Carbon Tax

[chuckChuck]

I guess Preston Manning must be a left winger too! LOL

Manning calls on Conservatives to stop attacking carbon pricing
By Janice *****on. Published on Mar 8, 2017 5:16pm
Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

Conservative elder statesman Preston Manning is advising the Conservative caucus to lay off attacking the market-based concept of carbon pricing.

In an email obtained by iPolitics, Manning points caucus members at a Fraser Institute report on carbon pricing by conservative economists Jason Clemens and Ken Green, which he says is “right on” and “could be useful to you.” Manning attached the report to his email.

“I know all of you are wrestling with this issue and that there is considerable disagreement among conservatives on how to approach it, but hopefully this approach — focus on attacking the implementation rather than the market-based concept itself — will be helpful,” Manning writes.

While the Tories have been hammering Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over his plan to price carbon, Conservative leadership candidates and also some members have also attacked Michael Chong on this issue.

Chong is the only leadership candidate to publicly embrace pricing carbon; his arguments in favour of a market-based mechanism to reduce carbon emissions are often greeted by catcalls at leadership debates.

However, there have been few, if any, solid arguments from leadership candidates against Chong’s plan. Candidates merely say it’s a bad idea and attack the concept itself — which is exactly what Manning wants them to stop doing.

Manning writes that the Fraser Institute’s report states that using a pricing mechanism to drive down carbon pollution is preferable, from the perspective of market-oriented conservatives, to micro-regulation by governments.

“But then they assert that for this concept to work in practice it is absolutely essential that it possess certain characteristics: genuine revenue neutrality, a significant reduction in environmental regulations, and a no-subsidy policy with respect to alternative energy sources,” writes Manning.

He goes on to say that the report makes the point that none of the carbon-pricing regimes proposed in Canada meet the criteria — citing the federal, Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia schemes as examples. Manning steers clear of referencing Chong’s plan.

Manning writes that the implementation of a carbon-pricing regime is being “hopelessly bungled” by these administrations and it is “this bungled implementation which should be the primary focus of our attacks and opposition.”

Drilling down into the implementation of carbon pricing, says Manning, avoids “putting conservatives in the contradictory position of appearing to favour regulation over market mechanisms for dealing with environmental challenges.”

[Hamloc]

Chuck2 as far as the new LNG Canada developement in B.C. they negotiated a freeze in the carbon tax rate of $30 a tonne. So while everyone else in B.C. pays a rising rate which will be $50 a tonne in 2022, LNG Canada will still be paying $30 a tonne. At present in both Aberta and B.C. a residential gas consumer pays more per gigajoule of natural gas for the carbon tax than for the natural gas! As a farmer many of the products and services I buy will increase in cost due to the carbon tax. Things like fertilizer and herbicides are all petroleum based and will increase in price. in a year like this the costs of drying grain will be much more expensive due to the carbon tax. In Alberta my freight rates to have grain hauled to the elevator have increased 12.5% in the last 2 years, certainly not all the carbon taxes fault but certainly contributes, the carbon tax on diesel is 8.43 cents gst included per litre.

When Justin Trudeau first introduced his Pan Canadian carbon tax plan Saskatchewan was the only vocal opponent, that has certainly changed. So the question of the day Chuck2 is: Can Justin Trudeau win the next federal election running on a pro carbon tax agenda and after imposing a federal carbon tax on many of the province's Jan. 1, 2019? Look forward to your response.

[chuckChuck]

As you point out the market cost of fuel has gone up significantly and this wealth transfer is going to the oil industry. If energy costs are such a big deal, why not advocate that the price of fuel should be lower for farmers?

You already pay significant taxes on fuel. A carbon tax will certainly add some cost. The question is how much and whether this will affect your net income in a significant way? What is your estimate for your farm?

Regulating carbon emissions will also add costs to inputs. All provinces say they will still have a plan to reduce carbon emissions. So what is the cost of those plans versus a carbon tax?

Agriculture and other industries can make the case that they should receive rebates to offset the carbon tax effect.

The government is planning to send back rebates to many consumers.

The whole point of putting a price on carbon is to lower emissions, increase efficiency, and spur innovation and alternatives.

Preston Manning, Michael Chong and other Conservatives see value in this approach. BC's experience shows that it works and can be done without a lot of negative effects on the economy.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

If increased CO2 weren't entirely beneficial to mankind, a tax on CO2 would be an ideal market based solution to reducing it's output, but would require levels orders of magnitude higher than currently proposed to have any meaningful effect, especially in an industrialised cold sparse country such as ours. People are slowly realising that CO2 is not the demon it was portrayed as by the wealth distribution schemers.

As it stands, supporting the carbon tax is becoming political suicide, so the best we can hope for is that Trudeau decides that this is the hill he will die on and fights the provinces, while making it a central issue of his next election campaign, so that voters can tell him how they really feel about it, eliminating the concept once and for all.

[Hamloc]

It has been estimated a carbon tax of $50 will increase fertilizer costs by up to $3 an acre, this will cost me close to $6000. I would estimate the total cost per year for me would be well over $10000 at $50 per tonne by 2022, maybe more. You never addressed my question on whether Trudeau can win on a pro carbon tax platform, no provincial government has.

[chuckChuck]

Carbon is essential to life on earth. But too much CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the air cause the greenhouse effect and climate change. All of this is scientifically proven. Unless you don't believe in science?

Water is also essential to life. Too much water in the wrong place is also a bad thing.

Nobody wants to pay more taxes. But they sure as hell want good roads, schools and healthcare when they are sick.

Not one province is saying climate change is not happening. They all plan to reduce emissions. What is the cost of these plans vs a carbon tax? Which is more effective?

Many Conservatives also believe in using carbon taxes as it is a market based tool. That is why Manning supports it over regulation.

The additional costs of a carbon tax are relatively low. Most consumers will get a rebate. It is too soon to say what the outcome of the next election will be, but lets see.

60-70 % of the electorate in this country vote centre left. Only a very small percentage don't believe in the science of climate change.

[chuckChuck]

It has been estimated a carbon tax of $50 will increase fertilizer costs by up to $3 an acre, this will cost me close to $6000. I would estimate the total cost per year for me would be well over $10000 at $50 per tonne by 2022, maybe more. You never addressed my question on whether Trudeau can win on a pro carbon tax platform, no provincial government has.

$10,000 on 2000 acres of crop? That is a very insignificant amount and much less that the typical variation in fertilizer prices caused by supply and demand market price changes.

As my accountant says there small farms that are very profitable and small farms that are not. The same applies to all sized farms. So much success is dependent on the management ability of each farm. If $3 or $5 dollars per acre is a make or break issue on your farm then I think there are perhaps other issues to consider.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I'm going to break the rules again and feed the troll. You continue to use the words believe, and science in the same sentence. It is apparent that you don't understand the meaning of one or both of these terms. Science does not require or rely on beliefs, and religious beliefs by definition ignore all science.

[GDR]

As you point out the market cost of fuel has gone up significantly and this wealth transfer is going to the oil industry. If energy costs are such a big deal, why not advocate that the price of fuel should be lower for farmers?

You already pay significant taxes on fuel. A carbon tax will certainly add some cost. The question is how much and whether this will affect your net income in a significant way? What is your estimate for your farm?

Regulating carbon emissions will also add costs to inputs. All provinces say they will still have a plan to reduce carbon emissions. So what is the cost of those plans versus a carbon tax?

Agriculture and other industries can make the case that they should receive rebates to offset the carbon tax effect.

The government is planning to send back rebates to many consumers.

The whole point of putting a price on carbon is to lower emissions, increase efficiency, and spur innovation and alternatives.

Preston Manning, Michael Chong and other Conservatives see value in this approach. BC's experience shows that it works and can be done without a lot of negative effects on the economy.

So in your theory it is great to charge a tax then have industries get exemptions and everyone else get rebates. Either support the idea or not. I suppose you think the thousands of extra government jobs it takes to administrate the program is just as important as redistributing money to those who choose not to contribute to the economy. Waste of frickin money is all it is. I along with every other farmer want a happy healthy environment and there are many good things that could be done, carbon taxing is not at all about the environment / climate.

[chuckChuck]

I'm going to break the rules again and feed the troll. You continue to use the words believe, and science in the same sentence. It is apparent that you don't understand the meaning of one or both of these terms. Science does not require or rely on beliefs, and religious beliefs by definition ignore all science.

Human caused climate change is scientifically proven. If you don't think it is exists that's fine. You are free to think what ever you want.

[chuckChuck]

So in your theory it is great to charge a tax then have industries get exemptions and everyone else get rebates. Either support the idea or not. I suppose you think the thousands of extra government jobs it takes to administrate the program is just as important as redistributing money to those who choose not to contribute to the economy. Waste of frickin money is all it is. I along with every other farmer want a happy healthy environment and there are many good things that could be done, carbon taxing is not at all about the environment / climate.

Climate change is only one of many environmental issues that need attention. But climate change is the biggest threat to the planet that will cost billions if not trillions to mitigate and adapt to. Climate change has a big cost that no one wants to pay for. Out of control global warming will cause massive sea level rise and will make many agricultural areas much less productive. Look at a map of what seal level rise will do to coastal cities!

Only the current USA government does not support the Paris climate change agreement. Syria and Nicaragua both signed on. All Conservative MPs in Canada except one voted to support the Paris climate agreement.

The rest of the world and most Americans are in favour of taking action on climate change.

Why would Preston Manning support a carbon tax if there was no problem? Why? No one on Agriville wants to answer that question. You are all ignoring it. He's not a left wing environmentalist so why does he support a carbon tax?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Human caused climate change is scientifically proven. If you don't think it is exists that's fine. You are free to think what ever you want.

to
And you are free to BELIEVE in whatever cult you may fall victim to. Just don't try to impose the costs of your belief on the rest of us who prefer to rely on science and evidence.
But, a heads up, it would help your credibility immensely if you stopped confusing beliefs with science.

[checking]

I'm advocating for a periodic table tax just to take the blame off one element for the future demise of our climate.
The biggest mistake climate alarmists have made is blaming what they see will happen decades out (a no return tipping point) all on the use of one element by the present society.
It won't work, so change tactics and tax all elements equally to remove the pressure. It has to be hard being a stand alone cc. on agriville.
The real scam comes when you believe that you have the right to replace yourself and your spouse with an ever expanding family tree, and you call that a success.
I would you call that a quicker way to reach the tipping point.

[chuckChuck]

to
And you are free to BELIEVE in whatever cult you may fall victim to. Just don't try to impose the costs of your belief on the rest of us who prefer to rely on science and evidence.
But, a heads up, it would help your credibility immensely if you stopped confusing beliefs with science.

So Preston manning believes in the cult as well? LMAO

I believe your beliefs are irrelevant. Let science speak for itself.

Failure to do nothing will also impose costs on you, your decedents and somebody else.

[chuckChuck]

I'm advocating for a periodic table tax just to take the blame off one element for the future demise of our climate.
The biggest mistake climate alarmists have made is blaming what they see will happen decades out (a no return tipping point) all on the use of one element by the present society.
It won't work, so change tactics and tax all elements equally to remove the pressure. It has to be hard being a stand alone cc. on agriville.
The real scam comes when you believe that you have the right to replace yourself and your spouse with an ever expanding family tree, and you call that a success.
I would you call that a quicker way to reach the tipping point.

It is not just one element there several greenhouse gases. Methane, nitrous Oxide, and Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases.

Here is a link to an overview of greenhouse gases: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases.

Study hard there is going to be a test on Tuesday.

Well excuse me for having children.

Somebodies children are going to pay taxes that will be used to pay for your healthcare in the final months or years of your life. And somebodies children are going to be taking care of you in the hospital or long term care home in those years.

Perhaps you hadn't thought about that?

Happy Thanksgiving!