As a preface, this government should not be increasing any tax nor introducing a new tax. Period.
The drama teacher never studied science or math, and is not capable of understanding them( He got elected cause he has nice hair). Some of his ministers certainly did and do-Garneau has a PhD in engineering. Goodale is a smart man, albeit ready to retire.
That said, if we are in need of more tax revenue to give away overseas to accomplish??, and if it must be tied to the basis of life element carbon, there is a better way to do it than an across the board tax that raises the price of everything and will have no impact on consumption. In the abscence of conclusive evidence that carbon dioxide is even a problem-not long ago so called greenhouse gases (like nitrous oxide) were talked about in CO2 equivalents (300 times worse if I remember) but now it's just CO2; carbon now bad. A lot of assumption and so many that nothing can be proven.
But if a carbon tax it must be...
is there any more justified use of energy (fuel) than growing food? Is not the effect of increasing the cost of production/transport/processing food that more poor people starve? Other than minor tweaks and further scientific breakthroughs, it takes a lot of energy to feed people. Food production should be not be taxed.
But what about recreational uses of fuel/energy? Car racing as an example-other than the consumption effect on the economy and the entertainment value, what 'good' does all the fuel burning do? Tailgating at a NASCAR race is fun I'm sure-would like to go-but its recreation. Many other examples-flying, snowmobiling, driving great big SUV's really fast to get to the artificial ice rink, on and on
Personally like doing some of these things, but if it's a choice-and if we need a tax-then applying it on energy use points that are optional, might encourage conservation and innovation.
There should be a distinction between essential and non essential use of energy. An ambulance has to drive fast to hopefully save a life. A triple axle enclosed does not have to be towed at 120 to get sledding at Revelstoke.
Is there any point in us as farmers, farm organizations advancing an argument like this? A tax on everything hurts our competiveness, starves more poor people and does nothing for energy consumption really. A tax on discretionary energy use would hurt our first world rights but might curb some consumption and spur innovation.
Please comment I don't mind being wrong.
The drama teacher never studied science or math, and is not capable of understanding them( He got elected cause he has nice hair). Some of his ministers certainly did and do-Garneau has a PhD in engineering. Goodale is a smart man, albeit ready to retire.
That said, if we are in need of more tax revenue to give away overseas to accomplish??, and if it must be tied to the basis of life element carbon, there is a better way to do it than an across the board tax that raises the price of everything and will have no impact on consumption. In the abscence of conclusive evidence that carbon dioxide is even a problem-not long ago so called greenhouse gases (like nitrous oxide) were talked about in CO2 equivalents (300 times worse if I remember) but now it's just CO2; carbon now bad. A lot of assumption and so many that nothing can be proven.
But if a carbon tax it must be...
is there any more justified use of energy (fuel) than growing food? Is not the effect of increasing the cost of production/transport/processing food that more poor people starve? Other than minor tweaks and further scientific breakthroughs, it takes a lot of energy to feed people. Food production should be not be taxed.
But what about recreational uses of fuel/energy? Car racing as an example-other than the consumption effect on the economy and the entertainment value, what 'good' does all the fuel burning do? Tailgating at a NASCAR race is fun I'm sure-would like to go-but its recreation. Many other examples-flying, snowmobiling, driving great big SUV's really fast to get to the artificial ice rink, on and on
Personally like doing some of these things, but if it's a choice-and if we need a tax-then applying it on energy use points that are optional, might encourage conservation and innovation.
There should be a distinction between essential and non essential use of energy. An ambulance has to drive fast to hopefully save a life. A triple axle enclosed does not have to be towed at 120 to get sledding at Revelstoke.
Is there any point in us as farmers, farm organizations advancing an argument like this? A tax on everything hurts our competiveness, starves more poor people and does nothing for energy consumption really. A tax on discretionary energy use would hurt our first world rights but might curb some consumption and spur innovation.
Please comment I don't mind being wrong.
Comment