Carbon Tax Gets Another Voter Test Wednesday
Primer: Parties' global warming stands going into byelection.
NDP's James: Climate change 'framework' isn't final.
Somewhere in the ridings of Vancouver-Burrard and Vancouver-Fairview there exists a voter who hasn't made up his or her mind about the carbon tax.
Maybe this person is torn between the Liberals' and New Democrats' conflicting rhetoric. Maybe this person is still researching the question, trying to decide if a carbon tax is indeed the most effective way to combat climate change.
Maybe this person just hasn't been paying attention.
That's OK. The Tyee is here to help. If you're that voter, we're going to offer some facts and some thoughts on the carbon tax to help you cast your vote in Wednesday's byelection.
The rest of you might want to follow along, too. Because, whether you like it or not, the carbon tax will probably have a serious impact not only on these byelections, but on the May 12 provincial election. If you don't think so, you haven't been paying attention to NDP leader Carole James lately.
'Axe the Tax' redux
Last Wednesday night Premier Gordon Campbell went on live TV to talk about the state of the B.C. economy in the face of the worldwide economic crisis. Before the speech, James's top piece of advice for Campbell was: axe the carbon tax.
After the speech, James went live on Global BC. Her number-one criticism of Campbell's 10-point economic plan? He didn't axe the tax.
A lot can change in seven months, but it's obvious that James is going to do everything she can to keep the "job-killing gas tax" alive as an election issue.
That's a lot of excitement over 2.3 cents on a litre of gas.
But then, this debate isn't really just about the carbon tax anymore. The Opposition has skillfully, if misleadingly, made it the lightning rod for all the complaints against a government that a lot of people think is out of touch and clueless.
Remember the One Tonne Challenge?
Amidst all this, it's easy to forget that the carbon tax started out as an environmental issue, rather than a tax issue.
But, while groups like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation may deny that carbon emissions are a problem, all the main parties in B.C. agree that we must cut our greenhouse gas emissions for the sake of the planet.
There are a couple of ways governments can try to cut emissions.
They can educate people about the problem and give them incentives. That was the basis of the federal government's strategy under Jean Chrétien. You may recall Rick Mercer and those ads for the One Tonne Challenge.
Unfortunately, Mercer's ads didn't do any good. Emissions went way up under Chrétien, despite Canada's Kyoto commitments.
Pick your penalties
If persuasion doesn't work, you can try compulsory measures. You can pass regulations and penalize people who don't reduce their emissions.
There are drawbacks to this method, however.
Recently, more than 230 Canadian economists signed an open letter that urged action against emissions and assessed the different methods of tackling them.
Regulation, the economists argued, "tends to be the most expensive way to meet a given climate change goal."
They conclude that, "while regulations imposed on firms may appear to be so far removed from the typical consumer that they might think they will not bear these costs, this is not true. Those increased costs will be passed on to consumers due to normal market forces.
"There may be circumstances when regulation is the appropriate policy tool, but in most cases it is the most economically damaging."
Most experts agree that it's better to put a price on carbon emissions and let the market go to work. The main B.C. parties all say they favour putting a price on emissions.
There are two ways you can do this.
You can put a tax on things like gas and heating fuel that emit greenhouse gases, in the hopes that people will use less. And you can create a cap and trade system that sets a limit (or cap) on emissions and makes polluters buy permits to spew harmful gases. Those that get their emissions below their limit can sell their leftover permits to companies that can't hit the target. That's the trade part.
Weighing the variables
Both ways have pros and cons.
A carbon tax, the economists say, "has the advantage of providing certainty in the price of carbon.
"Under a carbon tax, a charge is added to the sale of all fuels according to the carbon emitted when they are used. With a well-designed carbon tax strategy, the tax will be introduced gradually and increased in pre-announced increments until the environmental target is reached. This provides investors with a degree of certainty that is good for business, and allows consumers to make adjustments knowing what is coming.
"The exact impact of the price increase on the quantity of carbon emitted can be predicted, although with some margin of error. A carbon tax thus involves choosing price certainty but accepting some uncertainty in total carbon emissions."
Cap and trade, on the other hand, "provides certainty on the quantity of carbon emitted, but not on the price of carbon and can be a highly complex policy to implement."
There are many questions that go into the design of a cap and trade system: Who's covered? How do you make sure the permits accurately reflect emissions? Do you charge for permits, or hand them out for free? How much flexibility do you allow emitters in reaching their targets? What level of offsets do you let emitters buy to meet those targets?
The answers to all of these questions determine how successful the system will be. And, while such systems have worked well in some cases -- fighting acid rain in the 1990s, for example -- there have been failures, too.
The economists' open letter notes that "the Emission Trading System in the European Union began by distributing too many allowances and as a result the price fell to close to zero, rendering the policy ineffective.
"Thus, while a cap and trade system can in principle be equivalent to a carbon tax in terms of its ultimate impacts on the price and quantity of carbon, and will generally give more certainty in meeting environmental targets if the allowances are properly chosen, the price uncertainty in the cap and trade system generally implies a worse environment for long-range decision-making on the part of businesses and consumers."
The BC Liberals' approach
The B.C. Liberals have chosen to go with a program that includes both a carbon tax and a cap and trade program. The carbon tax kicked in July 1, and applies to virtually all fossil fuels burned in the province. It starts at $10 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions and will increase to $30 per tonne by 2012.
The tax is revenue neutral, a term that has caused much derision since it entered B.C.'s political lexicon. By law, the government must give tax breaks equal to the amount collected in carbon tax. This doesn't mean that each individual in the province will get a tax break equivalent to what they pay in carbon tax, but the government predicts that people who don't drive gas guzzlers will turn out OK.
The Liberals have also committed B.C. to joining a cap and trade scheme known as the Western Climate Initiative. The WCI is still working on the system's design, but it has been criticized by environmental groups for a series of alleged faults, including a timeline that would mean a four-to-seven year delay before action would be taken on emissions.
NDP's counter-attack
The NDP's attack on the Liberal climate change policy has focused on the carbon tax, which it portrays as unfair and ineffective. They say the plan "lets big polluters off the hook" while taxing ordinary folk.
The claim implies that industrial emitters don't pay the carbon tax, which isn't true. Companies that burn fossil fuels pay the carbon tax, just like everyone else.
The NDP's claim about "big polluters" comes from the fact that about 30 per cent of B.C.'s emissions come from sources other than fossil fuels. That includes agriculture, landfills, leaks from the processing and transportation of fossil fuels and industrial processes like the production of lime in making cement.
It's these "industrial process emissions" -- less than 15 per cent of B.C.'s total emissions -- that the NDP's talking about. The government says it intends to include these emissions under cap and trade; it has also talked about taxing them once it's worked out the technical issues surrounding measuring them.
Inside the NDP 'policy framework'
The NDP's policy framework on climate change talks about applying a "carbon tax at source" -- meaning, apparently, not directly on the consumer.
However, the party has been moving away from the idea of any kind of carbon taxes as its climate platform evolves.
Instead, the NDP favours a cap and trade scheme that would target industrial polluters. Details are still being worked out. NDP environment critic Shane Simpson has said the existing policy is "not a final plan. It is a framework."
It remains to be seen how soon an NDP cap and trade system could be implemented, who it would cover or what proportion of emissions it will apply to.
Details will be available before the May general election, the party has promised.
We will pay, either way
In the meantime, one thing that is certain is that the NDP will scrap the Campbell carbon tax.
While taxes on business may be more politically palatable than direct taxes on consumers, the 230 economists who signed the open letter we mentioned above point out that, in the end, consumers will pay:
"Policies that impose costs on producers (big or small) affect consumers. Some voters seem to think that policies like cap and trade, which apply directly to producers, have less impact on the prices they face than carbon taxes, where the impact can be seen immediately. In fact, voters would do better to assume that all such policies would, ultimately, affect the prices they pay.…
"The argument that a policy capable of reducing carbon emissions will only affect producers is without economic merit."
The NDP acknowledges that their plan will involve some cost to the consumer, but again, no details are available yet.
Meanwhile, the Green Party favours a much steeper carbon tax. The party's policy, adopted earlier this month, calls for a tax of $50 a tonne by 2009 -- five times the current tax.
The Greens' carbon tax would apply to all greenhouse gas emitting industries -- meaning it would cover the "big polluters" the NDP claims are avoiding the current tax. And it would exempt low-income British Columbians.
Related Tyee stories:
- Is Carbon Tax Political Poison?
Dion and Campbell might have just sold it badly: pollster. - BC's Carbon Tax Shell GameEconomist who invented 'eco-footprint' analysis is not impressed.
- Bill Clinton praises Gordon Campbell's carbon tax as 'economic generator'
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- Appeal court upholds ruling on protection of orca habitat
- Foreign takeover score is 14,218 to two calculates Mel Hurtig, who speaks Saturday
- Abbott blames teachers' union, hints at legislation
- Greens exaggerating fracking fears 'to control you': Santorum
- Prime Minister Harper mixes oil with human rights on visit to China
- Civil jury finds former BC premier Vander Zalm guilty of defamation
- Vancouver theatre runs down curtain on section of BC's outdated liquor laws
- BC Premier Clark to replace throne speech with radio appearance
- 'The Kids Are All Right'
- 'Leave Your Shoes On'
- Glaciers, BC Hydro's Melting 'Batteries'
- Frankie Rose Makes Life Tougher for Journalists
- Too Much Energy Used to Mine, Move Bitumen Says BC Firm
- Becoming the Ethical Hunter
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Could SOPA Pervade Canadian Copyright Law?
- Would You Buy a Used Car from These Libs?
- Three Ryan Gosling Pickup Techniques that Don't Work in Real Life
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Economist Calls Gateway Pipeline an Inflationary 'Threat'
- Bill Rees' Last Lecture
- Too Much Energy Used to Mine, Move Bitumen Says BC Firm
- Is Canada Ignoring Signs of a Coming Economic Collapse?
- Harper in China
- How First Nations Are Gearing Up for Legal Battle Against Gateway
- Eleven Oily Questions for Every MP
- Remembering Lloyd Dykk's Wit, Generosity and Superb Prose
- BC Child Care Advocates in Geneva to Complain to UN
- BC, You Love You
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Who Pays Huge Power Bills for Clark's Gas Plants?
- Make It the Canadian Webcasting Corporation
- Harper in China
- When the Prize Is a Chance to Toil on BC's Farms
- Three Ryan Gosling Pickup Techniques that Don't Work in Real Life
- Would You Buy a Used Car from These Libs?
- Foreign Trade Zones Eyed for Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Prince George
- Skating into 2012, More Resolutions
- Scientists unveil bold new definition of addiction
- The most hellish ‘internships’: China sends 100,000 teens to work for a pittance at Foxconn making gadgets for Apple, others
- World Press Photo Contest: Editor’s choice pictures of the day
- Banks come first in a Greek rescue plan
- We’re more unequal than you think
- Cambodia launched restaurants for vultures
- Flavored vodka: sign of the imminent apocalypse?
- With Obama’s new foreclosure deal big banks win again
72
Login or register to post comments
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Tom...
Yeah, couldn't believe it. When the so-called carbon tax was implemented on July 1, gas-prices were skyrocketing to $1.50/litre.
Since then gas prices have dropped over 40 cents/litre, but Carole still believes that the 2.4 cents/ litre will "devastate" BC's economy. Go figure. No more political capital there. :)
Then why do they state in the same NDP policy framework that:
Is anybody from the NDP ever gonna climb out of the woodwork and explain that stance and how much it will actually "cost the consumer"???? :)
G West
3 years ago
Luke
You've beaten that horse to death - the point is that nobody (apart from a few rather strange economists and Gordon Campbell) want anything to do with a tax that's about nothing.
From the centre of Campbell greenwash program his little Wurlitzer of a tax has turned into something he NEVER even mentioned in his little speech.
How come?
Is he afraid of what's turned from his favourite child into Frankenstein's monster?
People don't like having their intelligence questioned - taxes should be about something - and this one isn't/
In fact it's just a very expensive way to pump up the Campbell hot air balloon.
Tell the truth luke - even you don't like it.
IT's the Campbell clan that are pretending luke - not the NDP
Frank
3 years ago
Tom Barrett
The joke will be on you Tom when we discover that BC's emissions actually increased during the time your "carbon" tax was gouging British Columbians. It'll be fun reading your spin on how Campbell saved the planet as we produced more CO2 than ever.
And since you're so fond of economists writing environmental policy I'm looking forward to a future column on how economists tell us we should deal with kids and seniors needing care.
Frank
3 years ago
Luke
You supported the tax at $1.50 and you support it at $1.10
No matter what Campbell does, you support it.
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
2.3 cents
Well, at 2.3 cents per litre, the carbon tax, for me anyway, amounts to about $2.00 a month.
But if I drove a V-8 pick-up truck 5,000 km a month, it could be as much as $10.
That's a whole six pack.
And if that is what the NDP is going to base an election on, best of luck. Singing to the choir again.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Frank...
Good to see ya back! I've stated on numerous occasions that carbon taxes/cap and trade are nothing more than "social engineering" and centre-left ideas.
A BIG waste of time... and I hate it. You know that!
That said, when the BC NDP's climate policy framework states:
Neither the BC NDP nor posters on here wishes to touch same with a proverbial ten-foot pole!
Why is that??? And can you tell me what that "cost to consumer" will be???
Seriously.
Frank
3 years ago
Who's Wilfred Laurier?
You just keep playing the same old song, don't you ever bore yourself?
seth
3 years ago
Gas tax aka campaign donation kickback
"Companies that burn fossil fuels pay the carbon tax, just like everyone else."
Yassir - Humongous bank sure pays a lot of gas tax - for what - hot air. Funny though, they get most of the tax breaks from Gordo and gang's gas tax program.
A better label for Campbell's gas tax is a taxpayer funded kickback to Gordo's big campaign donators.
"The argument that a policy capable of reducing carbon emissions will only affect producers is without economic merit."
Here's some merit - Some of BC's biggest exports and largest polluters are the mining, oil and gas industry. Will the world price of these commodities go up because BC taxes the producers? As if!!!
Seems to me this is an excellent way to squeeze some blood out of Big Oil at zero cost to UNOWHO.
Frank
3 years ago
Luke
WHy don't I care? Because I think the NDP's lying, they won't bring in cap and trade or a carbon tax. Instead they'll wait for the feds and other provinces to take the lead.
And sorry to once again bring it up, but introducing new taxes is as Liberal as it gets. The Libs created more taxes before the NDP even became a party than the NDP ever has.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Frank...
As I stated in another thread, I was watching Voice of BC with Vaughn Palmer on Wednesday night at 8 pm and the guest was BC Finance Minister Colin Hansen.
During that interview, Colin Hansen stated that the BC NDP voted against every single BC tax reduction... 103 of 'em... in the BC legislature.
Why was that???
And you still have not answered my previous query, namely, can you tell me what the "cost to consumer" will be in the BC NDP's climate policy framework ???
Really. I wanna know.
Frank
3 years ago
Luke
Why was that? Could it be because they're the Official Opposition? Now please list for me all the times Campbell voted with the NDP during the 1990's when the NDP covered the loss in federal transfers and kept services that people needed running. Note : It'll be a very short list.
The cost to consumer will be zero, because the only change will be chucking the carbon-tax.
Frank
3 years ago
Luke
By the way, how many increases in taxes, levees, fees, licenses et al have there been under Campbell?
Frank
3 years ago
The big "D"
I see Flaherty will probably be running Canada into another deficit. Hmm, what party is it that holds the distinction of being the only party that tends to run more deficits than the Cons? Oh ya, the Liberals. I forgot there for a moment.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Frank...
I see. Well that makes sense. NOT.
In other words, you are sayin' that because the BC NDP is the official opposition we are gonna "oppose those 103 tax reductions"? lol
Then let's make sure that the BC public becomes aware of those policy stances next May! ;)
The official opposition certainly doesn't operate like that in Ontario. Really.
Good question. As there were many under the NDP government during the 1990's.
Now tell me this... Manitoba NDP Premier Gary Doer brought down his 2008 budget. And that budget contained the following:
1. Elimination of the corporate capital tax;
2. Reduction of corporate taxes;
3. A myriad of corporate tax credits;
Yet that same NDP budget contained and was characterized as follows:
Why was that???
Frank
3 years ago
The Official Opposition
It operates like that in BC. If you think it doesn't, please list for me how many times Campbell (and Bennett for that matter) voted for NDP policies.
I see you avoided my questions.
Frank
3 years ago
Gary Doer
Ever vote for him Luke?
No?
Would that be because of his policy of freezing university tuition like Glen Clark?
Or would that be because of all the money he spent on childcare?
Or, unlike Campbell, how he increased the minimum wage?
Frank
3 years ago
More Gary Doer
Perhaps what you like most about him is how he was head of the Manitoba Government Employees Association for 7 years?
Would he be the first pro-union guy you ever wanted other people to vote for?
Frank
3 years ago
and yet more Gary
By the way, Gary was a big backer of Audrey McLaughlin. Did you vote for her? Or did you like Chretien more than Doer's favourite?
egmont rapids
3 years ago
Wilfred
Come on buddy,wake up, the carbon tax is rising to 8 cents a liter, and its on home heating,propane
What you carbon tax supporters don`t understand is this--
The fact that BC HAS A CARBON TAX,GAS COMPANIES ARE THROWING AN EXTRA NICKLE A LITER TO BOOT ON TOP OF IT.
So what your really talking about is 8 cents a liter now rising to 16 cents a liter.
Not to mention all the spin off costs to the consumer.
Wilfred, give your head a shake,even if you don`t care about,or the carbon tax doesn`t cost any money,then what good is it?
A feel good tax?
Thats why I am personaly offended by Weaver,Jaccard,Suzuki who applaud this useless tax,all that does is set back any real plan!
Can you imagine a Campbell cap n trade set up the same way,charge compahies then return the money,yikes look out
As for offsets,there is no such thing period--Cement company can`t reduce emissions so they plant 5000 trees in the middle of the forest! And you thought wall street knew how to scam!
egmont rapids
3 years ago
Luke what tax cuts?
BC Hydro is costing home owners over 400.00 year over year increase,even apartment owners will see a year over year increase of 150.00.
Those hydro increase for this year alone dwarf all the tax cuts for the last 2 years,plus ICBC,
Nobody is fooled by Campbell`s tax cuts, 50.00 in one pocket, while taking 2 hundred out of the other.
BC hydro---15% increase in april 2008
BC hydro---2 teir hydro rate came into effect oct 1 2008--all hydro usage over 12.50kw pays a 25% premium charge
BC hydro--next month the base rate goes up another 11%
So lets see, an overall year over year increase of well over 30%
Average Vancouver house, that increase is anywhere from 400.00 to 600.00 a year.
BY the way BC hydro made hundreds of millions of dollars last year.
ICBC 100.00 car levy in june,maybe 200.00 per car--So lets see,the average house has 2 cars--thats another 200.00 to 400.00 per year / so add that to the BC Hydro gouge and it works out to 600.00 to 1000.00 per household, now talk to me about the 70.00 /maybe 70.00 twice tax cut!
1000.00 - 140.00 = 860.00 in the hole
No one is buying it LUKE,try again
egmont rapids
3 years ago
Carbon tax in a nutshell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVS4gCeaA-w&NR=1
realisticman
3 years ago
I'm all ears
Looking forward to Carole James tonight. Hoping she'll do the right thing and promise to reduce taxes across the board! Go for it Carole; redefine the NDP as the party that will slash all taxes while increasing spending over and above the Campbell increases for education and health care! Don't just go on and on like the Duracell Bunny about the carbon tax, after all oil is at its lowest price in 15 months and gasoline is going down babe. No, make some headline fetching news and put lotsa money back in our jeans.
By the way, does Adrian Dix have any opinion on this or is he just hanging back? Does he have any particular plans? Just wondering.
G West
3 years ago
Carole James
Will likely promise to increase the minimum wage - and reduce child poverty - make it easier for young families to look after their kids and keep their jobs and find better ways to educate young British Columbians...She might also promise to fix some of the messes that Campbell's created in 7 1/2 years of corruption and rule by lobbyists....
But I don't think she'll be reducing any taxes except that phony Campbell Tax...I could be wrong, but I think that 'ax the tax' policy has already shown itself to be a very popular program.
It's no secret why:
In a survey published August 27 Angus Reid found that 75% of British Columbians
would have preferred to target major industrial producers; only 38% believe the carbon tax will lead to a change in behaviour while just 5% reported spending their rebate cheque on environmentally-friendly actions.
I also have a feeling that the new car dealers of BC may find their ranks a little thinner on the ground in the coming months – maybe they, and the Road Builders Association won’t have quite so much money to feed Campbell and his cronies…..I’m sure they’ll still manage a couple of caustic ads round about January though….
Stump
3 years ago
what works
I don't think either method will have much impact, unless the infrastructure to provide options to people outside of their cars exists. We have to eat and heat our homes, so those activities can't be altered to have more than a minimum impact. How we move ourselves and our goods however, has huge room for improvement, but we simply aren't seeing the long-range vision from any party in this department IMO. Expensive skytrains from the airport simply don't cut it.
Further, if we'd spent two billion dollars on such amenities, not only would we still be employing people, we'd be creating a province that would attract companies looking to set up shop in an area that would be attractive to their employees. Not to mention just how much we could do with that kind of money, or the fact that in doing so we'd set up our province to be a world leader in implementing these solutions and probably create tons of opportunity for local companies to take that expertise and export it to other regions that are further behind in the learning curve.
Nevermind. Let's just throw a two week party for white people who like to slide down hills. Nothing attracts investment better than big-time sports such as biathlon.
tono-bungay
3 years ago
Fact check
The Rick Mercer "one tonne challenge" was under the Martin government not the Chrétien government. The Auditor General did look at those programs and found them all to be effective, even more effective than predicted, contrary to some spin you may have heard. In the 3 years after the ratification of Kyoto, Canada's GHG emissions went down quite steadily, here is a graph of the official numbers.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2006/images/f1_eng.gif
If Rick Mercer couldn't convince you save a tonne, would $10 worth of tax do it? Maybe not, but industries certainly would be convinced because that adds up to big money for them. You don't even need to send Rick Mercer into the boardrooms to convince them.
freebear
3 years ago
Taxing carbon misses the point!
As Stump noted, the tax is an illusion; a short-term, feel good, we are doing something, action by the government.
If we are serious about reducing/eliminating carbon emissions and postively affecting climate change and developing a BC that is truly sustainable, we need to re-design the way we live and work and learn.
And there is money in it too!
But as long as all political parties are near sighted, as well as the majority of citizens, we will continue down the unsustainable path!
I wonder how long before it implodes?
mmills
3 years ago
carbon tax
The NDP under Carole James has chosen to wage a campaign that provides no coherent or effective plan to combat carbon emissions in our province. Instead, we see her out on the street parading a "ax the tax" sign that misleads people into thinking that we can continue abusing the climate without any cost to us. For supposed political gain, she ignores the findings of climate scientists and the reports of B.C. environmental groups. Instead of joining together with the Liberal government's plan to take action on the crisis facing us, demanding that it be made even more effective if possible, she stages a slogan-based political distraction thinking to garner some kind of political gain. I have communicated my disagreement directly to her and to the NDP and was told that environmentalists such as David Suzuki "are not scientists." I have canceled my monthly donation to the NDP and will not vote NDP in the provincial election unless Carole James changes the present NDP sabotage of concrete environmental action.
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
The Economists' Open Letter
The Economists Open Letter that Tom Barrett refers to as a sort of absolute and final authority on the question of carbon taxes versus cap and trade was put together for the just past federal election. Without being unfair to the signatories, I think it can be said that most of them are Liberals. Their purpose was to promote indirectly Stephane Dion's Green Shift, and they are a bit disappointed that he turned out to be such a poor salesman for that policy.
G West
3 years ago
mmills
What concrete environmental action are you talking about?
Have you forgotten that every penny collected (and at considerable cost) has to, by law (look it up in Bill 37) be refunded through pander payments or tax reductions?
Not a single penny of it is doing any 'environmental' action - in fact, if you add in the administrative expense and the cost of the bumpf produced by the Bureau of Public Affairs the net benefit to the environment of the Campball Tax is decidedly negative.
When Campbell and the BCLiberals are gone, it they are replaced by the NDP, we will then have an opportunity to evaluate Carole James's program.
For the moment, they are the opposition, and they're doing what they're paid to do - Oppose.
You seem unfamiliar with the way parliamentary democracy actually works.
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
mmills: Don't let the door hit you...
mmills: I'm sure your missing $2 per month has been noticed by all the staff at the BC NDP office. Your screed has the ring of urban populist posing about it. No doubt you're one of the people who voted for Hedy Fry rather than Michael Byers based on the Liberal Green Shift.
Despite your anger, you don't really state how this issue affects you personally, or what changes you have made or are prepared to make to reduce your own emissions. Like most "urbane sophisticates" you take the view that you're not responsible, it's always others, in the suburbs or the countryside who are doing everything wrong. It's the classic latte Liberal attitude.
You mentioned David Suzuki. I believe he's a geneticist, not a specialist in climatology. Could that have been what the NDP meant?
realisticman
3 years ago
Good News
Maybe that F150 is looking good again. Especially if I vote for Carole and her gang. GHG emissions are so yesterday. It's going to go under a buck a litre.
"Oil price dives to $59 in London
3 hours ago
LONDON (AFP) — Oil prices sank to 59 dollars on Monday, hitting 17-month lows on worries that a global recession will sap energy demand and as the US currency strengthened against the euro."
Wilfred Laurier
3 years ago
Politics
This is a hot political issue. One one hand, people are saying, "We have to save the environment" but on the other, they are saying, "but make somebody else pay for it." The end result is going to have to be a change in lifestyles, from 1000 square feet per person to 300, from a V-8 to a 1.0 litre three cylinder. There are various ways to do this but the carbon tax is one of the most used in the world.
I am waiting for Carole to give me a concrete plan for CO2 reduction, as well as her spending plan for her government.
Skywalker
3 years ago
Voting against?
Put a penny tax cut in a government bill that provides millions to business friends and insiders and I will bloody well hope the opposition will vote against it. If Hansen then reads that as vote against tax cuts generally he's a moron or just telling a half truth. The same applies to adding tax cuts. If the application is one sided and the opposition thinks it is unfair then they have an obligation to vote against. If the money goes into general revenue to be wasted by Campbell on pet projects then I would hope they would vote against.
The time for unveiling a platform is when and election is in high gear. What is this nonsense about cutting taxes when the economy is on the upswing and cutting taxes when it is on the downturn? Maybe a little less extravagant spending on salaries, the Vancouver Convention Center and the Olympics might be a start. Let all the priviledged "eat cake".
realisticman
3 years ago
Don't forget Skeena Carole
I sure hope Carole James comes up with a plan for a few more hundreds of millions for Skeena Cellulose, after all the NDP found a hundred million before. There's almost a hundred people that used to work up there.
G West
3 years ago
How many people did Campbell throw out of work
How many people did Campbell throw out of work in the rather importand hospital cleanliness 'industry' ...and, after the Supreme Court pointed out he was in legal trouble on that little gambit, how much did he have to pay to clean up the mess he'd made?
I'm sure you'll be posting that information soon and stop living in the distant past.
As to forest industry towns shutting down because there isn't much of a forest industry in this province any more, I take it you're not 'interested' in going into that either.
If and when the NDP gets into power, I'm sure they'll make the odd mistake.
Until then, I think we'd be wiser to look at the screw ups of one man Campbell government.
Could we start with child poverty and the fate of children in care?
egmont rapids
3 years ago
Rman or Straw man?
As for opposing tax cuts,the liberal bills,which weren`t debated,they were rammed through the legislature.
If a tax cut is buried on page 50 of a bill and when its a lousy bill, unless the NDP vote for a lousy bill,the tax cut gets voted down as well.
For the liberals are very sly,these bills that may contain a tax cut are never stand alone bills,they have far reaching consequences!
Such as the NDP voting against Campbell`s cap n trade bill, why did they vote against it?
First off it doesn`t come into effect until maybe 2012--The bill was so vague,it would be like voting on a TAROT CARD!
The Carbon/gas tax bill---That bill was delayed in the legislature,the liberals didn`t bring that bill forward until the last hour of the last day of the last legislative session in BC in 2008,it was rammed through in 2 minutes!
Now thats what I call democracy!
Rman,I am a little disappointed in your Skeena celluose,straw man argument,I am surprised you didn`t use the fast ferries for your/witty straw man argument.
A little below your usual "snail`s belly" standard!
Skywalker
3 years ago
Ah realisticman.
Better to blow a few billion on a two week party for Vancouver. The rest of the province can rely on a "Heartland Strategy" which was as phoney as Campbell's carbon tax. I guess if those 100 jobs were in Vancouver it would have been a different story. You then would have called it a sound investment.
Michael
3 years ago
High gas prices do work
To those who say high gas prices don't work, how about a historical example all of just a month old. Gas consumption dropped in the U.S. when gas was over $1.30 and the Big Three, who made money on SUVs, are about to die. Meanwhile, those tax-loving Europeans still drive smaller and more fuel efficient cars, not because they are particularly green but they just tax more over there.
And what is the big idea about regulating car use? That's insane, far worse than the bad cap and trade system. Look, if someone is brain dead enough to move to Langley and car commute to work everyday, let them. I would just prefer that they do it in a Smart car or a Prius.
time 2 wakeup
3 years ago
Is this for real?
Has anyone noticed that there's no mention of huge penalties for the offending polluters? Cap and Trade allows them to trade credits with some other company - but does not stop them from spewing crap into our air.
And, as I have discovered - fuel costs - no matter how high they get, do not deter people from driving their SUV's. All this talk about credits and taxes and allowing the market go to work " Most experts agree that it's better to put a price on carbon emissions and let the market go to work". Umm lets have a look at the global financial crisis, thats what the free market has given us....
G West
3 years ago
This is a really intelligent way to make your point michael
That'll get you a lot of allies!
seth
3 years ago
skeena
Yup and the multi billion power giveaway by Gordo and his thugs to Alcan for in exchange promises of some tiny Aluminum smelter and real megabucks in campaign donations.
The NDP does screw up, but Gordo does it in a spectacular fashion. Wouldn't it be nice if his media clones actually reported it.
Stump
3 years ago
let them... eat smog
"And what is the big idea about regulating car use? That's insane, far worse than the bad cap and trade system. Look, if someone is brain dead enough to move to Langley and car commute to work everyday, let them. I would just prefer that they do it in a Smart car or a Prius."
Car use is already regulated.
Further, poor decisions such as becoming a commuter affect us all, in terms of air quality, traffic congestion, traffic crashes where innocent people are killed, etc.
RickW
3 years ago
The Carbon Tax....
...is supposed to discourage the use of carbon-emitting fuels. However is it doing this, when the price of gasoline has dropped almost 40 cents in the space of a month? Shouldn't the price of fuel at the pumps ALWAYS remain high, REGARDLESS of the price of crude, if we are to use price as the "bludgeon" to get people to cut back on consumption?
This is what Carole James means by "ax the tax". But she isn't naive enough (as was Dion) to try to explain a comprehensive alternative to a voting public with a 20-second attention span.
C Hatch
3 years ago
playing with fire
Call me naive but I never believed Carole James capable of this. Especially on a clear and present danger like global warming. The forests are dying, the Arctic is melting and this is just the beginning. The world as we know it is in serious danger and the NDP want to pick a fight over a couple cents a litre???
I've discussed this with several of her MLAs who just wince and claim Carole is following strategists that think demagogery is the way to win this one. They say they've tried but can't get her to support good climate policy.
The NDP will really have something to answer for: not only are they undermining good policy needed to stave off disaster, they are actively poisoning the well -- convincing voters that global warming can be solved with some magic wand that won't cost anything.
Here's a question for Carole and her global warming denier Svengalis: name one country that is succeeding at reducing its global warming emissions without using carbon taxes.
(hint: there isn't one)
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Demagoguery...
C Hatch:
Demagoguery: "a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power"
1. Again it bears repeating: On the one hand the BC NDP wants to kill the carbon tax "to protect consumers", yet on the other hand the NDP's own climate action strategy expressly states:
Something seriously wrong there.
2. In Carole's taped speech tonight, she had her own version of "an economic plan.
Yet... the BC NDP wants to trick the BC public again...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081027.wbcndp28/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20081027.wbcndp28
I mean, hasn't the BC NDP learned from the 1990's "Fudge-It Budget" scandal???
Well the BC public and the BC media ain't that stupid. :) Methinks Carole is gonna get eaten alive by the BC media over those false positions next spring!
egmont rapids
3 years ago
C hatch
Are you even a real person? Who talks like that, you realize our carbon emissions went up since the Gas tax was put on!
Did the gas tax stop you from driving your SUV Hatch?
I didn`t think so, looks like Campbell has all his talented and not so talented media monitors working tonight!
You wanna talk,talk, but at least back it up with some data.
egmont rapids
3 years ago
Luke
I am sure you must have something to post that shows BCs emissions came down?
Didn`t think so, who is C hatch, is he at the desk beside you?
The great gas tax,visionary,who would of thunk it? In fact I think we should nominate Campbell for the nobel prize!
I mean it,really I do, haven`t you noticed there is no more traffic,none, I really see the diffrence, even my favorite radio station 7.30 am(all traffic,all the time)has nothing to talk about.
I have an idea to solve world hunger, a rising food tax, I will start it at 10 cents a pound,rising to 50 cents a pound,and with all monies to be returned.
It is the message,we must deter people from eating,the less we eat,the more food for starving nations!
Wow,maybe I can get a nobel prize!
How about a rising water tax, wow,now I am a visionary,maybe I will get a nobel prize!
Luke, you really should train these guys a little better.
cheers
Stump
3 years ago
it's tricky
"Yet... the BC NDP wants to trick the BC public again..."
Well, it seems to work for the current 'open and accountable' administration.
egmont rapids
3 years ago
Luke Skywalker
Hey Luke,that globe and mail story you put a link to is absolutely hilarious!
I mean evrybody should read it,lol, it is priceless.
I have a few highlights from the story.
Carole james is using the 1.7 billion dollar surplus projection to base her promises on.
But according to Colin Hansen and I quote "1.7 billion surplus to spend,its gone,the forcasts are out the window"
LOL--for goodness sakes,their Colin Hansen`s forcast, thats too much!
Mr hansen says and I quote "James spending relies on a bookkeeping trick"
LOL--Too much--It is obvious the NEW FINANCE MINISTER --COLIN HANSEN IS FAMILIAR WITH BOOKKEEPING TRICKS.
Well MR. Hansen ---You better tell Gordon Campbell that YOUR PROJECTIONS AS FINANCE MINISTER ARE " OUT THE WINDOW"
So I guess that means Gordon Campbell can`t make anymore promises!
If any of you readers or posters/commenters need a laugh,please read the globe and mail story that Luke Skywalker posted, just read the Colin Hansen statements.
Read them like an attorney--Too much luke,maybe you better re-read the article--LOL -hee-haw --boy have I got ammo for bill Good on friday--lol
G West
3 years ago
egmont
Are you saying that 'this' budget is already fudged - mon dieu, how can zis be?
No wonder Carole Taylor wanted out!
Frank
3 years ago
Liberal math
So how about that, according to Luke's link, Hansen says we're already in deficit. I wonder when he planned on telling us?
So how is Campbell going to pay for his tax cuts and the rest of his 10 point plan?
You know, a 12 minute tv spot would have been a good time to tell us there's no surplus (not that there ever was) and he'll have to borrow the money to cover the lost tax revenue.
Of course if Justine Hunter was on the ball at all she would have realized Hansen's response was the big story.
Frank
3 years ago
C Hatch
Why worry about the NDP? The carbon tax is already in place and making the world better every day isn't it?
How much did emissions go down just this past week?
You better alert the Arctic that we already have a carbon tax, it doesn't seem to be helping.
On the other hand, maybe its people like you that have "poisoned the well". You make everyone think that if we have a carbon tax nothing needs to be done, they just pay their 2 cents a litre and the world will get better.
So are you the guy I thank for wiping out salmon and driving 1/4 of all mammals to the edge of extinction?
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Frank...
I just want your expert opinion. Is this for real??? :)
And that includes the additional $570 million in additional tax cuts??? :)
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/capital_van_isl/story.html?id=04d21943-64b5-46ed-80fe-6037a9c7da9e
Frankly, that's way outta of my league.
David Lewis
3 years ago
NDP cap and trade
They don't have details on their plan because they don't have one. The policy they are pursuing is play to the crowd and vacuum up a few votes. They had no objection to the development of the Liberal climate policy until they saw votes in opposing it.
Even McCain has a more fleshed out plan to deal with climate change than these clowns.
Frank
3 years ago
Luke
On the one hand, who cares, because the NDP isn't going to win, this is a right-wing province where even when Campbell is caught driving drunk by the cops his approval ratings go up.
Second, it depends where the money is being spent. I believe that the return to the economy when money is put in the hands of people at the bottom is higher than when money is given to people at the top.
On that basis, I noted there was absolutely no outcry at all that Campbell can't afford his latest round of tax cuts and spending.
A new pension plan? How much is that going to cost and where's he getting the money?
Half a billion more in tax cuts? How? Did he call up the Chinese and ask for a pre-election loan?
G West
3 years ago
Pension plan????
More to the point, there is no plan - and there won't be one, not for years - Campbell knows the kind of work that's involved in designing and drafting a 'voluntary' plan - he'll probably come up with something akin to the 5000 beds he was going to create in long term care by 2005...
Don't hold your breath too long. There is another possibility - maybe he'll put BCAA on the job.
Frank
3 years ago
Luke
For an even better description of why the Socreds always win Luke, read David Lewis's post. The NDP is even attacked for not destroying the environment like the Libs because the Libs are smart enough to charge David 2 cents a litre.
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
C Hatch: You're about as far from naive as possible
Call me naive but I never believed Carole James capable of this. Especially on a clear and present danger like global warming. The forests are dying, the Arctic is melting and this is just the beginning. The world as we know it is in serious danger and the NDP want to pick a fight over a couple cents a litre???
I've discussed this with several of her MLAs who just wince and claim Carole is following strategists that think demagogery is the way to win this one. They say they've tried but can't get her to support good climate policy.
C Hatch, I think your piece is at the opposite end of the political spectrum from the naive. You're very manipulative, using all the great pundit tricks, such as unnamed sources that have official sounding titles, plus the searing emergency rhetoric about global warming that is deliberately designed to foreclose debate and dishonestly smear people who perfer alternative policy approaches.
In my opinion, it's a such a nasty piece of work, that it probably belongs in the Georgia Straight, not The Tyee.
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
David Lewis: What's your source for this material?
David Lewis
They don't have details on their plan because they don't have one. The policy they are pursuing is play to the crowd and vacuum up a few votes. They had no objection to the development of the Liberal climate policy until they saw votes in opposing it.
What's your source for these claims? And what is the basis for your claim of expertise in this area? Are you a grad student?
carfreed
3 years ago
carbon tax
I dont want anymore traffic on this planet.
I got an electric bike to get about on and I use public transit.
All you people who are still driving daily and nightly should be paying for all the roads, road maintenance,medical bills from accidents, filthy air,streets and houses and clothing,parking,road kills,police surveillance,stress related disorders,crime ,etc.
The truth about public transit is that it is inconvenient. It is that way because you choose to drive and expect and expect governments to support this choice.
You whine at the pumps when the price goes up but you don"t whine about the costs to society or the deaths and injuries to your friends,relatives,etc. and all those extra costs to society.
So, if you dont want a carbon tax, maybe you should pay for all these added expenses, like increased driver insurance or how about pay as you go and put that money into something useful.
I would like to sue you all for polluting my world and my grandchildren"s world with all your exhaust and noise.
netscaper2
3 years ago
couple centa a litre
some one up top of this page said "what's 2.3 cents a litre". And yet another said "if you move to langley, you deserve to pay more" for a carbon tax.
Good on you guy's"! So, I bought a Caddy Escalade just so I could pay lottsa pst and gst and moved to Hope. I work downtown Van and am now doing my part by paying big carbon taxes and helping my government prove the carban tax works. Go Liberals !
I think Mr Campbell should by some great big fans, electric of course, so we in Hope can blow all that shitty air that you guys make, right back to you !
Frank
3 years ago
carfreed
You want to sue anyone against the carbon tax? Does this mean you believe the carbon tax is lowering emissions and non-Liberals will make them rise again if elected someday?
So as long as we keep the Liberals in power everything will be all right with the environment?
For what its worth, salmon were not wiped out by cars. The reason 25% of mammals reportedly are going extinct is not because of cars.
Maybe non-Liberals should sue everyone who is for the carbon tax since they support a gov't that believes in expanding fish farms and destroying habitat. Did Campbell's carbon tax balance all that out in your mind?
How about the policy of bringing more people into BC because of a so-called "labour shortage"? Is that good for the environment too? Or is that also counter-balanced by the carbon tax?
How about globalization? Is using energy to move raw materials halfway across the globe to a cheap labour and less regulatory location where those materials can be turned into finished products and then shipped back to us using more energy also counter-balanced by the carbon tax?
Can I sue people that are pro-globalization? Can I sue people that live in urban areas whether they drive a car or not? Can I sue people that support run-of-river projects? How about those that support a forest company selling what were public forests to build condos?
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
Total put-on
carfreed
I dont want anymore traffic on this planet.
I got an electric bike to get about on and I use public transit. ...
carfreed, don't you think people in the real world have actually met political drama queens before? We've all learned the hard way that what people like you mean is, "Can I get a ride in your car?"
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
Are all climate scientists Liberals?
Here is a story by Jeff Nagel which ran in the Black Press group papers. It shows just how closely linked the federal election statements by climate scientists and economists were to the Liberal Party of Canada:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/tri_city_maple_ridge/mapleridgenews/news/33152604.html
Maple Ridge News
Climate forum gloomy post election
By Jeff Nagel - Maple Ridge News
Published: October 23, 2008 6:00 PM
Climate scientist Gordon McBean fears the fight against global warming took a serious blow in the Oct. 14 federal election.
He’s among the climate change experts who met at an SFU conference in Surrey last Friday who were dismayed by the result, which saw voters punish the Liberals and their proposed Green Shift.
McBean said voters were fixated on economic concerns and showed it by saying “don’t bother me with any more taxes and let’s think of the long term, which means the next six months.”
The University of Western Ontario professor is one of the Nobel Prize-winning members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of 130 scientists who had signed a letter calling for concerted action by Canadian government leaders to save the planet’s atmosphere.
McBean said it would be a mistake if the Liberal provincial government drops its own carbon tax or freezes its phase-in under growing public and opposition pressure.
Note too the totally non-coincidental reference to the provincial Liberals as well, and the implied excoriating of Carole James and the NDP. It's almost as if McBean's speaking notes were written by C Hatch.
Stump
3 years ago
ummm, no
"We've all learned the hard way that what people like you mean is, "Can I get a ride in your car?""
No. what we mean is we'd like to travel using an eco-friendly method without having to fear for our lives.
When I see people roaring up and down 10th ave with no regard to the cyclists using it, and idiots like the twit at 12th and Fraser trying to drive, read, and highlight the document propped against her steering wheel, it makes it easy to understand why people are reluctant to adopt better ways of getting about. The mess we are in falls firmly at the feet of those who won't adapt nor extend a semblance of courtesy to those who are. You should be happy to offer the ride... it's one less car or bike on the road. Car-pooling is a great way to address the fact that our highways are way, way below capacity and every single occupant vehicle represents a public utility utilized at 25% capacity or less. It's a luxury we can no longer afford.
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
MOTORSCOOTERS ON SIDEWALKS
I agree, Stump, the use of cell phones while driving should be prohibited, no question.
Last week I got a bit choked when some woman with "Friendly Manitoba" plates on her motorscooter started riding it along the sidewalk on Hastings Street. I told her I was going to complain to the police, that having bicyclists on the sidewalks weaving in and out among the pedestrians was bad enough, but having a motorized vehicle on the sidewalk was just too much. She called me an asshole for complaining, and I got dirty looks from the sympathetic bicyclists tying up their cycles at the SFU Harbour Centre campus bike rack.
I do find it incredibly irritating listening to people advertising their environmental righteousness, and then asking for a lift. If they believe in public transit, why not use it? I do, five days a week, and if I am staying downtown late, it takes me two hours to get home on the bus. And there's no washrooms available, so best to manage those coffees wisely.
The system could be better, no doubt, but it is very tiresome listening to people who in reality are non-users talking about how great it is. In fact, ... it's kind of like listening to The Great Derek Corrigan say how great it is as he's motoring around town in his leased Saab motorcar, leased at the expense of BC Transit, of course! But that was 10 years ago, so maybe time to let it to.
Stump
3 years ago
boo-hoo
"I do find it incredibly irritating listening to people advertising their environmental righteousness, and then asking for a lift."
Why? If two people are going in the same direction, why not share the resource? Why not save someone a two hour bus ride? Seriously, WTF? How hard is it to help someone out? You yourself find other ways to get around two days a week at least. You're complaining the buses suck and complaining that other people share your opinion?
Stump
3 years ago
BTW, I'm not even talking
BTW, I'm not even talking about cellphones. I'm talking about people who drive like assholes all the time. They are legion and they scare people away from great solutions such as cycling. If you wonder why bikes are on sidewalks, it's because drivers make the roads (which we all are entitled to) their private domain through intimidation and disregard for the safety of others.
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
It's no solution for cyclists to start abusing people on foot
Why? If two people are going in the same direction, why not share the resource? Why not save someone a two hour bus ride?
I don't mind giving people a ride. I do mind giving a ride to people who subscribe to the full-on, Carmen Mills/Stephen Rees, cars = evil speech, ... and then demand a lift. It's kind of galling. It's like listening to some temperance spokesperson who goes on and on about demon alcohol, and then demands that you buy them a beer! After all, they got thirsty from all that energetic talking.
I'm talking about people who drive like assholes all the time. They are legion and they scare people away from great solutions such as cycling. If you wonder why bikes are on sidewalks, it's because drivers make the roads (which we all are entitled to) their private domain through intimidation and disregard for the safety of others.
It's no solution for cyclists to start abusing people on foot. I have cycled on City streets when I lived in Vancouver proper. I didn't use the sidewalks as a general rule, not if there were pedestrians about. If the sidewalk was totally vacant and it seemed a good move, sure, but not a busy downtown sidewalk crowded with foot traffic.
Stump
3 years ago
demanding a lift
Say no.
But, recognize that our infrastructure makes it impossible to get to some places safely without using a car, and the temperance man can always choose a glass of water over a beer.
But you did use the sidewalks at times? As do I. Slowly, and with discretion.
It sounds to me like you dislike jerks. And those people can't be categorized by transportation choice. Assholes drive, and ride the bus, and ride bikes too. But at a certain point one has to take into consideration which assholes are the most likely to kill someone, and it's not the ones riding bikes on busy sidewalks.
zalm
3 years ago
Hmmmm....
I guess we know where voters stand now. Axe the tax!
Or was that just "Axe the arrogance of the Campbell government to hurry up the spring sitting so they could cancel the fall sitting of the Ledge?"
The NDP fielded a couple of rather odd ducks and still hardly anybody could hold their noses long enough to go vote for Campbell's retreads.
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
Where is Tom Barrett?
Does Tom Barrett wish to comment on the outcome of the byelections? Or does he have to wait till 200 economists and 100 climate scientists parse the results and tell him what the official (READ: Liberal) truth is?