I'm with you grump on how

I'm with you grump on how people, even the wise and all knowing enviros,got sucked into Gord's latest scam. As I wrote yesterday even our village idiot saw this coming; hmmm, maybe he's not so dumb after all. We'll just have to strip him of his title cuz there are other people who are more qualified to be the village idiot. (see the above for some of the candidates).

City....You sound desperate.

City....You sound desperate. Especially when it comes to the "faithful". Which faithful?

How about faith in "wealth creating foreign investment".

What do they bring to this, or any other country? And the governments who sell, colonize and enslave the lands and people within their jurisdictions to them.

Ed Deak.

Now, Ed...

Ed, you really should take a break. You need approximately 45,433 cans of beans to sustain you when the apocalypse comes. You had better go count how many you have. You might be one short and when the carbon tax comes next month, you will not be able to afford to go to town to get that one extra can.

I might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer

I can`t believe these enviros can be that stupid!
Have not any of them been following the legislation?
Here is a few facts--#1 Campbell wants to use 2007 emission levels for reductions,the reason,we don`t even get those levels until late 2008
The ndp asked Campbell to use 2005 levels for emission targets that way he could of set targets this year(another stall)

The million people moving are they not bringing a carbon footprint?(the enviros haven`t considered that)
700 million in subsidies to big oil and gas!
GATEWAY--SFPR--DEATH TO THE BOG--PORT MANN TWINNING--FLATHEAD VALLEY COAL--FISH FARMS--GAS FLARING--A PASS TO BIG INDUSTRY--MORE SOCIAL CUTS TO HOSPITALS,SCHOOLS,EVERTHING because the tax will come out of a already lacking budget!
The secret agenda for offshore oil and gas--Oil tankers off our waters--A pipeline bringing crude across our province(creating 70 full time jobs)
Untaxed coal to CHINA--School closings that caused kids to bussed a zillion miles a year.
Port expansion,ALR destruction and giveaways--Giving away our forest for more urban spraw(ilegally)
Either the enviros can`t read or SEE!

I suspect that the "huggers" know Campbell is a flim flam man and they will turn on him and his party,the game their playing with all goverment is one upmanship--They are attempting to start a save the planet battle between parties!
I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but I am not playing with the "green scene"
I just hope the REAL people wake up to this PANDERING PUFF SHOW

DJT

Couldn`t have said it better.

the Greenies have to realize

that the majority of BCer's hate this tax, and it isn't going down well at all. Campbell is going to lose the next election over it. Most of us can see that it is merely a tax grab and has nothing to do with being green.

Lets be realistic

Big companies that pollute have to be mandated to cut emissions but remember this,if it costs company x money to clean up their act that cost will be passed on to the consumer.

If we can lease BC rail for a thousand years why can`t we make our natural gas last a thousand years,think about wild salmon over a 1000 years,we don`t need to mine everything in a few years,cities should look a 1000 years ahead.

Technology will come and when it does we will buy into it, the green scene won`t be happy until everyone is walking or biking over the port mann to work, hell a 8 hour commute would be fine,who needs a life.

A 33% reduction with a million people coming here is more like a 60% reduction.
I never went to school and I can figure this out,why is it no one has brains enough to report this phony scheme accurately.
I don`t here the environuts screaming about the 1.5 billion people on the verge of starving to death but they want to pave over farm land for "eco density"
A true green would shut the border lower population ban growth and blockade GATEWAY

KUMBIA MY AZZ

That Pesky Constitution Thing....

That is a really good idea, Brian. However, that pesky Canadian Constitution gets in the way. You see, it guarantees mobility rights. That means, after you and I arrive in BC, we can't shut the border. It also makes immigration a federal responsibility. The government of BC, no matter who leads it, cannot prevent people from entering the province.

That is unless you want to have a constitutional amendment. That would take the amendment being passed by six legislature making up two thirds of the population.

So you have a good idea. It is up to you to get the ball rolling for the constitutional change, or vote for a party that has your interests in its platform.

Immigration

Quote:

The government of BC, no matter who leads it, cannot prevent people from entering the province.
----

According to the Liberals the NDP managed to drive people out of the province, so according to the Liberals I guess government can affect population numbers. :)

Real solutions for real change

If you want workers to stop driving, start by providing better local and regional transit, including intercity bus and rail. We know that we can afford this because Kevin Falcon has money for a bridge to his riding. We can also plan for denser cities so people can get where they have to go without a car. Urban BC won't look quite the same, but it beats paving our farmland and choking the air. The carbon tax isn't going to fund either.

Excellent comment above, Ian Weniger.

Wow....some real solutions - instead of the distraction and clever carbon tax dodge that the BC Liberals hide behind....and that the Greens are endorsing as well. Meanwhile, we lose precious time.

It's late in the game.

Our solutions should be effective and actually solve things.

Very good posts record

That really nailed it down. I have yet to find anyone who thinks this tax is anything more than a cash grab or a political gimmick to make Campbell look green. If there is support for it it comes from a few misguided that sure don't let on that they are in favour.

politico

A friendly press goes a long ways towards helping this...........

revenue neutral

How can a tax designed to get people out of their cars and onto transit be revenue neutral?

Unless you factor in every single aspect of car use, from accidents to road repairs, to long-term health effects, it is revenue negative (less tax from gas, more people on subsidized transit). Since nobody is calculating all those extra costs and holding current car users responsible for them now, I fail to see why that would suddenly happen with this tax.

Too late now anyway. The Boomers f*cked us all when they talked the talk but didn't walk the walk on the environment until it was too late.

Best we can hope for now is to severely curtail fossil fuel use so that future generations have a slightly softer crash landing.

Every litre you burn now is a baby starving in the dark and cold tomorrow. Nice work y'all!

Revenue neutral

Quote:
A true carbon tax is revenue neutral.... The revenue from the tax MUST go to infrastructure that supports the change....

----

Such a "revenue neutral" tax is robbing money from other important public programs such as health care and education, etc. The Liberal program attacks the social safety net as well as being a regressive tax that affects lower income people more than the well off.

Any carbon tax should be in addition to existing taxes and any relief for lower income people that may be necessary to offset their increased costs should come from increased taxes on the wealthy segment of society.

And the responsibility for our mess goes way back beyond the Boomers, and extends forward right to successive generations.

the mess and the boomers

Sure, responsibility for the mess can get spread around, but it was the Baby Boomers who said they were going to start dealing with it... but didn't. And that has set the stage for the current lack of momentum we see now.

Sorry, it's a sad fact, esp. for a generation that prided themselves on enlightenment while exhibiting little in the way of personal responsibility (isolated examples excepted)... but unpalatability just ain't gonna make it untrue I'm afraid.

Big mistake

If everyone praises the phony gas tax and gets on bended knees and bows to Campbell its a big mistake.
Why would I make that statement,simple,if we don`t call the flim flam plan what it is we will never get a real solution!

Anyone who thinks it is revenue nuetrol is fooling themselves.
If it makes you believers feel better send the provincial goverment extra money.
In fact just bypass the middle man and send your money directly to the oil and gas industry! Why? Because their the biggest benifactors with 700 million dollars in subsidies over 2 years,coming directly out of the GAS TAX!

record

Jerry West's columns on the gas tax, development, etc should be required reading.

Forget "revenue-neutral", we need growth-neutral policies and a lot of population-reduction.

Worth repeating for Ian

"If it makes you believers feel better send the provincial government extra money.
In fact just bypass the middle man and send your money directly to the oil and gas industry! Why? Because they're the biggest benefactors with 700 million dollars in subsidies over 2 years,coming directly out of the GAS TAX!" brian gough

And, that is over and above all the obscene profits they make by making sure that supply never meets the demand.

The Carbon Tax - Public Opinion

I, for one, think that the carbon tax is a form of social engineering and am ambivalent about same.

That said, public opinion is somewhat intriguing:

A BC Environics poll from February:

"Do you support or oppose the new carbon tax for BC?"

Support: 55%
Oppose: 42%

http://erg.environics.net/media_room/default.asp?aID=668

And a recently released McAllister Opinion Research poll:

The Government of British Columbia recently introduced a carbon tax on fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

All things considered, do you feel this was a positive or negative step?

Positive: 72%
Negative: 23%

http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/C-TaxPoll-Backgrounder.pdf

And Mustel's take on the impact of the carbon tax:

She's noticed a softening of the NDP's suburban vote and a strengthening of the Greens' support and wondered whether an issue such as the carbon tax may be playing a role in that perceived shift.

http://www.canada.com/richmondnews/news/opinion/story.html?id=6b9e9fea-5c20-4edb-97cf-ad8b76c5aab7

Ambivalent because it came from Campbell

Any sample no matter how significant would be mostly from the southern urban centers. The part that includes the comment "to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." influences the outcome because it makes a judgment and any person who knew little about Campbell's tax would be inclined to answer a certain way. Then there is the Chamber of Commerce, they would like anything Campbell did. I repeat anything!

The Environics poll more accurately reflects gut reactions. Now wait till they start paying more for everything that needs transport - all those basic necessities. Then they will start asking about the details in Campbell's tax and then watch out.

skywalker

Vague polls,people think a carbon tax is for big industry,just ask people if their willing to pay more for their home heating oil,their propane,gas for their smart car.

Then tell them that big industry gets a free pass,then tell them there will be more social cuts to hospitals ,schools,everything because they all will have to pay for the increases out of their already lacking budgets.
Then tell people about the big oil and gas subsidies.
Then tell all the people to get on a bus when most rural ares don`t have one!

Once you lay out the framework for this gas tax(that isn`t revenue nuetrol)people will rebel and possibly punch out the pollster.
Luke skywalker I would expect a stronger arguement from you but I guess defending this gas tax is pretty tough!

good post skywalker

nailed it on the polls

"The reason why voters

"The reason why voters approve of the carbon tax is because they want to keep breathing fresh BC air and keep out little corner of the world free of pollution."
REALLY? If we were free of pollution, perhaps we wouldn't need a carbon tax.
Also, it is rather obvious that a 2 cent tax will not get people out of their cars. Do you see less cars on the road today, even though gas has gone up 20-30 cents a liter this year alone?????

fernwoodguy figured it out.

it's not a tax grab, it's a wealth transfer: a regressive tax coupled to a subsidy to an industry which enjoys historically high commodity prices.

if the NDP needs a message that's it. the rest of this is just BS.

The first thing that occured

The first thing that occured to me when I read the results of the above posted polls (and which was alluded to by Brian Gough) was just how uninformed most Canadians are. Either that or their only source of information is Canwest which, I suppose, amounts to the same thing.

Oil Prices trump Carbon Tax & Enviros

G West, your assertion that commenting on Gordo's carbon tax can't be done without reading his legislation is rather self serving and makes you rather troll like! All the same, the rest of your comments are much appreciated.

Last Feb. 26, the Tyee published an article by William E.Rees (Economist who invented 'eco-footprint' analysis is not impressed)

But let's be clear. To achieve the necessary deep cuts in consumption and waste production will require major restructuring of the economy that should have begun years ago. [snip]

As matters stand, B.C.'s seemingly "aggressive" move is politically designed to have minimal impacts. The province is still dedicated to outmoded notions of economic growth at any cost -- and if the costs exceed the benefits (as many suspect is the case at the global level) we are actually encouraging uneconomic growth that will ultimately impoverish us all.

I think William Rees is more than qualified to comment on GC's carbon tax!

The truth is, this new carbon tax amounts to a drop in the bucket when you place it along side with the increases in gas & fuel prices since the Liberals suggested it. As for all the good intentioned enviros wanting to save us all from ourselves by supporting Gordon Campbell's carbon tax. Hey guys, you missed the boat!

Oil prices have done more to reduce consumption since Jan 07 than any carbon tax ever will. Several months ago in a podcast,RichardHeinberg , who has written several books on Peak Oil and a member of the Post Carbon Institute, he suggests that most if not all 'enviros' are out of step with what is happening and what needs to happen in relation to climate change and the predicament we are in. In step with that comment he feels that Peak Oilers are those that best understand what is happening and what will happen as we slide down the slope of peak oil.

So the Green Party, the Sierra Club, the Pembina Institute, the David S. Foundation, the WWC and the author Mr. Barrett can criticize Carol James and the NDP for not jumping on their band wagon, but as the saying goes, "only fools rush in".

There appear to be plenty of opinions about what needs to be done to beat this climate change problem, in the meantime the Provincial Liberals are running up the middle with the ball and you are all saying wow, there goes Gordon the undisputed king of carbon taxes!

All I can say is I sure hope you'all get your heads out of the sand before its too late!

Price of gas, price of food...

What would be next, a tax on food to cut down on obesity?

Dion and Campbell both want carbon taxes yet both still want more people, more goods, more globalization...

They will never square that circle and I see no reason industry can move jobs to China or Mexico, then ship those goods back to us and yet I'm the one that gets taxed when I drive over to Cdn Tire.

NicS: Rees comments are valid

If you'll note my own comments on that thread I think you'll find they are pretty much in agreement with his. I also happen to know a bit about how this legislation came into being and how little actual planning and forethought went into it.

And since that time I have read Bill 37 and the Regulations. A subscription to QP legaleze at http://www.qplegaleze.ca/default.htm
will enable anyone who is interested to do the same.

Unfortunately, it’s a subscription service so it will cost you some money. You can also use your subscription to track the growth of another little innovation of the Campbell government – the Bureau of Public Affairs – and the way this little body uses OIC appointments (avoiding the controls and mediation of the Public Service Act) to spin its way into the hearts and minds of British Columbians.

I think any group or individual who wants to understand what the Campbell Tax is all about needs to read the legislation as well.

How such suggestions could be self-serving and troll-like is a mystery to me.

If people (and supposedly responsible environmental groups) wish to make fools of themselves by pretending that a 'revenue neutral' tax designed to shovel money up one stairway and down another to absolutely NO positive benefit in terms of addressing the putative raison d'etre for the law in question is a 'green' effort, then have at it.

As time passes I'll quote further sections from Bill 37 that describe the Byzantine circumlocutions businesses and administrators will have to go through in order to ensure the golden mean of 'revenue neutrality' is achieved.

I'm involved in an effort here to get people to actually LOOK at what the Campbell Tax is all about. From what you write, I think you're interested in the same thing.

I'd say that's far from self-serving and it sure isn't trolling.

Let's work together to shake people enough that they'll finally wake up.

I welcome respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

Ed Deak is on to something

Ed Deak is on to something here:

"The biggest oil/energy users are businesses, and all they're going to do is pass it on to their customers in the stores."

Brian Gough echos Ed's insight with this reminder; "Big companies that pollute have to be mandated to cut emissions but remember this,if it costs company x money to clean up their act that cost will be passed on to the consumer."

As a general Ed, do you agree that lower corporate taxes mean lower prices for consumers? You know, working families.

fernwoodguy, could you elaborate on this please;

"In the last budget , with the announcement of the coming carbon tax, came a 350 million tax break to oil and gas (plus another 220 million to banks)."

Where, exactly, did you see these tax breaks you quote, to energy and financial companies in the provincial budget? Only some credit unions are headquartered in BC, was it they that were allotted this massive largess?

Ian Weniger writes, "Look, any consumption tax hurts the poor more than the rich. ". Therefore, we presume, that you strongly support both the provincial Liberals of Gordon Campbell and the federal Conservatives of Stephen Harper, two who reduced the Sales Tax and the GST, respectively.

Ian also, "We can also plan for denser cities so people can get where they have to go without a car.". Support of mayor Sam Sullivan's Eco Density, we presume?

Lynn likes both ideas, lower consumption taxes and urban density. "Wow....some real solutions -"

Frank, you're with Brian on the 'fence the border' plan, I believe. You say, "a lot of population-reduction." A radical suggestion we often hear. Any legal ideas?

Brian, you really should follow GWest's advice and read the bill. This is not true, "Then tell them that big industry gets a free pass," Where did you learn this? It's baloney.

Ian gregson

Are you for real? This is a bold move? Have you read Bill 37 like GWest said?

http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th4th/1st_read/gov37-1.htm

Go ahead - read it. Show me where it says that the money collected will go back into green projects, alternate fuels, transport sources or heat sources. Show me where hog and pellet fuels or coal are covered, as greenhouses, power plants and industrial facilities are now calling for tenders on. Show me that the taxes collected are proportional to the calorific value of the fuel or the pollution value of the waste.

Go ahead - slam the NDP all you want, but this Act is a wretched piece of legislation that will do absolutely nothing to alter the use of fuel, creation of warming pollutants, or reduce waste, and if you and the Greenies persist in supporting such wretched legislation without looking at it first and evaluating its impact, you'll be in the same trash can of history that the Fiberals belong in.

Honestly! I really should push the "offensive" button on you, except you're obviously new here.

David Suzuki

June 05, 2008

I stand by my statements!

Heres one more for you realisticman

The carbon/gas tax that schools pay,hospitals,municipal goverments pay,regional districts,all those sort of things, they don`t get TAX REFUNDS SO WHERE DOES THAT MONEY GO!

To corporate tax breaks(The corporations that have been exempted)

realisticman

You realize that it was right-wing governments that introduced the GST and PST?

How does that square with your belief they should now be supported for decreasing taxes they created?

Legal? It seems to me Canada's birth rate has been in decline which means we are naturally adjusting our population to the resources available. What's radical is the idea we can keep bringing in more people while keeping Canada the same size.

The oil and exploration shell game

The big announcement last week by the MINISTER of ENERGY

450 MILLION in new claims for oil and gas exploration.

Nothing but a 2 way shell game--Here the bc liberals give oil and gas a 330 million dollar tax break (wink nod wink nod)

Oil and gas industry gives it back to the BC LIBERAL GOVERMENT all for the purpose of allowing the MINISTER of ENERGY to make a big annoucement about all the "new money"the BC GOVERMENT got from their energy policy!

Talk about a 2 way grease and lube job!

Why don`t we talk about the energy ministers own riding --A special forest stumpage rate to allow FORT NELSONS CANFOR MILLS TO STAY OPEN AND PROFITABLE but no other communities gat that deal even though they have all ASKED FOR IT.

You just can`t see the forest through the trees!

Frank

How does that square with your belief they should now be supported for decreasing taxes they created?

My belief has not been stated. I find it amusing that socialists that slammed the Harper and Campbell governments for lowering consumption taxes, are now decrying the introduction of one.

taxing behaviour

Oh, I'm sure this here carbon tax will have people running from their cars to lower their home's thermostat, put on a sweater, and install solar panels.

After all, look at how lots of taxes have curbed smokin' and drinkin'!

Oh wait....

Say what?

What consumption tax did GORDON CAMPBELL ever lower?

realisticman

Glad to hear you're worried about working families. Does this mean you also support lower corporate profits so as to keep prices cheaper for those families?

And I assume you also therefore support closing our markets to the goods produced by companies that moved production out of Canada and laid off average Canadians?

By the way, it was a Conservative gov't that introduced the Income Tax too was it not? After all, I don't remember the NDP-CCF even existing in 1917.

realisticman

Cool, I find it amusing that people that always support governments that create taxes criticise others when they feel a tax is wrong.

Brian

450 MILLION in new claims for oil and gas exploration.

Nothing but a 2 way shell game--Here the bc liberals give oil and gas a 330 million dollar tax break (wink nod wink nod)

Oil and gas industry gives it back to the BC LIBERAL GOVERMENT all for the purpose of allowing the MINISTER of ENERGY to make a big annoucement about all the "new money"the BC GOVERMENT got from their energy policy!

Can you direct us to the information source where you get this figure of $330 million? Ever were it to be true it would still be a net gain to our public coffers of $120 million. A shell game in the people's interest!

wrong again my fine feathered freind

NO not a net gain of 120 million dollars,what it is freind is a 210 million dollar loss to bcers with nothing coming back.

You and my freind LUKE SKYWALKER are pretty good with that liberal math!

Brian

Answer:

The PST rate is 7%. It was decreased from 7.5% effective October 21, 2004. During the Gordon Campbell government.

let me explain in simple terms

We had 330 million dollars and now we have 120 million dollars---Economics 101

come on--get real

Campbell raised the pst to 7.5 % then lowered it back down to 7%

Kinda like GORDON CAMPBELL putting his rock in our shoes and then we are supposed to be grateful when GORDON CAMPBELL takes "his rock" out of "our shoes"

brian

Sorry Brian, but Liberal-Economics 101 counts the people the money was given to. So if we have 330 million and we give 220 million of it to Daddy Warbucks who spends it and another 230 million to let's say destroy a river valley then "we" now have 560 million.

See how it works? Environmental damage doesn't have a cost because Mother Nature has never submitted a bill and Daddy Warbuck's money counts as our own even if he doesn't live here.

And, if the BC Liberals introduce a tax that goes up 2.5 cents a litre for 20 years then in 20 years decide to reduce the rate from 50 centrs a litre to 49 they should be lauded for lowering our taxes.

You can contact your MLA for a Liberal-Economics home study kit.

I explainy it to you some more

Oil and gas have been making big money.

We already had the 330 million dollars --Oil and gas industry want to make more money so they would have paid millions of dollars to BC for the chance to maybe make billions, therefor we would of had the 330 million dollars from last year and --are you ready for this hundreds of millions for this year!

If they didn`t get the sudsidies they were not going to go away.

Frank

We can't lower corporate profits by raising taxes Frank, as Ed and Brian tell us, those companies will only pass on the costs to consumers! As for your assumption regarding my opinion about closing our markets to goods from companies that move offshore, that's a waste of time. If a company can make a go of it here it will. I can assure you Frank that any manufacturer would rather keep their plant close to home where they can survey the operation conveniently. If the alternative to offshore manufacturing, or services, is bankruptcy then I say go offshore. At least we can hope that the head office will remain here with all the concomitant work.

Brian

What are you reading?

Vancouver (Platts)--23May2008

After five sales this year, British Columbia has collected C$759 million
from 533,000 acres, compared with C$107 million from 266,600 acres over the
same period last year, putting the province on track to beat last year's
record C$1.05 billion.

Frank

Sorry Brian

They're biting. I'll let you play.

realisticman

Well moral suasion doesn't seem to have worked either. Yet, although you seem concerned that the little guy is paying high prices you believe its okay for him to pay the higher taxes which occurs when corporate taxes are lowered.

That doesn't square with your previous assertion that foreign investment is good when 90%+ of it is simply the takeover of Canadian companies. So you support both the loss of head offices and the loss of good jobs here simply to make the now foreign company's bottom line better.

I thought you were concerned about emissions? How do we lower emissions by moving the factory further away from its market? Especially if the new location has lower environmental standards? Yet you support the carbon taxing of me when I drive to the store to buy that now made-offshore product.

Just 533.000 acres

Campbell is thinking small,I`m sure he could sell(I mean lease) the QUEEN CHARLETTE ISLANDS for a thousand years for say 2 billion dollars.

We wouldn`t want our natural gas to last for more than a decade would we.

Why have just a couple of dozen profitable mines operating in BC when we can have 5000 mines going at once.

Campbell when he was in CHINA last week was promoting old growth cedar to the CHINESE for home building,not milled wood,RAW LOGS.

No one in BC (next to no one)eats farmed salmon but lets open up a zillion of them!

The future generations in BC will be living green because CAMPBELL is selling everthing,in fact I have put a lock and chain and a car alarm and have my cat JAZZ standing guard over my KITCHEN SINK.

Frank

By the way, we're heading out to buy a couple of Silverado's. Shall I put you down for one?

realisticman

Chev's a good brand, you can't go wrong with a Silverado. I hope you and the wife are both getting crew cabs?

realisticman

You may want to look at craigslist first, there's a LOT of F-150s, Silverados, Rams, Tundras etc and its a buyer's market right now for some reason. Can't figure out why since Campbell's new carbon tax hasn't even hit us yet.

BC Natural Gas...

Brian Gough:

You and my freind LUKE SKYWALKER are pretty good with that liberal math!

Are you engaged in some left-wing (non-centrist) NDP math perhaps?? lol

A little financial background on BC natural gas:

1. $5 billion invested *every year* in northeast BC;

2. $1.2 billion received into BC's coffers in fiscal year ending March 31, 2007;

3. $Billions$ into BC's coffers every year through royalties;

No chump change. No sirrreeee.

Huhhhhhhh... a $210 million loss??????

That's net of the value of the credits, which tallied at about $250 million.

But it is hard to see the $250 million as any kind of loss to the provincial treasury.

He offered reductions in royalty rates of up to 40 per cent, aimed at encouraging the industry to drill new wells.

Subsidies? Giveaways to big business? Not at all, explained Dan Miller, then energy minister. "Incentives."

The discounted royalty rates would act as a spur to development. Additional production would boost provincial revenues by more than the cost of the incentives, Miller predicted.

Spot on. The provincial take from natural gas royalties has increased 10-fold since the New Democratic Party government cut the rate to encourage development.

http://www.dogwoodinitiative.org/newsstories/ndpCriticHeadsVpalmeronoilandgassubidies/view?searchterm=gregor

A successful New Democrat initiated program now being trashed by New Democrats who wanna "kill the goose that laid the golden egg."

Imagine that!

Luke Skywalker

And gas consumption has increased because of federal, provincial and municipal taxes on it?

Or is that sometimes perhaps the effect isn't due to the cause we wish?

I think as prices rose fossil fuels were gonna get pulled out of the ground with or without incentives.

Also, the taking of resources from the environment has a cost that is not quantified in your post.

Ideology question

Luke, why do you support using public tax dollars to support private companies?

Is it that you feel the market won't provide for them?

Luke Skywalker

Imagine that!

Its called not standing 100% behind every policy put out by the people you voted for right or wrong. Here on the Left we do it all the time. You guys should try it sometime.

Imagine that indeed eh?

Carbon reduction

Oil and gas don`t need subsidies,they won`t go anywhere.
Record profits for all, all CAMPBELLS freinds,It doesn`t matter how much money is generated if it just gets squandered.

Housing on the slide,forestry dead,tourism dead,private debt levels rising,2/3 of the people of BC being left behind.

The social fabric of this province has deteriorated under this goverment.
Statistics can be used anyway you want if your a spin doctor.
I listen to all sides and make my assertions from those facts,I speak from my soul and my heart,my personal feelings aside if I don`t see the majority of lives improving for this province then stats mean nothing.

The needs of the many ouy way the needs of the few(Spock-The wrath of khan)

Democracy and freedom matter to me,honesty,integrity and openess are important,all goverments have a few bad apples but this BC LIBERAL goverment,well the whole apple tree is infested with worms.

Hitler got germany economy rolling but it was based on a lie.I don`t like secrecy and alterior motives,you and I can banter away but you know and I know and anyone who cares to look that CAMPBELL is out of control!

There are many wise posters on this site and you LUKE SKYWALKER are the king stats and stories but you know what,they don`t mean anything,show me your soul,show me your passion,comment in colour not in corporate letter head.

no bills???

“Mother Nature has never submitted a bill …”

Unbelieveable!

This is the kind of thinking that is at the root of all of humanities ills. It’s the kind of the thinking that believes man isn’t part of Mother Nature’s creations and that we’re somehow completely detached from, and not part of, the environment.

Take a good look around. Humans (Mother Nature’s creations) are everywhere and they’re part of your environment. Doctors, lawyers, those in the military and law enforcement, and teachers are part of that environment. And some of those humans are doing things that have enormous costs on the environment around them. And because of their activities the environment is subitting bills. And everbody pays … big time.

Do you honestly believe our prisons and hospitals aren’t part of Mother Nature’s bill? Or how about our drug and alcohol treatment facilties? And how about the enormous cost of human life going on in the Middle East and Africa? And then there's Chernobyl and the Exon Valdes ... the list of bills is endless.

KWD

I think you want to look at the whole post as sarcasm. The Liberal-Economics home study kit is not meant to be taken literally.

Frank...

You do understand the difference between a tax credit and a direct financial cash subsidy??

Natural gas in BC is currently focused upon high-risk, very expensive, deep depth, shale gas.

Alberta has the same resource but they screwed up their high-risk gas regime last year.

As a result, here are the provincial receipts for crown land grants comencing
January, 2008:

BC: $751 million

Alberta: $352 milllion

So who is the big financial winner in this picture????

And then there are the tax credits in the film industry... All provinces have 'em.

Now why does centrist New Democrat Gary Doer support "using tax dollars to support private companies" (your words)????

Manitoba Budget 2008:

1. Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit

2. Film and Video Production Tax Credit

3. Interactive Digital Media Tax Credit

4. Book Publishing Tax Credit

5. Manitoba Mineral Exploration Tax Credit

http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/EF57B1F494FAAE5285257428005CBD97

Luke Skywalker

So the short answer is that you do indeed support giving private companies money.

I assume its because you think they're incapable of making a living in the marketplace?

Would that be because they have drug and alcohol issues or because they're lazy?

Luke Skywalker

Could it be because they're wrong or is that impossible to believe of the Manitoba NDP?

Don't let Campbell fool you

This is not a serious effort to tackle global warming, it's a sham "green wash" tax. Proof: The oil and gas industries which are responsible for the whole mess in the first place are being exempted. Transit fares in the Lower Mainland are being increased by this government not being made more affordable so that more people will choose transit not cars. The Campbell government is willing to make driving more expensive but not provide cheaper alternatives! Also, the so-called "revenue neutrality" is effected by tax cuts for rich people and corporations. This is "tax shifting" all right...from the poor to the rich!

And of course to the wealthy elite (such as Mr. Campbell) the gas tax is a very minor annoyance and will not make them change their behaviour! To the average (poor) British Columbian, it's much more of a burden since it cuts into a bigger percentage of their income...but the government isn't offering reasonable alternatives (cheaper public transit, cheap passenger trains in rural areas.)
The so-called $100 rebate is a great negative example of why we have a government--living below the poverty line, I cannot do anything substantial with $100 to reduce my emissions, but the BC Government could do a lot with $440 million--expand transit/reduce fares, start a car trade-in with hybrid vehicles, etc.

The Tyee journalist and some commentators don't seem to have a clear idea of the NDP position on carbon taxes and the environment as a whole. I talked to Carole James personally in March and she assured me that the NDP still supports a fair carbon tax aimed at industries and providing alternatives for transit etc. Also, in November the BC NDP passed a resolution at our Convention to adopt the "Sustainable BC" environment strategy for the 2009 election--ask our Caucus about it.

DAVID SUZUKI'S POLITICAL REALIGNMENT

I don't think it should come as any major surprise to anyone that David Suzuki is publically aligning himself and his Foundation squarely in the Liberal corner, both federally and provincially.

His latest statements, in which he has within a few weeks denounced both Jack Layton (a lifelong environmentalist) and Carole James for failing to support either Dion's carbon tax plan or Campbell's carbon tax bill is just the latest and most explicit gesture in a journey that began on January 23rd 2006. The moment the dreaded Conservatives came to power, Suzuki and other environmental NGO leaders felt an urgent need to scramble politically.

The first gestures were conciliatory, awarding Brian Mulroney some kind of prize for being the most green of all past Prime Ministers. When this move failed to gain traction, the gloves came off.

He sponsored Elizabeth May for the Green Leadership, which became nothing more than the first step in setting up a formal Green-Liberal electoral alliance. In a byelection in London Ontario in late 2006 the Liberal-Green political street theatre helped the Liberals retain a seat that was threatened, and decimated the NDP, which is what the Liberals wanted out of the deal all along.

In BC in March, the strategy did not work so smoothly, as a rising Green vote nearly pushed a supposedly safe Liberal seat in Vancouver Quadra into the Conservative's hands. But that didn't matter as much as keeping the NDP at 15% despite their candidate being an attractive young student who could have reached out to many youth voters.

In BC, Suzuki has been sucking up to Gordon Campbell in a manner no different that Mark Jaccard. Both have concluded that the BC Liberals are here to stay and have decided that if they want gainful employment and the right to say they're having a direct impact on policy, they have to get on board the Liberal campaign bus. And they have.

Dear Realistico Man

Nope, not what I said.

I didn't mention a thing about lowering (or increasing for that matter) consumption taxes. I just agreed with Ian Weniger that "any consumption tax hurts the poor more than the rich"...and that yes, the carbon tax is a consumption tax...and thus unfair because it further victimizes the poor. (Much like the incessant user fees that Campbell stuck on everything.)

I also agree with Ian H. that the carbon tax is a simplistic and piecemeal approach...and an ineffective one when it comes to addressing a complex problem that demands a much wider scope of vision - one focused instead on better ways to travel and the subsequent necessary design of urban communities that will support this new approach to "better local and regional transit".

And nope I wasn't defending urban density. Just accepting the fact that we are dinosaurs and that the reality is that cities will become increasingly dense, much like we are about the ways in which we choose to live. ;-) So accepting that reality, we at least should PLAN for it. Plan, invent, and create means of easier A to B travel without having to use a car and build more accessible urban communities within the city that support that means of transit - and that hopefully will help prevent urban sprawl from smothering precious irreplaceable farmland.

That's all I've got.

I live farwaway from the city where a pair of oars and a small rowboat will get you almost anywhere... dependent, of course on how the wind doth blow.

david suzuki

Yes, David does tell us we need to reduce our footprints; but does he walk the walk?

He has flown/traveled the planet to bring documentaries to us about all kinds of science, including global warming. He owns and heats more than one home. He has a sailboat that sits tied up much more than it is used. I wonder if it's head empties directly int the ocean. When not under sail, he's burning fossil fuels to bring it to port. Boats are harmful to the environment just from the standpoint of their leachings into the water and maintenance. A boat with little use is a black-eye for the environment. From Vancouver, he travels well up island to his retreat and his boat burning fossil fuels all the way.

David Suzuki is a do as I say, not as I do kind of guy - he reminds me of Gordon Campbell. It is no wonder that they have teamed up.

Lynn

Thanks for the clarification.

We'll just accept that you too support Stephen Harper and the Conservatives lowering the most prominent consumption tax; the GST.

You are right about the density too. Sam Sullivan's density plan does make sense. Funny how so many cry out against it, isn't it?

WIRED MAGAZINE: 16.06

Sharing is Good

Do you think that Jack Layton and the federal NDP have now parted ways? Who will those in favour of environmental protection for?

http://douglas.ndp.ca/suzuki/en/

Cruel logic

realisticman,

This is the kind of cruel logic the Gordon Campbell government practices:

First they re-locate emergency and medical services in rural areas so citizens must travel longer distances for aid and care. The same for the closing of schools -longer distances must be travelled by many. The same for the closing of senior care residences. Families must travel farther. Court rooms have closed in a number of rural areas. Longer distances again. Ferry fares on the coast have increased dramatically since the pseudo privatization of BC Ferries. Imagine what the carbon tax will do to freight costs to rural and isolated communities coupled with increasing ferry fare and gas costs. All of these costs passed on to the consumer...the dominos begin to fall.

Not to mention the closing of so many mills, the thousands who have lost their jobs...and who will have to look for work and travel longer distances to do so. As if as they travel in search of work they need more to carry on their shoulders.

The carbon tax over and over hits those most who least need the extra burden.

So the wily old Fiberals not only increased the distances many must travel in this province but now they are going to tax us for the difficult situation, they as government have recklessly imposed on many of us. Talk about a double whammy!

This is heartless and unfair.... and twisted - because it is this government by the arrogant choices they have made that is causing people to have to drive longer distances than ever before for services that used to be offered locally.

SIG

SIG, while I agree that reducing our carbon footprint might be a laudable goal, I cannot see how this can be accomplished in any realistic amount without seriously interfering with our "Way of life". Whether we admit it or not, we are entirely dependant upon cheap energy, and we will never willingly go back to the "basics" en masse.

Surely we must recgnise the harm that is being wreaked upon the poor peoples of this world as the price of oil increases? And if this persists, it will continue to be the poor that will be hurt most, with no effect upon the rich, or upon overall consumption of oil.

The only thing that can change this picture is the development of alternate sources of energy. If the good Dr Suzuki seeks genuine change, he would marshall his considerable forces in the pursuit of alternate energy sources, not this presently futile wild goose chase.

While it was initially important for the recognition of pollution sources, I cannot understand why this boneheaded fixation upon the evils of oil now so completely overshadows all other environmental goals.

The only answer I can think of is that it is a tried-and-true fundraiser.

realisticman

I don't know what is going on with Jack Layton and Suzuki. I did follow the link, and I saw Suzuki with Layton at an NDP fundraiser/environmental event in Toronto. Suzuki is a public figure that we have all learned to trust. His carbon footprint for flying to Toronto to speak and field questions was huge; however, his footprint when divided over the 1700 attendees would not have been very great.

I believe he could have made as great or a greater impact at the conference if he would have used his Vancouver television links or his Vancouver university links to put together a video feed to the U of T. He could have modelled the behaviour he is asking us to use. He could have used technology to save enough jet fuel for me to drive my truck around for 2 or 3 years.

Technology got us into the mess we are in; technology is now required to get us out (unless we want to go the world-wide starvation and disease route).

Lynn

You're right Lynn, it's cruel but that's the price we have to pay to save the planet. We can't just go on burning fossil fuels willy nilly, can we? Perhaps we should build a nuclear plant for electrical needs and take the pressure off of oil, leaving it for those that, as you say, "who will have to look for work and travel longer distances". Too bad about those closed mills, although I'd rather see a forest than a clear-cut. I suppose the US housing collapse had a lot to do with it.

What do you think 'Sharing', "Technology got us into the mess we are in; technology is now required to get us out.". Nuclear? No carbon footprint.

realisticman

And of course we know you would never support the party that created the GST.

realisticman

Just as I'm sure you would never support the parties that created the income tax and the carbon tax.

Or would you?

realisticman

$26.5 billion? That's billion with a "b".

Its what I read McGuinty in Ontario is planning to do and that's what they say will be the cost.

Since we don't have $26.5 billion perhaps a P3 where we pay 2 billion a year for 50 years instead and raise our debt to well over $100 billion? Of course we'd also take care of the associated costs.

Or maybe we could get a really really low bid from "Honest Ed's used cars and nuclear plants"?

The Only Thing

Quote: "The only thing that can change this picture is the development of alternate sources of energy."

Even that won't help much unless we tackle the main problem which is too much demand on the ecosystem, of which our carbon problem is merely a symptom.

Cleaner energy production is laudable and should be done, but what is needed most of all is less energy use and less consumption of all resources.

realisticman

I believe that humans have not yet learned to be safe and careful enough to be trusted to use nuclear energy. The cleanup of the mining/milling/refining, the decommissioning of old plants, and the disposal of nuclear waste still presents too big of a problem. When they have solved all of those problems then i will agree with using nuclear energy on a limited basis.

Note that nuclear plants also use huge amounts of energy and resources to build. The process of making the concrete in them releases huge amount of CO2. When decommissioning a plant, one has huge amounts of (often radio-active material) to dismantle ad clean up.

I think that wind, geothermal, tidal, solar, ammonia/hydrogen and helical water turbines present the best opportunities along with reducing consumption.

realisticman

I won't rise to the bait on the nuclear power issue. We've been down that road before. I don't like it...you obviously do. You only have to read Dr. Helen Caldicott's concerns about it to see its real dangers. One of them being once again a dinosaur mentality exemplified recently in Harper's firing of the nuclear watchdog.

Forests and mills can be compatible if they are managed to preserve both forests and jobs.

Cleanup costs

Good point sharing...there are exceptions of course...where friends of the Premier can get the government to pay most of the costs, scoop some land that used to belong to BC Rail and create a real estate bonanza at Britannia Beach into the bargain.

Of course that's not on topic...but it does indicate how nicely some problems can be dealt with if you happen to be the 'right' people.

I welcome respectful comments to my posts at Tyee - as always.

G West

realisticman

I disagree, more about the policies of a BC Liberal government that doesn't believe in forests or supporting our own working families within local communities.

This reveals more of the true cause of it:

"Ken James points to another fully loaded logging truck that comes
rumbling up the TransCanada Highway past Mount Sicker Road south of
Chemainus. James is pulled off the side of the road within sight of
the TCH, where he and a few members of the Youbou Timberless Society,
a group of former Youbou sawmill workers suing the B.C. government
over the 2001 mill closure, are counting the trucks as they roll up
the highway laden with freshly cut logs. Every time one goes by they
use a jiffy marker to change the number on a white erasable board. At
2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, they're already at 202.

Traffic passing by the makeshift protest camp, identified by a long
Youbou Timberless Society banner, seems to approve of what they're
doing. Every few minutes a driver gives a honk or a nod to James and
his crew.

James isn't sure where the trucks are going - they could be heading to
log sorts at Shoal Island, Ladysmith or Nanaimo Lakes - but he said
one thing is for certain: most of the wood is not being milled
locally. And by his count, the number of logging trucks moving timber
out of area forests is on the rise.

A similar tally last year on Highway 18 between Lake Cowichan and
Duncan tallied 157 trucks in 10 hours, said James.

Over four days from 6:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., YTS members counted
slightly less than 1,000 trucks. Another tally done at "the hump" near
Port Alberi the same four days totalled just over 300 trucks.

While James admits some of the logs may be heading to local mills, he
said the point of the count is to draw attention to the disparity
between the spike in logging trucks versus the declining number ofsawmill workers. "We're suggesting there are a lot more trucks with
logs moving through our valleys and less and less sawmills working,"
said James.

Mills closing contd.

He quotes statistics showing a corresponding rise in raw log exports,
from about half a million cubic metres a year in the early 1990s, to
an annual three million cubic metres since the Liberals took power in
2001. "The main point is there's more trees being harvested and less
people working, which means less benefits to the community, and less
benefits to B.C.," James said.
NDP forestry critic Bob Simpson said the rise in log exports is tied
to a greater problem, the Liberal government's Forest Revitalization
Act, which purports to help smaller players compete in an open market,
but which has actually consolidated the industry and made it more
difficult for smaller mills to access timber.

Simpson said the problem is exacerbated by the removal of the
appurtenancy clause, the tie between forest companies and the
communities they logged in, meaning towns have lost control over who
logs the forests.

Simpson said what irks him is the bulk of the changes were made with
little public debate when the opposition was limited to two MLAs. "

Ohhh Geee West....

And the real world:

- Mills didn’t start closing when the B.C. Liberals got elected.

The ministry records 36 permanent closures from 1991 to 2001, in places like Creston, Whonnock, Gold River and Lumby, as well as North Vancouver, New Westminster and plywood plants in Victoria and Vancouver.

The ill-fated Skeena pulp mill was the first to close after Campbell was elected, and 30 more followed by January of this year.

- Log exports aren’t the problem.

In the first quarter of this year, 250,000 cubic metres of raw logs were exported from Crown land, a targeted policy for remote coastal areas that don’t have mills to save. It’s less than a tenth of the total cut, and stopping it would only push more loggers out of work.

The Steelworkers union notes that log exports from private land jumped by about 40 per cent from 2000 to 2007. Federal regulations cover private land exports. Could the companies who own this mainly Vancouver Island land have been forced to continue milling and losing money? I don’t see how.

- How bad is the U.S. market, which typically accounts for 85 per cent of B.C. lumber sales?

In places like Ohio, builders are packing up to head south as thousands of houses, many of them new, stand boarded up. Even once their banking crisis is sorted out, it will be at least 2010 before construction can be expected to pick up again.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_central/albernivalleynews/opinion/19182089.html

Frank

Actually, Frank. I was just commenting on other comments. I think that a strong case can be made for consumption taxes, like the GST.

realisticman

Ah, I had assumed by your use of the word "agree" that you already held that position.

Haha well played Gordo

I knew the only reason the Libs brought in the carbon tax was to divide the lefties ahead of the next election. Working perfectly so far.