Poor old Frank

No Frank, that's not what really counts. What really counts is that we, as a collective, have to reduce our carbon emission count, as is the imperative for the rest of the world. In British Columbia we have done this and, as the report states, without damaging our economy. British Columbia leads, thanks to Gordon Campbell's vision and leadership. All environmental groups, organizations and studies say so.

Your snide comment vis-a-vis West Vancouver is just plain silly. West Vancouver merely represents less than 1% of the population of British Columbia. Irrelevant, in the grand scheme.

Anyone that believes or considers that the output and burning of carbon is something we should reduce and be concerned with will only see the BC Carbon Tax as a success. Your NDP promise to kill it is not a smart or progressive policy.

Go ahead with that policy if you must. My guess is that the NDP will revoke their promise to 'Axe the Tax'.

Frank

Myth: The carbon tax unfairly impacts low-income British Columbians.

Fact: Most low-income individuals and families are better off under the revenue neutral carbon tax than they were before. A major component of the personal and business income tax cuts provided as part of the revenue neutral carbon tax is the ongoing low income climate action tax credit designed to help protect low income individuals and families. The credit is paid quarterly along with the federal GST credit and BC HST Credit.

The credit as of July 1, 2011 provides an annual maximum of $115.50 for each adult and $34.50 for each child ($115.50 for the first child in a single parent family). The maximum credit is reduced by 2 per cent of net income in excess of $30,968 for single individuals ($36,130 for families) The reduction thresholds are indexed to provincial inflation.

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/A6.htm

r'man

You were against the tax when Stephane Dion thought of it as any google of the archives will show.

Try and be consistent at least.

As for the rest of your speech, blah blah blah, you even disagree with yourself.

Frank

You're "Don't Blame Me, I'm NDP" bumper sticker is kinda getting frayed at the edges.

The 2007 provincial BC NDP party convention adopted unanimously a sustainability report stating that:

“Effective Climate Change Initiatives: apply carbon taxes to motivate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by ensuring that of fossil fuels reflect the environmental and social costs of their production and use.

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/ndp-effective-carbon-tax.jpg

And federal NDP leader Mulcair, basically a centre-left enviro of the Stephane Dion mold, basically also supports carbon taxes:

"User fees" = carbon tax!

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Mulcair+over+west/6608173/story.html#ixzz1z9sIUkY6

You pray at the altar of these proverbial priests at your NDP church. What gives?!

Luke

Wow, you discovered just now that I disagree with the NDP on carbon taxes eh? Golly gee whiz, are you still on telegraph and morse code?

I've only been disagreeing with the party here on the Tyee since the last election. We're not all paid hacks you know.

Thanks for keeping up.

Luke, time for your spelling bee

And in the context of your opening sentence, its "your", not "you're".

"Your" is possessive, "you're" is a contraction.

Here's a trick, if you can substitute "you are" then you use "you're", otherwise its "your".

You're welcome.

BS

The carbon tax may help in the lower mainland where there is transit but here where there is nothing, all it does is keep our gas prices artificially high. I then have less to spend on other items that are needed to live. The poor aren't helped and just another reason to separate from the broken province of BC. Anyone outside the cesspool of the lower mainland needs to drive and are penalized by the Vancouver Elite.

Waste of time and treasure.

As minister Lake said the other day BC's massive Carbon tax is responsible for at most 1.5% of any reductions in BC's GHG's - A miniscule result and waste of time and treasure the battle to head off the fast approaching warming precipice.

Currently with BC getting 70% of its total energy needs from fossil fuels there are no green alternatives that any sort of cap n' trade or carbon tax would make more than marginally attractive. Big Oil has added a 100% carbon tax on petrol and yet we don't any significant increase in transit use or reductions in petrol consumption.

There is one and one only road that can divert us from this disastrous path in any time to make a difference warts and all and that is nuclear power.

If the $45B in contracts at an enormous environmental cost the Campelloni's have already signed with Fascist cronies in the stockbroker power industry had been used to buy zero environmental footprint nuke power instead, BC would already be net GHG free with BCHydro's clean power capacity more than tripled.

Instead of BC's third rate economic and climate advisers let's listen instead to Nobel Prize winners like Paul Krugman and the world's foremost climatologist James Hansen speaking here directly to the BC environmental movement.

On wind and solar:

"Wind and solar are like believing in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth fairy"

On Greenpeace's massive monetary support from Big Oil

'The insightful cynic will note: “Now I understand all the fossil fuel ads with windmills and solar panels – fossil fuel moguls know that renewables are no threat to the fossil fuel business.” The tragedy is that many environmen­talists line up on the side of the fossil fuel industry, advocating renewables as if they, plus energy efficiency­, would solve the global climate change matter.'

What a farce, have you seen our forests?

Our deforestation rate is through the roof! Do we not deforest faster than any other nation on the planet?

Why should we care about what we emit into the air when places like China outdo us by so much. We should be more concerned about our 'Environment'. The Athabasca Oil Sands, Mass pollution, the deforestation of all our coastal forests, and the destruction of our "50%" protected Great Bear rainforest.

All of the carbon sponges should be taken into consideration, and perhaps the amount of pollution we emit from the Athabasca oil sand production alone. It's kind of funny how no one talks about the biggest polluter of Canada, Northern Alberta. Why don't we tax them, they pollute more than any city in Canada.

Did the carbon tax really change anything, but take more money from our pockets?

Take this report with a bit of salt.

Not to be too pessimistic, but I'd advise taking this report with a bit of salt. I hate to state one should judge a report by association, but many of the big names of Sustainable Prosperity seem to be rather suspicious, and lead me to believe this is a remarkably funded astroturf organization.
I can't really trust the source that has many big name players that move and shake between both the federal Liberal and Conservative Parties.
Nay, to be honest, I'd say the Carbon Tax, being 'revenue neutral' is actually closer to a Potemkin village. It's a creature without fang or claw, and so can little to actually affect any real change, but it is handy for a corporate friendly government to show off whenever anyone doubts our governments' green bonafides.

Frank

Your welcome! :)

Luke

I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink :)

The Carbon Tax in BC!!

Let us call a spade a spade and not a shovel!!!
We have a carbon tax on our fuel and heat. North of HOPE we do not have the alternatives as does the Lower Mainland. We are surrounded by forest greenery that has not been killed by the pine beetle or clear cut whereas Vancouver and surrounding areas are like a concrete jungle, this where the study was researched. The Provincal Government gets approx half the Carbon Tax for general revenue, makes me feel used. The Government gets the majority of it's revenue from GAMBLING revenue and the CARBON tax now that natural gas royalties are in the sewer. Makes the people living north of Hope feel good suppling the majority of resourse for the Province but get screwed when we have to pay not only the Carbon tax but also the HST, which supplies the Government with $850 million more than derived from the PST, the corporations get the $850 million tax relief while the general population once again subsidise the Corporations that do not need it but will take when offered. Companies want the Carbon tax and the HST, this makes me wonder what it is that we do not know, is it that the Corporations get their carbon tax back by grants to improve their carbon foot print while Schools and Hospitals do not qualify, they only pay as do I to subsidize the already wealthy Corporations.

The Raging Senior

"...The Provincal Government gets approx half the Carbon Tax for general revenue, makes me feel used. ..."

Actually, no.

'Myth: The carbon tax is just a tax grab.

Fact: Every dollar raised by the carbon tax is returned to individuals and businesses through tax reductions. None of the carbon tax revenue is used to fund government spending. '

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/A6.htm

the Campbell Tax - please don't call it a carbon tax

The Campbell Tax is a money spinning whirligig - nothing more; it doesn't get one gas-guzzler off the road; pays to convert a work truck to Natural Gas; create a single mile of rapid transit or reduce the price of housing so people can live and work in the same municipality.

How many times do these same false arguments have to be shot down in flames?

Nice grammar lesson Frank - I notice JimorSheryl (on the teachers thread) could use a similar lesson about the difference between 'it's' and 'its'.

Is this a function of the failure of our school system?

All aboard the Carbon Tax ?

From a recent Tyee report:
“Environmental group the Pembina Institute issued a news release optimistically titled "British Columbians support the carbon tax" just before the July 1 carbon tax increase citing a poll it commissioned that purported to show support for the controversial measure. In fact, 33 per cent said the carbon tax has been "positive" for B.C. while 41 per cent said it was neutral. Another 27 per cent said it was "very negative" or "somewhat negative." But the poll also shows that a majority -- 51 per cent of respondents -- do not want any further increases in the carbon tax after 2012's final 1.1 cent hike to 6.67 cents a litre goes ahead, while just 29 per cent support further gas and fuel tax increases. The poll also shows that 49 per cent of respondents support using new carbon tax revenues for public transit, topped only by the 56 per cent who say use it for health and education.
But so long as it penalizes lower and middle income earners, not to mention northern and rural residents who simply have no public transit options at all but nonetheless have to pay the carbon tax, the reality is clear. The carbon tax pledge is still a lot of hot air “
Another recent article:
“ Terry Lake says the tax will be reviewed beginning this summer, but killing it is not an option since the $1 billion it generates is offset by income tax cuts. "I would prefer to tax something that is undesirable, that is carbon, and reduce taxes on things that are desirable. That's income and success." But even Liberal MLA Bill Bennett has said the tax should be scrapped.”
And if the Liberal government is so proud of the Carbon Tax, then why the secrecy on how much it gave Encana ? “On May 5, the company and the PCT announced that the B.C. Crown corporation bought 84,000 tonnes of carbon offsets from EnCana. The purchase helped EnCana, a company whose former CEO Gwyn Morgan was a key advisor to Premier Christy Clark, complete a project that reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 85 per cent from a project near Fort Nelson in northeastern B.C.”
And finally:
“ Chevron Canada Ltd. is lobbying B.C. cabinet ministers for relief from the carbon tax, an oil company spokesman says, days after the government announced a grant of $7.6-million to compensate greenhouse growers fully for taxes they paid last year on propane and natural gas.”

All for decreasing fossil fuel consumption but...

Me thinks the conclusion made by the group called by one of Gordon Campbell's favourite sayings, "sustainable prosperity", is simplistic.

Here's some other stats:

Gasoline consumption has been flat for the last 10 years, well before the carbon tax was instituted. Slight dips and rises cannot be seen as evidence of one cause only.

Here are some other reasons why gasoline consumption is flat despite an increase in population over the last 10 years:

Fuel efficiency of vehicles. Does BC have a higher degree of fuel efficient vehicles on its roads than other provinces? Why is Ontario's consumption rates slightly higher than BC's despite not having a carbon tax?

A report published by another think tank group on sustainability, the Sightline Institute in Seattle Washington, came up with some other conclusions for flat sales of gasoline in the NW region (which includes BC):

"Aging Baby Boomers don’t drive as much as they used to, and the subsequent baby bust generation of the 1970s is smaller than its predecessor.

Modern urban development trends are more fuel efficient, emphasizing compact growth and smaller commutes to work, shopping and services.

Younger drivers tend to drive less than their predecessors, and tele-commuting, flexible hours, and trends such as online retail are also dampening vehicle use."

GWest

Nice to see you around these parts again friend.

The border effect

I assume that anyone that crosses the border to fill up their gas tank in Blaine, Sumas, Lynden or Bellingham contributes to BC's "green" economy because those gas sales are no longer recorded in BC?

I think the amount of gas sold immediately across the border should be added to BC's gas consumption stats.

Could be that the carbon tax in BC makes the price of gas in Washington look pretty good.

The Gwyn Morgan factor

Somebody needs to investigate all the connections between this guy and his company and the BC government.

I think it stinks.

One of the few things the

One of the few things the Campbell Liberals ever did that I agreed with.

And we are taxing people why?

The fiction that CO2 changes climate,the strange behavior of the scientists involved and the outrageous boondoggle that is the IPCC has been well covered.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/06/26/ipcc-admits-it-isnt-a-gold-standard-body/
http://www.climategate.com

I do so wish we could discuss something really relevant to man-made climate change like:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/offensive-technology-1/weather-weapons-not-science-fiction.html
Sigh....

Do you believe?

Do you believe the government's numbers? Or do you think that it is mostly spin? Remember that two dots make a straight line while 3 or more make a trend. Did the government provide the additional dots?

GWest

"Nice grammar lesson Frank - I notice JimorSheryl (on the teachers thread) could use a similar lesson about the difference between 'it's' and 'its'.

Is this a function of the failure of our school system?"

"I notice THAT JimorSheryl ..."

"Is this a CONSEQUENCE of the failure of our school system?"

It's those little grey cells, eh?

Frank

Nice to see you too my friend!

R'man

I realize it's ridiculous to get involved in this seeing as it runs so far afield from any discussion relevant to the blog article above, but what is the grammatical rationale for your correction to G West's, admittedly pedantic, gripe about jimorsheryl's use of 'its'?

I was under the impression that in contemporary usage (especially in an informal situation - ie. comment boards), 'that' was often optional as a segue-way from a reporting to a reported clause.

For example,

He worried that she would be angry.

and

He worried she would be angry.

are equivalent in practice and each considered correct, at least in informal circumstances, are they not?

Secondly, why would you require a question to read:

Is this a CONSEQUENCE of the failure of our school system?

instead of

Is this a function of the failure of our school system?

My understanding of the concept of a function is that it expresses a relation between inputs and outcomes, or that it refers to an element or variable that is related to or depends on other elements or variables.

While, stylistically, I might prefer to say, as you suggest, 'consequence', which I take to mean a result or outcome, I see no problem with the use of 'function' to get essentially the same point across.

So, while Gwest pedantically nitpicked someone's minor grammatical errors, Gwest was at minimum calling attention to what can legitimately be called errors. It's not clear what your intention was, except to start an argument, since each of the 'errors' you drew people's attention to were, in fact, more matters of stylistic preference than bona fide errors.

Anyway, that successfully saved me from a few minutes worth of productive work.... carry on.

g

Carbon Tax / Realisticman

You are correct, the Government gives individuals and corporations tax breaks, the government keeps the money and gives tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations, once again the general population subsidizes the Corporations and the wealthy.

Australia's Federal Labour Guvmint Introduces Carbon Tax

Updated: 17:12, Sunday July 1, 2012

Queensland Treasurer Tim Nicholls says the state will be hurt the most by the federal government's carbon tax.

The federal government's $23 per tonne price on carbon emissions started on Sunday, directly impacting on 294 electricity generators and other companies.

About 100 of those are Queensland companies, Mr Nicholls says.

In a dire outlook for the state, the treasurer says the tax would reduce Queensland's economic output by almost $10 billion a year by 2020.

Treasury modelling indicates as many as 21,000 Queensland jobs could be lost and wages could fall by up to $2,940, he says.

'...this toxic tax won't just impact the government through higher expenses and lower revenues,' Mr Nicholls said in a statement.

'The carbon tax will severely harm the state's economic growth, reduce the living standards of everyday Queenslanders and lead to higher electricity bills.'

Premier Campbell Newman said the tax also served as a scapegoat for companies to unjustifiably raise their prices.

http://www.skynews.com.au/politics/article.aspx?id=766955&vId=

Can't wait for the federal NDP to introduce their own carbon tax!

I'll do the thinking around here tank

It may be working for corporations and wealthy but it is doing diddly for the environment as polluters get big rewards.
Value added tax now that is a good one as it takes from the people and gives it to the biggest polluters around. Where is the value in that?
Don't tell me corporations are hiring because of the tax because it is anything but. The high cost of real estate has played more of a part in reducing carbon emissions.

gnam

Quibbling over grammar and nomenclature is expected when parlaying with comment boards. This one is certainly no exception and this instance is not the first. (Just ask West what he thinks of the oil sands.)

Omitting the conjunction 'that' can be accepted on occasion but, as Fowler points out, that is more usual in American usage. In my opinion I agree with Fowler that better clarity and ease of understanding is achieved when the conjunction is used. This brings up the question as to what is proper or common usage in Canada? Since English as a language does not have an equivalent of the Academie Francaise the language is continually evolving, so I will leave that to language observers and aficionados.

'Function' is far more properly used in regard to machines and other devices, Eric Partridge agrees. In the above mentioned case, using 'consequence' in place of 'function' also conveys the necessary, and missing, connotation. 'Function' alone includes no evaluation.

Thank you for your interest and considered comment. Quite productive I'd say.

Fowler??

Well... I'll be a monkey's uncle! That book was published in the 20's.

Looks like a nice reference though. I'll have to get a copy.

gnam

That was either brilliant or an amazing coincidence.

Fowler's first edition was printed in 1926, the same year as the Scopes Trial, wherein (possibly) originated the expression 'I'll be a monkey's uncle'.

Although, Fowler would probably not use that expression since it is usually used when one expresses surprise at learning something they otherwise thought untrue. Knock me down with a feather... could be better.

Here is a commentary by the author of the latest Fowler revision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwFVOU3zkRc

helping out the wealthy

Who do more harm to the environment and
in order for the tax to work it should be the other way around. Go after corporations and the rich and you will find sustainability while putting the money into environmental protection and R&D. The low income and those so house poor they cannot afford to turn on the heat in the dead of winter must give the wealthy their jollies while getting British Columbains tax dollars to boot.
You would have to be an real idiot or the wealthy to believe this equation would really work or have access to millions of tax dollars for a major advertising campaign to push it through.

i wish i could say it was brilliant.

thanks for the link r.

in point of fact, it was mostly coincidence. my elderly neighbor said it to me in a conversation a couple weeks back, which led me to research the expression. it seemed appropriately funny for use in this instance and I remembered reading something about the scopes trial and the mid-twenties (though I thought I read that trial was in '25). so my neighbor deserves any credit. anyway, that discussion ended up being kinda fun and useful. my copy of Fowler's book just shipped.

cheers

get real man

And don't forget the hated HST which has also played a factor in affordability in the most expensive city to live.
It is like that with everything people just don't have the money as government services don't have the people on board, like the bus or the ferries to just mention a few. And those disgusting low paying jobs have also played a major part in purchasing power as the cost of fuel has hurt more small and medium sized business owners who have done the bulk of the hiring while corporations downsize and get all the perks.

gnam

He was trying to start a fight.

I was, as you say, pointing out a common and very annoying grammatical error as a kind of addendum to what my friend Frank said earlier about someone else who serially makes a mess of 'your'/'you're'.

Thanks for taking him off my hands. My 'Fowler' is worn out from over use and, when it comes to this particular interlocutor, so is my patience.

You're also right about the 'Scopes' trial - it was decided on July 21, 1925. Six days later the winning jurist - William Jennings Bryan - died in his sleep.

Not many people do know that that decision was reversed by the Tennessee Supreme Court on a technicality...too bad the purblind ignorance behind the case can't be gotten rid of so easily.

Cheers.

I know why fuel consumption is down

Lower productivity = Lower consumption of energy + high unemployment. SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT GIVE YOUR MONEY TO THE WEALTHY.
BC is tops when it comes to lower productivity with Toronto claiming second spot and this the think tank attributes to the provinces going green. Toronto also has the HST which was said was going to be responsible for lowering productivity.
And these guys are supposed to be the thinkers.

LOWER FUEL CONSUMTION

Is it possible that the people in the Lower Mainland just simply go to Washington state and buy their gas, hence lower gas sales in BC. If the study was done in central and northern BC I think you will find that more not less fuel is being consumed.

Bill doesn't like booming economy, effective carbon tax?

When the NDP inherits this resource-led boom, Bill Tieleman will be bragging about it.

Shifting taxation from earned income to consumption and pollution is definitely a good idea. Bill tieleman is a leading enemy of that concept, even though it is one of the few ways to reduce the trade-offs that our society faces.

Although a bit problematic when undertaken in just one jurisdiction, that kind of risk-taking is what leadership is all about. If you want to use more of that revenue for green purposes instead of cuts to progressive income taxes, fine. But let's ignore Bill Tieleman and just do it.

Bill doesn't like booming economy, effective carbon tax?

When the NDP inherits this resource-led boom, Bill Tieleman will be bragging about it.

Shifting taxation from earned income to consumption and pollution is definitely a good idea. Bill tieleman is a leading enemy of that concept, even though it is one of the few ways to reduce the trade-offs that our society faces.

Although a bit problematic when undertaken in just one jurisdiction, that kind of risk-taking is what leadership is all about. If you want to use more of that revenue for green purposes instead of cuts to progressive income taxes, fine. But let's ignore Bill Tieleman and just do it.

Booming economy?

Where exactly is that happening? And, given the changed rules under TILMA, even those parts of the province which are doing relatively well because of the energy industry much of the benefit is going to Alberta companies.