

Now put big business into the mix and you have a potent cocktail – a triumvirate of vested interest which needs to stoke up public concern about “climate change” in order to reap the financial and political rewards. The big myth in all this, of course, is that the “greenies” and industry are on opposing sides. They are in fact allies (some unwittingly), each standing to benefit in their own ways, alongside their allies in the various levels of government.

Arguably, this is – if one dare use that term – a vast conspiracy of interest, a means by which this triumvirate has found the golden key which enables it to pick the pockets of ordinary people. That turnkey, of course, is the quest to “save the planet”, for which no impost or sacrifice is too great to demand.

Focusing on the big business dimension, the benefits of “climate change” are stunningly obvious – but only when you put the pieces together in what emerges as a classic “baptist and bootlegger alliance“.

At the heart of the scam is, in European terms, the European emissions trading scheme (ETS). Elsewhere, in the USA and Australia, for instance, it is “cap and trade”. What this does is put a notional value on an otherwise valueless waste produce, carbon dioxide – legitimised by the extraordinary sleight of hand which has turned this harmless chemical into a threat to our very existence.

full report at EU Referendum

Esquire Calls Al Gore A Lunatic

September 21, 2008

Editor:
I was sent this story by one of my readers. Thanks
Hell, I and many others have been saying the same thing for years.
What took Esquire so long. If the main stream media had been doing their job, all this bull would never have gotten out of the gate.
Gore has been a con man forever and has been given way too much slack.
Gore is a Con, just like his Global Warming Scam and his Carbon Credit Scam.

Al Gore and Maurice Strong – Con Artists

Sheep tend to end up on the dinner plate.

Refuse to vote for anyone who says “Man made global warming – climate change” is a threat, or anyone pushing carbon credits or cap and trade.

Read the Green Agenda and wise up!

Al Gore

Don Arnold/WireImage.com

Al Gore is a lunatic. If you’ve ever seen the man speak in person, well, it’s hard to know whether or not he’s putting you on. He is so over-the-top that you are tempted to laugh. You do laugh. Think about it: There’s this oversized man in a suit at least two sizes too large alternately yelling at you about how our planet has a fever and how you aren’t treating it and then, suddenly, pausing as if in thought (though he has given this talk thousands of times), extending his left hand in front of him as if holding poor Yorick’s skull, examining the tips of his fingers as if the words he is about to say or the idea he is on the verge of is balanced on his digits. And then he begins to speak again, calmly building to an overwrought explication of the apocalypse.

It’s amazing, funny, and borderline crazy. And it’s clearly working.

We, as a culture, always reject the lunatic fringe and then inexorably move toward it. We mocked PETA and then, 20 years later, we’re lobbying Congress to pass legislation securing the rights of dogs. And when the lunatic is a former vice-president who went on to win both the popular vote and a Nobel prize, our willingness to embrace that fringe is enhanced.

So when he stood before us this past summer and claimed that within ten years a combination of wind and solar power can produce all of our country’s electric energy needs, it was both preposterous and strategically brilliant. He set a ridiculous goal, but it’s the very lunacy of it that may push us closer to a consummation devoutly to be wished. Gore is a crazy man. And that is the key to his influence.

Source – Esquire

Global Warming – The Real Agenda

September 7, 2008

Editor:

I have always believed that in order to understand what is happening now – you first have to back up.

Here is a perfect example from 1998

Yes folks – global warming is a scam and it’s time to wake up.

In the 2008 Canadian Federal Election you are being asked to vote for your choice of TRAITOR.

Regardless of which party you vote for – you are voting for traitors.

In 2008 you need to vote independent or refrain from casting your vote.

If you vote for any of the main parties you are voting against CANADA.

In essence you have become a traitor.

Same holds true in the USA

Read the Green Agenda

Editorial by Terrence Corcoran
Copyright 1998 Financial Post (Canada)
December 26, 1998

What is the most important problem facing Canada? When the annual Maclean’s/CBC year-end poll asked that question, there was at least one clear answer: Not the environment; in fact, anything but the environment. Ranked by percentage of people who identified one subject or another, the top worry among

Canadians is unemployment (15%), followed by government spending, the economy, health care, national unity, taxes, poverty, education and crime. At the bottom of the list, garnering only 2% support, is the environment.

The possibility that 98% of Canadians are not in a state of high anxiety over global warming, freaky weather, ozone depletion, pollution and scores of other Green scares must be a teeth-gritting irritation to environmentalists. They have, after all, spent decades fertilizing the idea that we are on the brink of environmental disaster. Ottawa and the provinces have spent billions on the campaign, which includes turning the weather into a propaganda tool and the school system into an indoctrination camp that begins in kindergarten.

The poll is a testament to the good sense of Canadians. Despite relentless scare-mongering by bureaucrats and activists, Canadians remain unwaveringly fixed on a national economic agenda of growth and prosperity rather than on fantastic claims of apocalypse. When David Suzuki says global warming ‘is the most urgent slow-motion catastrophe facing humankind,’ nobody is paying much attention.

Except our politicians. Backed by an army of bureaucrats and researchers, governments are systematically preparing to shut down the engines of economic progress in the name of environmentalism. In Canada, the heart of the stop-growth campaign is Environment Canada, where key bureaucrats dedicated to imposing an environmental agenda on the country have seized control. The focus of their effort is global warming and climate change, which they intend to use as a lever to impose what can only be described as a new economic order.

The politician nominally in charge of all this is Environment Minister Christine Stewart. Whether Ms. Stewart fully understands what’s going on around her is unknown, but during a recent visit with the editorial board of the Calgary Herald she certainly demonstrated her conversion to the religion of global warming.

Ms. Stewart said that, ‘as minister of the environment, I am very worried about global warming,’ which for a politician isn’t saying much. Politicians are habitually ‘very worried’ about one thing or another. The trouble starts when they use their power to fix problems they’re worried about, even if the problems don’t exist. Ms. Stewart said she’s prepared to do exactly that. ‘No matter if the science is all phony,’ she said, ‘there are collateral environmental benefits.’

Environment Canada, therefore, is prepared to act on global warming even if there’s no such thing as global warming. On the strength of phony science, the federal government would still be willing to impose new taxes on energy consumption, cut economic growth, reduce our standard of living, and create bookshelves filled with new regulation governing most facets of the lives of Canadians.

In another statement quoted by the Herald, Ms. Stewart gave another reason for adopting the religion of global warming. ‘Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.’ Here she gets closer to the core motivation of some of the leading global warming activists. Where socialism’s attempt at a global redistribution of wealth ended in economic catastrophe, global warming is being wheeled in as the next new economic crusade.

Consolidating Ms. Stewart’s statements, we reach some horrific conclusions. Whether global warming actually exists is irrelevant. It is, in the hands of government and environmental activists, a convenient front for the introduction of programs and economic policies that Canadians – and most citizens of the world – would not otherwise accept.

Ms. Stewart, perhaps unintentionally, has identified the two key foundations of the global warming movement. One is based in environmentalism, which essentially claims that human beings are a problem in nature. The other foundation is the old business of economic redistribution. Both these movements are linked in the international climate change treaty Canada signed in Kyoto. Environment Canada has already given up trying to examine the science. It never really tried. Instead, it spends hundreds of millions of dollars churning out propaganda on the hypothetical effects of global warming. Its latest reports include hundreds of studies warning of everything from spreading insect-borne disease to increasing forest fires.

The Maclean’s poll shows Canadians aren’t going along with the government or the claims of environmentalists. If they knew what Ms. Stewart has in store for jobs and living standards, and why, they might take a greater interest.Link

Read the Green Agenda

McGuinty Government Imposing new carbon taxes, cap and trade

May 28, 2008

Editor
The first thing you must understand is – Global warming is a hoax.

If C02 was the cause of “Global warming” it would be getting warmer – it’s not. Global warming is a hoax, courtesy of the UN.

Therefore, any tax on carbon can only be viewed as a con based on the Global Warming hoax.

So, what the hell is really going on?

The McGuinty govt is involved in a fraud against the citizens of Ontario.

Read Agenda 21

Once you have read and understood Agenda 21 feel free to get “mad as hell”.

Why is the CFT asking McGuinty government to clarify its position on imposing new carbon taxes in Ontario. A con job needs to be stopped – not clarified.

Govt. at all levels have bought into the ideals of the UN and the New World Order.

Read Agenda 21

Call, write, email or fax  McGuinty and tell him to shove his carbon tax where the sun doesn’t shine. Same message for Suzuki and Gore.

That’s the message the CFT should be sending out.

That’s my rant – now on with the story from the CFT

.

Imposing new carbon taxes, cap and trade

CTF Calls on McGuinty Government to Come Clean on Carbon Taxes

By Kevin Gaudet Wednesday, May 28, 2008
TORONTO: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) today is calling on the McGuinty government to clarify its position on imposing new carbon taxes in Ontario. It is widely reported that Premier McGuinty and Ontario Environment Minister, John Gerretsen favour a cap-and-trade system as a ‘first choice’. CTF Ontario, Kevin Gaudet, said, “cap-and-trade is a carbon tax, just under another name. When and how does he plan to unleash this new tax on Ontarions? What happened to his campaign promise not to impose new taxes?”

The CTF has been calling for Dalton McGuinty to make it clear where he stands on a carbon tax, especially at a time that his brother David McGuinty – federal Liberal environment critic – is pushing a carbon tax at the federal level with Stephane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Now Ontarions have part of the answer.

“When Mr. McGuinty says he wants a cap-and-trade tax first he raises the possibility of also imposing a direct carbon tax next”, Gaudet added.

McGuinty’s statement raises important questions and his brother makes this obvious when he is quoted saying, “I think what the premier’s said is, ‘Look, given the here and now of the specificity of the Ontario economy, and how we would like to go forward in pricing carbon, we would rather go with a cap-and-trade system first,’” he said. “But I doubt very much the premier’s ruling out the notion of a carbon tax shift.”

Gaudet concluded, “Carbon taxes have proved disastrous in Europe – causing job losses and fuel poverty. Moreover, they have done nothing to reduce CO2 levels,” Gaudet concluded. This government has no mandate to introduce new carbon taxes and should immediately eliminate speculation.”

Source CFP

Carbon Tax on Children?

April 12, 2008

Carbon taxed child

Planning on having a child in the future. Do it soon, or face the possibility of paying a huge carbon tax in the future.

.

The World Today — Letters

Personal carbon trading: a potential “stealth intervention” for obesity reduction?

Barry N J Walters
MJA 2007; 187 (11/12): 668

To the Editor: Egger makes novel and valid points in his portrayal of individual human effort as a potential contributor to offsetting greenhouse gas emissions by personal carbon trading.1 Of course, there is an even more potent strategy humans should adopt to modify climate change through their own activities — population control.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gases constitute the largest source of pollution, with by far the greatest contribution from humans in the developed world. Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing, but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society.

What then should we do as environmentally responsible medical practitioners? We should point out the consequences to all who fail to see them, including, if necessary, the ministers for health. Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and thereby rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a “Baby Levy” in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the “polluter pays” principle.2 Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children (Sustainable Population Australia suggests a maximum of two3) should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being. The average annual CO2 emission by an Australian individual is about 17 metric tons,4 including energy usage. As the biomass of trees in a mature forest sequesters about 6 metric tons of CO2 per hectare (104 m2) per year,4,5 each child born should be offset by planting 4 hectares of trees, to allow for the time they take to reach maturity, and attrition through crop losses, bushfires, dieback and so on. This infers a levy per child of at least $5000 at birth (to purchase the land needed and plant trees) and an annual tax of $400–$800 thereafter for the life of the child (for maintenance of the afforestation project) (based on 1990 figures,4 and probably much more now).

By the same reasoning, contraceptives, intrauterine devices, diaphragms, condoms and sterilisation procedures should attract carbon credits for the user and the prescriber that would offset their income taxes, and lead to rewards for family planning clinics and hospitals that provide such greenhouse-friendly services.

As David Attenborough said:

. . . instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, we should control the population to ensure the survival of the environment.6

As doctors, I believe we need to think this way. Our responsibility extends further than the patient on the other side of the desk. As Australians, I believe we need to be less arrogant. As citizens of this world, I believe we deserve no more population concessions than those in India and China.

Barry N J Walters, Clinical Associate Professor of Obstetric Medicine

Department of Women’s and Infants’ Health, University of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, WA.

barry.waltersAThealth.wa.gov.au

Carbon tax flim-flam

February 26, 2008

Carbon tax flim-flam

Terence Corcoran, Financial Post  Published: Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Mark Jaccard’s one-man crusade to hook Canada up to a monster new global warming policy nightmare popped up again yesterday. This time he emerged in Ottawa with David Suzuki at a news conference that offered Canadians an economic miracle: Big new carbon taxes, lower income taxes, reduced carbon emissions, more government revenue, and a growing economy.

The all-in-one package is in a report by Prof. Jaccard, of Simon Fraser University, for the David Suzuki Foundation. Titled Pricing Carbon: Saving Green, the report ran through some economic modelling exercises to see what might happen if Canada were to impose a tax on all carbon emissions of between $75 and $200 a tonne by 2020. Before any government gets to assessing the report — which doesn’t mention that a $200-a-tonne tax would raise the price of gasoline by about 50% to $1.60 a litre; nor does it do much to highlight the $45-billion in annual lost growth by 2020 — we suggest a tracking device be attached to Mr. Jaccard to monitor his role in the rise of carbon tax on the Canadian agenda.

When B.C. Finance Minister Carole Taylor’s budget last week announced a version of a carbon tax, Mr. Jaccard and his private research company, M.K. Jaccard and Associates, were the only authorities named. The B.C. plan, moreover, contained all the propaganda tricks Mr. Jaccard raised in the Suzuki version. The tax would raise billions, but voters should not worry because it would be “revenue neutral” and would be “recycled” back in tax cuts or direct payments. As a marketing ploy, the B.C. government said it would immediately send out $440-million in Carbon Tax Credit cheques to citizens, before the carbon tax was even imposed.

In his Suzuki report, Mr. Jaccard begins with a pithy epigraph: “The atmosphere can no longer be considered a carbon dump.” Turns out Mr. Jaccard is quoting himself and his coauthors, including one Jeffrey Simpson, from their book Hot Air. While short and emphatic, the quote is also pure rhetoric unhindered by fact. The atmosphere will continue to used as a dump so long as humans are allowed to exist.

Then the Suzuki report says that “several recent studies” show that a price on carbon is the best way to cut carbon emissions. Of two studies cited, one is from Mr. Jaccard. Reference is later made to recent carbon-tax research by the National Round Table on the Environment — research Mr. Jaccard had a hand in.

The progress of the carbon tax idea to yesterday, including the joint conference with Mr. Suzuki and the B.C. budget carbon tax gimmick, shows Mr. Jaccard has a way with policy makers, politicians and activists. So far he’s made no headway with the Harper Tories or Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, whose budget today was clearly the focal point behind the timing of these events.

The Jaccard carbon tax studies are gigantic exercises in economic modelling. Using models Mr. Jaccard controls, the study asks what would happen to the economy 12 years from now under different levels of carbon taxation and methods of government disposal of the cash raised. If the tax were $100 a tonne, governments would raise $62.5-billion; at $200, the tax take is $100-billion a year — three times what the government collected last year in GST. That would be bad for the economy, depending on how the government spent it. It would reduce carbon-based energy consumption, hurting growth. But if the government took that money and “recycled” it back into the economy in beneficial ways, the bad impact of the tax would be neutralized.

Well, not quite. Even Mr. Jaccard’s black box couldn’t come up with that much of a miracle. Different things happen, depending on the policy. If the government used 14% of the carbon tax money to subsidize green energy and carbon capture technology, gave 40% to industry and used the remaining 46% to reduce payroll or income or other taxes, then there might be offsetting benefits. But not enough to offset the losses from the tax, which would still leave the economy in the red by upwards of $45-billion a year, a figure that increases annually with the loss of compounding growth.

The Suzuki report spends a lot of time ventilating the idea that there might be a “double dividend” in a carbon tax. Bring in a tax, the government recycles it back to taxpayers, and then everybody collects an environmental dividend. In the end, though, the report concedes (most clearly in a footnote) that there is a growing consensus in economics that the prospect of such a double dividend is “weak.”

The Suzuki-Jaccard study is premised on the theories of Arthur C. Pigou, a 20th-century economist who believed you could use taxes to change behaviour. Mr. Jaccard calls his tax the “Pigovian carbon price.” The trouble with Pigovianism is that it requires revival of the ancient and discredited economic art of central planning, using taxes as substitute for prices. But a tax is not a market price. It’s a bureaucratic planning device–as Mr. Jaccard’s elaborate economic modellings prove. And it’s no way to run a market economy.

 The National Post

Green taxes put us in the red

February 21, 2008

Lorrie Goldstein

Thu, February 21, 2008
Green taxes put us in the red
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

checkCookie();

Premier Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government in British Columbia has done a public service by introducing Canada’s first real carbon tax this week.

What it demonstrates is that when governments “go green” they are essentially launching a tax attack on the middle class, while letting big industrial greenhouse gas emitters off the hook.

That’s already happened in the European Union’s three-year-old carbon emissions trading market, where big energy companies are doing fine, while electricity rates for many consumers have skyrocketed.

It’s what has started happening in Quebec, where the public was told by the government a pseudo carbon tax would be paid for out of oil and gas industry profits, when in reality the province’s fossil fuel industry has simply passed along the new tax to its customers, and will now remit that money back to the Quebec government for its so-called green fund. Government spokesmen are now telling angry consumers that of course the new tax means they’ll pay more for gasoline and natural gas, because how could the government possibly control the market decisions of oil and gas companies?

That’s almost as disingenuous as the coal-fired electrical utility in Europe which, when asked why it was passing along the entire cost of buying carbon permits under Europe’s cap and trade emissions trading scheme to its customers, when the utility had received the initial permits for free, responded the whole purpose of cap and trade was to raise electricity rates.

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

SURPRISE!

In reality, there’s no way governments can or will make “Big Business” pay more for disgorging carbon into the atmosphere and heating up our planet.

Obviously, they’ll just pass along the added costs to their captive customers — us.

And don’t worry about Big Oil. At $100 a barrel and rising, it’s going to come out of this global warming “crisis” just fine, while Big Government works hand in glove with Big Business to screw us.

That was the part Al Gore left out of An Inconvenient Truth.

It’s the part the charitable David Suzuki glosses over when he rants (non-partisanly, of course) about how we should throw politicians such as Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper in jail, or out of office, for doing nothing about global warming for the past two years and … uh … what? … replace him with the Liberals who did nothing for 12?

Meanwhile, Suzuki-endorsed Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, whose “green” plan involves building more nuke plants (does Dr. Suzuki know?) while allowing pollution-spewing, coal-fired energy plants to choke the life out of Ontarians until 2014, after promising in 2003 to have them all closed by now (“Paging Dr. Suzuki! Paging Dr, Suzuki!”) — has no real “green” plan either. Unless you think paying boutique, solar energy plants outrageous sums of taxpayer money to subsidize the production of very little power qualifies as “green.”

NEUTRALITY

B.C. will bribe taxpayers with $100 of their own money, just before it introduces its escalating carbon tax July I, which it promises to keep “revenue neutral” via other tax cuts.

You can decide, gentle reader, on the likelihood of that promise being kept over the long term, but early skeptics (should we jail them for climate change denial?) include B.C.’s NDP and Green Party.

On the other hand, The Suzuki Foundation and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce both pronounced themselves pleased.


• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca

Kan. Senate rejects emissions limit

February 14, 2008

Editor:
Finally, someone stands and does their job. Carbon caps will kill the economy and wind farms are not the answer to our energy needs. Kansas stands to reap new jobs because of their stance on this fraud.

We in Ontario stand to watch our manufactures flee the province which in turn will trash the economy of this once proud province.  Ont. plans to spend some 60+billion dollars on a flawed electrical system.  More than all the money allocated for both our health care and education.

We could put the scrubbers on the coal plants and build one more nuke and have a clean cost effective electrical system for between 10 and 15 billion. Without a stable cost effective electrical system, everything and everyone in this province will suffer.

I applaud the Kansas Senate for their wisdom. Our manufacturers might be moving to Kansas.

We here in Ont. will continue to fight against our PUPPET Govt.

Kan. Senate rejects emissions limit

Senators overwhelmingly rejected a proposal Wednesday to impose the state’s first limits on carbon dioxide emissions, then gave first-round approval to a bill allowing two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas.

The Senate advanced the bill on a voice vote, setting up final action Thursday, when approval would send the measure to the House.

But the vote was 32-3 against the CO2 rules proposed by Sen. Chris Steineger, a Kansas City Democrat. His proposal included not only emissions limits for new power plants but a carbon tax of $3 on each ton of excess emissions for utilities that failed to comply.

Many critics argued that the CO2 rules would hurt the economy and encourage businesses to leave Kansas.

‘What it would do is bring economic development to an absolute, screeching halt,’ said Sen. Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican.

Steineger said the rules would encourage utilities to operate coal-fired plants more efficiently and spur the development of new technologies.

‘I accept the fact that coal is going to be burned by the human race for a long time,’ Steineger said. ‘I think it’s incumbent upon us to find a way to burn coal more cleanly and more efficiently.’

The House is working on its own energy bill. Its measure would permit the two coal-fired power plants but require utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity with renewable resources, such as wind, by 2010 and 25 percent by 2025.

Both bills are responses to a decision in October by the state’s secretary of health and environment to deny an air-quality permit to Sunflower Electric Power Corp. The Hays-based utility wants to build the coal-fired plants outside Holcomb, in Finney County.

In denying the permit, Secretary Rod Bremby cited the plants’ potential CO2 emissions, an estimated 11 million tons a year. But Sunflower’s $3.6 billion project has bipartisan support among legislators.

Provisions in the bill would limit the secretary’s power to reject air-quality permits for such projects. It also would prevent the secretary from imposing some emissions rules without legislative approval.

Supporters of the project view it as an economic development opportunity that the state shouldn’t miss. But they also believe that the state eventually will need the power the new plants would provide.

‘We’ve heard a lot over the months about the economic development,’ Senate President Steve Morris, a Hugoton Republican, told his colleagues. ‘That’s certainly a very important, critical part of this. The even more important reason for this bill and this debate is for our energy security.’

As originally drafted, the bill included proposed limits on CO2 emissions from new power plants, but the Senate Utilities Committee stripped them out.

Steineger wanted to reinsert the CO2 rules. Initially, the limits for a new coal-fired plant would have been lower than the existing emissions per kilowatt hour of electricity for any existing plant. After a plant has been in operation for a year, emissions would have to be 20 percent less.

Utilities could have ‘offset’ — lowered their emissions on paper — by investing in carbon-capture technology or wind farms, expanding transmission lines or undertaking conservation or beautification programs. Utilities that didn’t comply would face the carbon tax.

Environmentalists, some legislators and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius viewed those proposed rules as far too weak.

They have argued that no utility would have trouble meeting them and that utilities with coal-fired plants blocked in other states would be encouraged to build them in Kansas. Also, they said the carbon tax would be too low, given that carbon credits trade in Europe for as much as $30 a ton.

But some conservative legislators and anti-tax groups objected to any plan to regulate CO2. They said it could lead to more onerous regulations in the future and that any such regulations should be attempted — if at all — only by the federal government.

‘On the left side, we were told $3 was an insult because it wasn’t enough,’ said Sen. Janis Lee, of Kensington, the Utilities Committee’s top Democrat. ‘On the right side, we were told $3 was an insult because it was a carbon tax.’

Bremby has told legislators that he wants to move ahead with creating a program in which utilities and companies in other industries voluntarily limit their CO2 emissions. But he said no business has expressed an interest.

Source 

Tories oppose carbon tax

January 7, 2008

Editor:
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.

CBC