At conventions losty of stuff

At conventions losty of stuff gets suggested then turned back to the caucus which quietly loses it in some file cabinet

elementary

Makes sense, they know they are going to loose next time, so why not make sure the next government gets less revenue?

You would think that they ...

...could find something important to talk about like the Canada-China trade deal and its provincial implications but no. It has to be some window dressing issue. Really deep aren't they?

Skywalker

Call it 'window dressing" if you want but it still an ultra stupid tax and should be eliminated.

Only a fool would think the money will not have to come from some other form of taxation.

"only a fool would think..."

Exactly my point.

And let's ditch the Pacific Carbon Trust, too,

which is just another unnecessary tax burden on those least able to afford it, and just importantly one that isn't and won't stop global warming whatsoever. So let's continue the repeal of Campbell's hair-brain taxation follies and like with the HST scrap these two sorry schemes as well.

Where is my ZENN?

If Jane likes the carbon tax, then it must be okay.

However, it is just one strategy among many to help us reduce our dependency on so-called "fossil fuels".

What is never clearly explained is how it is actually "revenue neutral", and how the money collected is put to work on "green" alternatives.

The Liberals are so desperately trying to rebrand themselves, in hopes of rising from the ashes, carbon or otherw!ise, that you can just smell that election coming!

I wonder how many "give aways" they will come up with at this week-end's meeting.

And without discussing, and expressing horror, at the horrendous prospects of the FIPA, they are not protecting
our resources and future.

Hmmm ... lots of jobs coming - oil clean-ups, fighting legal battles over resources, teaching Mandarin, etc.

Check out what we could have had, instead of the bail outs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri2BG2qOvCg

Greg Shea (Lake Cowichan)

Doesn't work???

When Mike Klassen claims there is no evidence that it works, he should be talking to the Sustainable Prosperity folks. Their analysis shows a large drop in BC emissions relative to the rest of Canada over the past 4 years. It would be a shame if the one thing Gordon Campbell did that had positive results was scrapped. But the right doesn't like it because it's a tax and the left doesn't like it because it didn't come from the NDP. So I suppose it's doomed.

As we all are if this is the best we can get in political discourse

carbon tax

be cheered by the fact that the 747 flying from vancouver to London England paid NO CARBON TAX on the 55Tonnes of jet fuel they bought here.(they got exempted)
think of that when you fill up yer car and pay the G.Campbell carbon tax.

refermadness

And that' because Metro Vancouverites have been filling up their gas tanks across the border in Point Roberts, Blaine, and Sumas, WA in droves to get dem cheap gas prices. Those stats ain't included.

And I'm one of 'em. Haven't filled my gas tank in BC in 10 years. C'est la vie.

Jack Black

"Emissions" are what come out of the exhaust pipe, not what goes into the gas tank.

Of course, if you can show that emissions haven't changed (or aren't what's actually been measured and reported) that would be interesting.

This is not a tax

It is a money spinner - that's all. It HAS NOT reduced CO2 production one gram and, rather than being 'revenue neutral' it actually costs the province money without creating one kilometer of rapid transit line; converting one vehicle to natural gas or getting one commuter out of his or her car.

not rocket science

The carbon tax doesn't work? Then raise it and apply it to a higher percentage of emissions. It negatively impacts people with low incomes? Then increase the low-income tax credit. It negatively impacts people in rural communities? Then give them a tax credit too and pay for it by reversing corporate and upper-tier income tax cuts.

Come on, people, designing a fair and effective carbon tax is not rocket science.

tax vrs global warming

good points all but lets look at the big picture --harper kills keoto accord-- chairwoman Clark woo's Chinese to mine coal for export to fuel China's furnaces --- who is watching out for global warming anyway??? Canada seems to convey the message worldwide that money is more important
Christie dollars has said for the right price she will sell out everyone in BC ---Harper is going to 69 our constitutional rights and allow comunists to run Canada's natural resources and for 30 years ----so I guess a carbon tax removal at this point is just to hide their hyprocicy.

Replies

SailorKen - Aircraft can refuel anywhere. Increase the tax on avgas and it will have the opposite effect intended. Aircraft will carry extra fuel (and there burn more) so they won't have to refuel in BC. The answer is to have carbon taxes in more jurisdictions.

Jack Black - your contention that the huge drop (15%) in BC emissions relative to the rest of Canada is due to cross-border fillups doesn't hold up to even cursory analysis. People in in the Lower Mainland have been filling up in the US when they've had the opportunity for decades. Roughly 60 percent of the BC population lives in the LM. To get a 15% drop in emissions, that would require an additional 25% of gas to be bought in the US. It's nonsense.

G West - your claim that the tax has not reduced CO2 "one gram" is even greater nonsense. You have zero basis for that claim. Your position stems from politics, not logic. Give it up.

dbancrof - thank you for being a lonely intelligent voice in this debate. Your logic is so clear and obvious, my 8 year old daughter easily gets it. Too bad the rest of this crowd is so invested in their politics or other self-interests.

The 'Carbon' Tax

The so called Carbon Tax has not resulted in any reduction fo CO2 because none of the revenues generated by the Carbon Tax have gone into any measures to reduce CO2.

This is not rocket science - the tax simply collects money at one end and spews it back out at the other - at high administrative cost.

If you can show me one example of Carbon Tax Revenue going to something other than Campbell's Wurlitzer of collections and payouts to low income citizens then I'll retract my statement. Until then, and based upon a clear understanding of the tax collections and expenditures in this province, you're the one who should be looking to reassess your position.

I am, and have always been, a supporter of real efforts to address Global Warming, when I see this 'Carbon Tax' turned into an effective means of addressing those problems and not simply a costly money laundry I'll let you know.

Misreprenting & misrepresentation in the SP report

Reefer Madness,

First, you misrepresent the findings of the Sustainable Prosperity (SP) report. The report says, in plain English that it is too early to conclude that the CTas is having any effect on emissions. Maybe you should actually read it.

Second, the SP erport actually misrepresents the impact of the CTax on the demand for the CTaxed commodities. The report shows only the trend in per capita GHGs for the 2008-2011 perios--the period the tax has been in effect. If you use exactly the same data sources that the SP authors used and show a graph of the per capita demand for those commodities for 1992 through 2011, you will easily notice that the per capita demand has been falling ever since 1992. Most importantly, the SLOWEST rate of demand decline is post-2008. So any analysis that would get a passing grade from an ECON 101 class must conclude that the CTax has had no impact on emissions and that something else is going on that has actually slowed the long term trend of reductionn in the per cap demand for the taxed products.

Further, the SP authors say

Further, the SP authors say that while the CTax might not have had an impact on emissions, it has at least done no harm. This is also untrue. The CP aurhtors say that BC's economy had grown faster than the Canadian provincial average since the CTax was introduced. Not only is that not true, before the CTax was introduced BC's provincial GDP rate ranked 4th among 13 provinces and territories. Since 2008, BC's GFP growth rate has ranked between 7th and 10th, depending on how we measure it.

A CTax that finances reductions in income tax rates (as all of the EU CTaxes did, not just BC's) causes tax burden to shift: (1) from rich people to poor people, and (2) from the private sector (for whom CTaxes are deductible from taxable income) to the public sector (which pays fuel taxes but not income taxes) and families (who pay CTaxes out of after-tax income).

The CTax is highly regressive, which is why the UK cancelled their CTax (called the "fuel tax escalator) in 2000 after 7 years) and Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark have gutted their CTaxes with myriad exemptions and rebates--mostly for large industry.

BC's CTax is more regressive than any other. That is because the CTax is not actually carbon-weighted. The CTax burden on natural gas used to heat homes is much larger than that on, say, gasoline. So the poorest BC families pay significant CTaxes--either directly or through the rent they pay--even though 50% of families in the bottom 40% of income earners did not own even one car even before the CTax was introduced.

You can have the CTax revenues or the emission reductions, not both. Look at the BC Budget Fiscal Plan, which forecasts significant increases in per capita CTax revenues through 2014/15--which means increases in demand for the taced commodities and increasing tax shift to the poor and the public sector. If you want to know where the BC Ctax story ends up, just look at what is happening to BC Transit because of its over-reliance on fuel tax revenues. (In passing, note that this year, the transit levey on lowermainland gas and diesel purchases was hiked from 15 to 17 cents, while the CTax went from just below 6 to 7 cents. How can a reasonable analysis attribute any change in demand to the lower of those two taxes, as the SP report does?)

Thanks Aldyen

Much appreciated. Ironically, several Tyee commenters have been trying to make precisely the same points you've outlined above since the 'Carbon Tax' was initially proposed here in BC.

Sadly, it doesn't seem to be making much difference!

Cheers.

garthwest@hotmail.com

I have heard in the BBC

I have heard in the BBC regarding Carbon tax, but I didn’t catch the idea completely. You have provided a good explanation to what it is and what are the outcomes. Now my doubts are cleared. Thanks for sharing this info. omni tech support

cell phone updates Only a

cell phone updates
Only a complete fool would believe this carbon tax is revenue neutral, they even said at the convention it brings in 1.2 billion in revenue, the big question which the lying liberals will never tell us is where this 1.2 billion that is scammed from the average BC tax payer is going.cell phone reviews