The Hook

just curious

How many low-income families own a home TO renovate?

Big Coal

These carbon tax schemes are really just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Only a conversion from fossil fuels to mass produced nuclear power will be effective against global warming.

Pembina/Suzuki's solution to Global warming recommends we continue building radioactive toxic waste spewing coal plants now killing millions annually worldwide (WHO) from lung disease, as long the carbon is sequestered - a thoroughly discredited impractical and ultra expensive solution to GHG's.

Because Greenee's were so successful at replacing nuclear power growth with a massive expansion of Big Coal in the seventies, organizations like Pembina are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people worldwide from lung disease - no apologies. Without them we wouldn't be worried about global warming today and gas would be ten cents a liter.

By working hard to ensure nothing is done about toxic coal pollution, Global warming or peak oil until billions more are dead and civilization is shattered with this renewable death wish of theirs, Pembina/Suzuki show they love that record of death and destruction and want it to continue.

10000 mass produced nukes worldwide costing $10 trillion is well within our industrial/financial capacity to build within the next ten years. It is paid for by and ends fossil fuel use, saves millions of lives every year from toxic radioactive waste from coal plants and ends global warming. Reasoning progressives (most I hope) and almost all Cons and Deniers will go along with this at least part way as momentum builds so unlike renewables is also politically possible.

We can't wait 30 years for some new tech renewables that may be less than 10 times the cost of nuclear. And Pembina/Suzuki pumping dirty coal and carbon taxes till then as a solution is no answer either.

www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/add-a-gigawatt-a-day-to-k_b_261728.html
www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/climate-bill-ignores-our_b_221796.html

Fairer to whom?

Raising prices of energy to "send a price signal" is problematic for social equity concerns, because higher-income drivers will easily get used to the higher prices - and even appreciate the higher prices as a road-toll that will clear the roads of lower-income drivers who must commute long distances in order to afford accommodation that is far from their workplace.

Too late Pembina

In the last election you jumped into bed with the BC Liberals. We've had the carbon tax for a year and a half, a little too late for you to suddenly decide low income people need to be helped.

Too bad you didn't come to that conclusion before last May, maybe then your donations from left-wingers wouldn't have fallen off a cliff and you wouldn't have to resort to this.

Pembina,What about our Wild B.C. Salmon?

Waste your breath with Gordon Campbell while you quit on the real environment,rivers andSalmon!

http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.com/2010/01/40000-atlantic-salmon-escape-from-fish.html

Little nukers

... still waiting for their radio-glow Messiah.

And all along, we've been quietly saving ourselves:

Inheriting the Wind - evolving past king C.O.N.G:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=samso-attempts-100-percent-renewable-power

Taxing Carbon. What for?

The wheels are pretty well falling off the Carbon Dioxide-Global Warming wagon.

Instead of developing policies fixated upon taxing energy and industrial output, how about developing policies that foster long-term and well paying jobs in a way that keeps both the work and the money in BC.

Our own Panglossians

... in this the best of all possible worlds have once again pronounced upon the metaphysico-theologo-cosmonigo-economical solution.

Why, it's as obvious as the nose on your face that was specifically designed to uphold spectacles.

Therefore it is demonstrated that carbon taxes are nonsense and everything is now and always shall be, for the best
http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf

Addressing concerns about low-income families

In response to:
"Raising prices of energy to "send a price signal" is problematic for social equity concerns, because higher-income drivers will easily get used to the higher prices - and even appreciate the higher prices as a road-toll that will clear the roads of lower-income drivers who must commute long distances in order to afford accommodation that is far from their workplace."

While higher income families could choose to just pay a carbon tax and not make changes, there is plenty of evidence that many of them will make changes to reduce their emissions if there are solutions available. Similarly, a highly profitable company could choose to ignore low-carbon options that would reduce their carbon liabilities, but they wouldn't remain highly profitable for long.

Flipping this around, a valid concern about rising fossil fuel prices is the potential to adversely impact the low-income families that are least able to invest in solutions. This is why the recommendations call for adequate protection for low-income families so that everyone can be part of the solution. In the short-term that likely has to be mostly using financial tools such as income tax credits. In the medium term, we could also be investing in renewable energy technologies like solar hot water heating and heat pumps in low-income housing. That way, there will be fewer emissions from those families and far less concern that they would be adversely impacted by rising carbon taxes.

Matt.Horne

Your call is for taxing the poor now while promising rainbows that may or may not occur in some possible future.

I'm sure the poor will find that comforting when they're unable to afford energy.

Of course there's the fact that anyone that has taken economics knows, when the poor can't afford energy the price will cease to rise and the rich will be better off.

Fair and effective at the same time

I can't see any reason why we can't implement effective carbon prices and protect low-income families at the same time.

I completely agree with the concern that if we raise carbon taxes (or other forms of carbon pricing), but put issues of fairness off to another day, we'll end up with a system that has adverse and unacceptable impacts on low-income families.

In my opinion, we need to acknowledge that concern and use it as motivation to ensure that climate change solutions are also fair. If we don't move forward with both simultaneously, it is hard to see how we're going to effectively reduce emissions to the degree we need to.

Matt.Horne

"I can't see any reason why we can't implement effective carbon prices and protect low-income families at the same time."

We can, but that isn't what Pembina supported. You supported a flawed model that in essence will lower emissions on the backs of the poor. As the price rises, increasing numbers of the poor will be unable to afford energy and overall consumption will decline.

Hard-core environmentalists will see that as a victory because all they care about is that overall emissions will decline. But I certainly don't. Would anyone in their right mind consider adopting the same policy when it comes to food and water?

Not only that, the model assumes population won't continue to increase. If it does we will have poor unable to afford energy while overall emissions continue to increase.

When many of us on the Left criticized the BC Liberal carbon tax on the grounds of fairness Pembina and the DSI and so on supported it. Your guys therefore won the election and its only now you're talking about issues that should have been addressed years ago.

What's happened is many of us on the Left no longer trust Pembina or DSI. When the time came to stand with us or against us, you stood against us, our alliance has been split, probably permanently.

Until Pembina acknowledges

that the theory that carbon dioxide produced by humans has any effect on climate has taken a big hit due to the recent revelations of misrepresentative and tainted climate science (Climate-Gate, Glacier-Gate, Pachuri-Gate etc etc), any advice that Pembina gives towards carbon taxation is quite laughable.

The Pembina Institute has well and truly morphed into veritable Flannel shirt Fraserites.

Tax Energy not just carbon

Tax energy going to consumers and industry to encourage conservation not just carbon for transportation. Add a tax to electricity, nat gas, oil, coal, gasoline, etc. If BC society reduces their overall use, expansion will be delayed and excess can be sold to Alberta and the US.

Such a consumer tax would hit everyone fairly equally so would not require an off-setting subsidy and would delay other tax increases to reduce the deficit and pay off the debt. Renters who cannot affect their energy use could be provided with ways to influence their landlords.

Sask Resident

"Such a consumer tax would hit everyone fairly equally"

By what twisted logic is that true?

Please explain how your energy tax is any different than Campbell's so-called "carbon" tax.

....ways to influence their landlords.

Such as????

In fact, the only way landlords will change their tune is when they've ceased to be 'landlords' any longer.

The key to changes in the landlord/tenant relationship can only come from rent controls which limit the ability of the landlord to pass on costs.

Only when savings a landlord reaps by reducing his input costs are the only way he/she can continue to make a profit will there be any change in 'landlord' behavior.

Only by limiting the amount a landlord can collect in rent will the impetus for savings of any kind be valuable.

Right on Frank!

The Pembina Institute has lost its credibility.