carbon tax??

[cowman]

Hello fellow Canadians!

Ialways enjoy views that challenge my thinking!.

It appears that depending on whose propaganda you chose to support..the carbon tax/rebate is positive for somewhere between 40-90%of my fellow countrymen/countrypeople..or ....

Now please meet me where I live..(the world is sooo complex)..

...bottom line the purpose of the carbon tax(or whatever we call it this week) is to "encourage"us to burn less fossil fuels.

Give me honest,thoughtful reasoning and I promise to comeback and try to engage(and learn!)!

It may take a day or two because....life

I do not doubt on a personal or global level that is a good thing...but how does sending us a cheque quarterly..("mainstream media"has been suggesting lately that the lack of these cheques is a huuuuge downer of PC election hopes)...make us think about how we live,muchless be willing to change how we live?

PS try to think about the other 99% of people,not just the weirdos who hangout here(winky face emoji)

[erp]

I don't quite understand what your question is - if it just 'do people like carbon taxes?' then the answer is a resounding *no*.

By and large, if economics work even a little bit, a carbon tax should drive reductions in emissions - but since practically everything has some carbon intrinsic to it's production and transportation it's difficult for individual consumers to move away from it gradually. A carbon tax in the 70s would have been dramatically effective at reducing our carbon emissions in the 2020s, but that ship has sailed.

On the other hand, carbon taxes (even relatively small ones) are pretty good at getting businesses to change. They plan in much larger numbers, can invest in different technologies, and behave a lot more rationally than retail-level consumers.

What I'd love is if the CPC actually wrote decent climate policy, because then you could have a political conversation about it rather than the stupid shit we have now. A while back I wrote the following pitch as a Canadian Conservative themed climate policy (it's not necessarily what I'd choose, but it doesn't reject the idea of climate change either). It basically comes down to "Individual consumers aren't especially good at reducing their emissions, and there's no obvious connection between efforts to reduce emissions (at the consumer level) and cost with the current pricing system. It fails to actually give the market signal to consumers, and thus has no value."

The pitch:

Obviously, Canadians value the environment and are concerned about the very real impacts of climate change (increased migration and climate refugees, energy insecurity, wildfires and smoke, impacts on food quality and availability). The CPC are committed to significant, effective action on climate change which doesn't come at the expense of the individual Canadians who are least able to make a difference.

To that end:

• we're scrapping the fuel tax on gas/NG/diesel/etc. (the Federal Fuel Levy). Consumers shouldn't have to pay for companies and municipalities which force them to drive.
• we're doubling down on the large emitter OBPS system, which drives large emitters to quantify and pay for their emissions and rewards first movers who can lower their emissions. This system is based on production intensities, so it doesn't penalize efficient businesses.
• we're implementing a CBA (carbon border adjustment) so that our industry can compete with imports from jurisdictions with no carbon pricing. This is good for Canadian business, and forces countries who aren't interested in regulating carbon to compete on an even playing field (look shiftily at China here).
• we're committing to aggressive public-private partnerships to expand our electric grids, improving both total generation and reliability. This creates jobs for Canadians in both the installation and the maintenance of these systems, while driving down costs from coast to coast (this is probably a lie, but it's a plausible lie).
• we're implementing industrial policy to drive innovation and technology in batteries, CCUS and other technologies of the future. Canadians have bountiful natural resources and technical expertise, Federal investments upfront allow us to be competitive with other leaders, keeping dollars in the hands of Canadians.

I mean. That aligns with fiscal conservative values, it's effective policy, it differs from the Libs in meaningful ways while still providing consistency for industry. It even allows them to take credit for things that the Libs are already doing AND it cancels the carbon tax! It also has the populist appeal of sticking it to big business, which is apparently a conservative value now?

A strong conservative party is good for Canada, but they need to be putting forward actual policy which drives real changes.

[Kmp2]

By and large, if economics work even a little bit, a carbon tax should drive reductions in emissions

I'd qualify this with if the economics work, emissions don't have to go down, even growing more slowly than otherwise or business as usual is evidence that the carbon tax is working. Perhaps it's insufficient on it's own, or priced too low though.

There is data (below) and I have anecdata about how well the carbon tax worked in BC (which is not the federal tax btw). When my cousin moved from Alberta to Van with their Big @SS Pickup truck, they very quickly bought a small EV as their second car... gas there is $$$... and they are not at all mustachian. That's not all the CTax though, as they lack refining capacity so transporting gasoline drives up the price too.

Personally I like the carbon tax, my carbon accounting for the year was 14.58 tonnes for our family. While that would be 950$ if we paid Ctax on all of it, however, in Alberta we don't pay the full tax on electricity, and most agricultural emissions are exempted as well. So when I account for that its actually more like 7 tonnes or 455$/year. This is <<< less than we get as a rebate, in fact we get more than that in 1 quarterly payment. The rebate doesn't change, so the more I bike/do things close to home, the more I get to keep.

I mean it's just a google search on whether or not the BC carbon tax works, but there's lots of research showing reduced per capita emissions (emissions still growing overall because population is growing)
https://www.google.com/search?q=BC%27s+carbon+tax+work%3F&rlz=1C1ONGR_enCA1075CA1075&oq=BC%27s+carbon+tax+work%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoF0gEINzI0NWowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1

[Prairie Moustache]

Another factor to consider is power generation - historically BC has had ample amounts of cheap "clean" hydroeletric power. I've read a few articles that indicate climate change will result in less consistent dam reservoir levels for power production in BC which is why you now see the BC government looking to smaller independent power producers since BC has gone all in on electrification and wants everyone and their dog to run a heat pump and EV. You'll notice most of the provinces that resist the carbon tax still rely on natural gas and coal for power. Sure, BC's carbon tax is a success story but they started with an advantage for sure. FWIW I'm a Sask transplant in BC.

[GuitarStv]

I wish that there would be serious discussion of the carbon tax . . . where the costs of going through with it (generally pretty low for most people) are compared to the costs of doing nothing at all (significant as environmental damage ramps up), or the costs of other options.  Right now it seems like we're being constantly told about costs of the Liberal program and total silence on all other aspects.  That's not very honest.

[Kmp2]

Another factor to consider is power generation - historically BC has had ample amounts of cheap "clean" hydroeletric power. I've read a few articles that indicate climate change will result in less consistent dam reservoir levels for power production in BC which is why you now see the BC government looking to smaller independent power producers since BC has gone all in on electrification and wants everyone and their dog to run a heat pump and EV. You'll notice most of the provinces that resist the carbon tax still rely on natural gas and coal for power. Sure, BC's carbon tax is a success story but they started with an advantage for sure. FWIW I'm a Sask transplant in BC.

Yes, that's why the fact that Alberta doesn't pay the full carbon tax on their electricity is sooooo important. We have a best-in-class carbon emission intensity, basically a new efficient combined cycle power plant, and plants that emit more than that amount pay carbon tax on the difference, plants that emit less get a credit (to sell/trade). It's made coal plants too expensive to run, but hasn't been the main cause of our increased electricity prices... that's um our too concentrated market - and market power. It's designed to change the system, not target the consumer. Here the carbon tax is more about driving and home heating (energy efficiency) at the consumer level. I suspect if/when the first CCUS is added to one of the best-in-class combined cycle plants the target emissions intensity will drop to that level, but it means I can only foresee an independent plant do that, not a plant that's owned by a power company with a fleet that would be paying higher carbon prices. BTW - if the feds drop the carbon tax, the Alberta Tier regulation (electricity/industrial tax) would remain unaffected (unless our provincial gov't changes it - which would be surprising as it's stood the test of 3 very different governments). Also while, Alberta is vocal against the federal carbon tax/consumer carbon tax, we've had the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/regu/alta-reg-139-2007/latest/alta-reg-139-2007.html) since 2007!!!

Unfortunately I don't know what Saskatchewan does - the public utility isn't as forthcoming with data, and it's not my area of research - sorry.
I can say, that when it's windy in Alberta we export 1000MW/h to BC that lowers the hydro they need allowing reservoirs to fill. It actually could be a really important balance for both provinces going forward and I know there's lots more work in whether additional inter-ties make sense.

I wish that there would be serious discussion of the carbon tax . . . where the costs of going through with it (generally pretty low for most people) are compared to the costs of doing nothing at all (significant as environmental damage ramps up), or the costs of other options.  Right now it seems like we're being constantly told about costs of the Liberal program and total silence on all other aspects.  That's not very honest.

Seriously, if only it was framed as pay $ now to mitigate, or pay $$$ later to adapt/suffer. However, that only works with people who acknowledge that CO2/CH4 emissions are causing climate change, if you disagree with the underlying premise - than it's pay $ now for nothing.

[techwiz]

I wish that there would be serious discussion of the carbon tax . . . where the costs of going through with it (generally pretty low for most people) are compared to the costs of doing nothing at all (significant as environmental damage ramps up), or the costs of other options.  Right now it seems like we're being constantly told about costs of the Liberal program and total silence on all other aspects.  That's not very honest.

Very much agree it would be great to have clear facts and real discussion without all the pollical mud slinging and spin.

I wish the general public could have the attention span to actually focus on facts and issues and hold the politicians to account so they would address the issues and present well thought out policy not just hype and buying votes with tax dollars rebate cheques.

[Retire-Canada]

Assuming you/they/we are not going down the climate change denial route and agree we need to do something about carbon pollution:

1. Leaving people to make their own unincentivized choices has not worked.
2. Pollution pricing has been studied by experts of all stripes and found to be the most effective way to get people to make lower pollution choices.
3. When pressed the critics of pollution pricing have not been able to come up with credible alternatives that work better.

Just to give you one example of the insanity of the politics around this issue...the AB premier participated in a parliamentary committee recently where she said the "carbon tax" was immoral and inhumane despite it 80% of her population getting more in rebates than they paid. And she turns around and increases the gasoline tax in her province where there are no rebates and that is somehow not immoral and inhumane??? Sadly like with vaccines pollution pricing has moved into the realm of political theatre.

Provinces in Canada can opt out of the Federal carbon pricing scheme, but in order to do that they have to propose and implement a credible alternative.

[Metalcat]

There's also the fact that an entire international and domestic carbon reduction economic incentives market is being developed in the background. ITMOs, CCDs, CBAMs etc. Carbon taxes are a small piece of the bigger economic puzzle.

A lot of the political rhetoric is so divorced from the policy that's actually *currently* being developed, it's just gotten to the point that it's silly.

A lot of our targets are pretty set in stone, and progress on emissions reduction has already been substantial. If a conservative government wins, they will be briefed on *options* for moving forward to achieve the targets set by the emissions accountability act, but it's not like they can easily just wipe away entrenched policy that has been developed for years and years since the Harper government era.

I think the vast majority of the public just has absolutely no clue as to how policy is developed.

The rhetoric makes it sound like we're still floundering for a plan and that if certain leaders are elected that we'll just do nothing or go backwards.

I mean...that's possible, but they would have to flex extraordinary policy muscle so far beyond the norm and essentially go to war with almost every department.

We're seeing an absolutely unprecedented amount of interdepartmental collaboration on major, aggressive goals right now, and it seems like no one has any awareness of it.

Check out the Climate Institute's assessment of the recent progress report and current plan, which is being actively developed at a break-neck pace right now.

"Our 2022 Independent Assessment of the Emissions Reduction Plan concluded that the plan was a big step forward. We found that policies in the Emissions Reduction Plan would drive emission reductions across all sectors and major sources of emissions in the economy, that it was credible and comprehensive, and that it made major progress in terms of transparency."

https://climateinstitute.ca/reports/2030-emissions-reduction-plan/#:~:text=In%20December%202023%2C%20Canada%20published,cent%20of%20Canada's%202030%20target.

I happen to live with a senior policy advisor who is nicknamed "Carbon Guy" so this shit is literally all I hear about day in and day out. The way it's talked about in the political rhetoric and the media is a fucking joke.

ETA: also Higgs promoting shale gas in NB as an alternative is...well...very Higgs, let's just say that. I mean, there's a reason this guy is a joke even in his own party at this point. There's a reason NB has no shale gas to sell in the first place. It's just...Ugh...NB politics are a fucking mess of corruption.

[GilesMM]

Canada has very high emissions per capita but low overall.  Due to it's high latitude geography, modest population and global influence stands to be one of the big losers in climate change due to the higher priority set by developing countries on cheap energy.  Until people learn by demonstration the impact of climate on their lives in China, India, Russia, etc they will opt for cheap energy.  But by then it will be pretty late in the game.

[Kmp2]

There's also the fact that an entire international and domestic carbon reduction economic incentives market is being developed in the background. ITMOs, CCDs, CBAMs etc. Carbon taxes are a small piece of the bigger economic puzzle.

A lot of the political rhetoric is so divorced from the policy that's actually *currently* being developed, it's just gotten to the point that it's silly.

A lot of our targets are pretty set in stone, and progress on emissions reduction has already been substantial. If a conservative government wins, they will be briefed on *options* for moving forward to achieve the targets set by the emissions accountability act, but it's not like they can easily just wipe away entrenched policy that has been developed for years and years since the Harper government era.

I think the vast majority of the public just has absolutely no clue as to how policy is developed.

The rhetoric makes it sound like we're still floundering for a plan and that if certain leaders are elected that we'll just do nothing or go backwards.

I mean...that's possible, but they would have to flex extraordinary policy muscle so far beyond the norm and essentially go to war with almost every department.

We're seeing an absolutely unprecedented amount of interdepartmental collaboration on major, aggressive goals right now, and it seems like no one has any awareness of it.

Check out the Climate Institute's assessment of the recent progress report and current plan, which is being actively developed at a break-neck pace right now.

"Our 2022 Independent Assessment of the Emissions Reduction Plan concluded that the plan was a big step forward. We found that policies in the Emissions Reduction Plan would drive emission reductions across all sectors and major sources of emissions in the economy, that it was credible and comprehensive, and that it made major progress in terms of transparency."

https://climateinstitute.ca/reports/2030-emissions-reduction-plan/#:~:text=In%20December%202023%2C%20Canada%20published,cent%20of%20Canada's%202030%20target.

I happen to live with a senior policy advisor who is nicknamed "Carbon Guy" so this shit is literally all I hear about day in and day out. The way it's talked about in the political rhetoric and the media is a fucking joke.

ETA: also Higgs promoting shale gas in NB as an alternative is...well...very Higgs, let's just say that. I mean, there's a reason this guy is a joke even in his own party at this point. There's a reason NB has no shale gas to sell in the first place. It's just...Ugh...NB politics are a fucking mess of corruption.

While historically, I agree dismantling 9 years of policy would be very difficult, slow, and deliberate. I think the political norms that made that true are being disrupted. Particularly, I think Alberta is the testing ground for quickly destroying existing policy, and implementing drastically different new policy without consultation from major stakeholders - based solely on (a minority, vocal) base ideology. I would not underestimate a majority conservative federal government's ability to do the same. Ignore climate targets, and implement wildly different policy with aim to destroy the green economy.

Some examples,

The quick downfall of decades of policy supporting women's reproductive rights in the US.

The Alberta curriculum replacement, the Alberta Electricity Moratorium on Wind/Solar projects and the subsequent new rules on development (which go directly against recommendations from the regulating bodies), opening up Alberta's eastern slopes to coal development, selling a bunch of rights and then closing it up again, immediately spending billions to undo NDP contracts on things like oil-by-rail... I could probably go on, the UCP health care restructuring, funding for schools/universities/municipalities...

So, they are going to war with multiple departments... and they are winning.

[GuitarStv]

Yeah, Alberta is really going the way of the crazies.  It looks more like a southern US state than a Canadian province these days.  I could easily see some of this spreading to Ontario . . . Ford would love to implement a lot of this stuff, but he has been getting caught in enough stupid back-room shenanigans that people seem to be catching on to the grift.

[Metalcat]

While historically, I agree dismantling 9 years of policy would be very difficult, slow, and deliberate. I think the political norms that made that true are being disrupted. Particularly, I think Alberta is the testing ground for quickly destroying existing policy, and implementing drastically different new policy without consultation from major stakeholders - based solely on (a minority, vocal) base ideology. I would not underestimate a majority conservative federal government's ability to do the same. Ignore climate targets, and implement wildly different policy with aim to destroy the green economy.

Some examples,

The quick downfall of decades of policy supporting women's reproductive rights in the US.

The Alberta curriculum replacement, the Alberta Electricity Moratorium on Wind/Solar projects and the subsequent new rules on development (which go directly against recommendations from the regulating bodies), opening up Alberta's eastern slopes to coal development, selling a bunch of rights and then closing it up again, immediately spending billions to undo NDP contracts on things like oil-by-rail... I could probably go on, the UCP health care restructuring, funding for schools/universities/municipalities...

So, they are going to war with multiple departments... and they are winning.

To be fair, provincial governments have an enormous amount of power within their own borders

What I was referring to was if Poilievre and the Cons get elected federally, it's extremely difficult for a party to try and take on multiple, coordinated, federal departments and try and dictate to them that acts and strategies that have been entrenched into the policy process are now, just, not going to be followed.

The provinces can absolutely throw hissy fits and do whatever the hell they want at their own level, and they can put pressure on the federal government, for sure, but what I'm talking about is a lot of the rhetoric that makes it sound like the current federal government has no plan, is floundering, and that this particular piece of emissions-reduction policy is all there is and that Poilievre sweeping in would basically tank emissions-reduction policy altogether.

This is how a lot of people think, but that's because there has been absolutely piss poor *realistic* coverage and discussion about what on earth the feds are doing on this front.

DH has literally stopped even telling people what his job is because he can't take the nonsense conversations anymore.

[rocketpj]

Alberta, and their unintentionally absurd premier, have fully embraced magical thinking as their way forward. 'If we just wish hard enough, all our goals will become true!'.  Anyone with facts that might disagree with their fantasies is obviously an extremist of some kind and must be yelled at.

I grew up in the very heart of Alberta oil country, worked in the industry for awhile, and I just can't engage with them anymore.