The federal Conservatives' new attack ad against opposition leader Thomas Mulcair refers to a carbon tax as 'dangerous'. Several leading oil sands firms, meanwhile, alongside 150 of Canada's top corporations, publicly support such a policy.
"[The NDP's] dangerous economic experiments include a carbon tax that'll raise the price of everything," a deep-voiced narrator declares, "including gas, groceries and hydro."
The Tory ad, released Monday, is apparently a reference to Mulcair's stated support for a national system of cap and trade.
That system would put limits -- a "cap" -- on Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, and compel companies to pay for the privilege of releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
A carbon tax would similarly put a price on greenhouse gas emissions, but without the hard "cap".
Federal environment minister Peter Kent recently told CBC that "carbon pricing in any form is a carbon tax." Such a policy, he added, "would get Canadians at the gas pump for example, and right across the economy."
Leading oil sands firms like Suncor and Cenovus, however, told The Tyee Solutions Society that the best way for Canada to shrink its carbon footprint is to turn CO2 into a direct financial cost.
"We think a price should be put on carbon," said Suncor's VP of sustainable development, Gordon Lambert. "Ideally the model would be a national carbon tax."
And the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, an industry group representing the country's major corporations, said in a report last year that, "The most effective means of promoting energy conservation is to allow energy prices to rise."
The report added: "Governments must resist the temptation to shield Canadians from higher energy prices."
Until May 2011, the federal Conservatives actually appeared to support a national system of cap and trade.
Indeed, Stephen Harper's government claimed in December 2009 to be “working in collaboration with the provinces and territories to develop a cap and trade system."
Geoff Dembicki reports on energy and climate change issues for The Tyee.
4
Login or register to post comments
RockyRacoon
46 weeks ago
Why would Canada suffer at the pump we don't use that bitumen
at least not in most of the country. How would we suffer at the pump? Isn't the bench mark lower for easy to get at real oil from Venusula and the Middle East where we do get our oil.
RR
judycross
46 weeks ago
Why would one be surprised oil companies like it?
Oil companies are ultimately controlled by the International Banking Cartel aka The Banksters.
At Rio they tried to get all countries to kick in to a UN/IMF/World Bank scheme to tax all nations 2% of their GDPs. Rich and Poor alike. $100 Billion a year to the World Bank.
It would have cost the average US family of 4 over $1300 a year.
Luckily, Rio was such a bust that the "sustainability" crowd are in despair.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/98226829/Com-Life-After-Rio-2
I think Harper might kick in to a sooner to a UN global fund than he would to something more visible like a Federal Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade. But then he's probably out by the next election anyway.
Has any NDP supporter asked themselves why Mulcair supports Cap and Trade...with it's inherent, proven capacity for Mafia type takeovers? Why hasn't he reexamined it in light of European experience?
Mulcair would not seem to be on the side of the angels. Perhaps the Charest crowd at the Montreal Climate Exchange still exert too great a pull. Then Liberal Mulcair was Charest's Environment Minister after all. Now he's NDP while former NDP Bob Rae is Liberal leader. Ah...the flexibility of out politicians is to be commended. They all work and play so well together.
http://www.greenlivingonline.com/article/canada-enters-carbon-exchange-market-montreal-climate-exchange-launch
gadrogeek
46 weeks ago
Cap and Trade vs. Carbon Tax
The Cap and Trade system is fundamentally flawed since it rewards the wealthy who can then "afford" to pollute. What it doesn't do is decrease the carbon footprint.
The Carbon Tax, especially as currently advocated in BC, while making conscientious citizens feel guilty, won't do a thing for the environment unless the money is put to work on actual alternative (non fossil fuel) energy sources. The wealthy, in their hybrid Hummers, can simply call this "the cost of doing business" and go on polluting.
We need to plant more trees, millions more, greatly reduce our fossil fuel dependency, including a huge reduction in this resource's development, and subsidize realistic "green" choices.
Where is the ZENN?
Aldyen Donnelly
45 weeks ago
C-Tax and Cap and Trade Are Not the Only Options
How did we fall into the trap of thinking that it is C-Tax or Cap and Trade--both measures that get government into the price-setting and new technology picking business. Cap and trade is just a fancy name for quota-based supply management and, yes, it means huge $$ windfalls for the largest, highest-emitting market incubments.
We got lead and sulphur levels down in gasoline, paint and diesel while the prices of those commodities were falling. We regulated "product standards", which gave everyone who sells (as opposed to makes)the commodities to reduce the levels of the offending content. Good product standards would order reductions in the fossil carbon content, by volume, in energy sold--ordering content out, not specifying new content or products. Then the private sector had to compete on price and through innovation to deliver the best, new, compliant products. Product standards treat all supplies--whether they are made here or imported--the same. Any other approach hinders competition and drives the private sector to seek subsidies when they market participants can no longer compete effectively on price or introduce a new technology without the full cooperation and approval of government.