Buried deep in the Liberal 2011 Election Platform: The Green Shift!
He did not mention that the Liberals have committed to an aggressive cap-and-trade program which would, “set a ceiling on the total amount of permissible greenhouse gas emissions by large industrial facilities.”
It’s not Green Shift, it’s a Cap & Trade. Green Shift was what is now often now called Fee & Dividend.
Fee and dividend vs. cap and trade
Perhaps this is not being made more of by the CP because it would draw attention to their plan.
Dizzy,
Which would mean talking about intesity targets.
The politics of this are cap and trade, fee and dividend both rely on raising the price for carbon because it is deemed to be an externality that needs to be captured, like pollution.
One way or another it raises money and it is a tax.
Intesity targets are bare knuckled regulation. Not that I am fan of that either.
But everything starts from an assumption that carbon is bad. If the first rule of the uncertain environemnt is do no harm it means that cap and trade or even a carbon tax is relatively light and small, barley covering the infrastructure cost of “making the market”. As an opening gambit regulation and instesity targets make more sense till we well and truly determine the problem.
I will at least give them credit that they dont want to be buying credits from Russia and Zimabawe anymore….apparently……
But the issue just isnt there anymmore, and by the way look forward to Iggy wading into the weeds to explain why fee and dividend is different from Cap and Trade…..one that most people will take as a distinction without a difference.
Dizzy,
Which would mean talking about intesity targets.
The politics of this are cap and trade, fee and dividend both rely on raising the price for carbon because it is deemed to be an externality that needs to be captured, like pollution.
One way or another it raises money and it is a tax.
Intesity targets are bare knuckled regulation. Not that I am fan of that either.
But everything starts from an assumption that carbon is bad. If the first rule of the uncertain environemnt is do no harm it means that cap and trade or even a carbon tax is relatively light and small, barley covering the infrastructure cost of “making the market”. As an opening gambit regulation and instesity targets make more sense till we well and truly determine the problem.
I will at least give them credit that they dont want to be buying credits from Russia and Zimabawe anymore….apparently……
But the issue just isnt there anymmore, and by the way look forward to Iggy wading into the weeds to explain why fee and dividend is different from Cap and Trade…..one that most people will take as a distinction without a difference.
Srephen
Intensity reductions have meant that oil usage has increased at slower rates than the usual predictions.
But, as you say, the view is that carbon used actually has to decrease, not just rise more slowly.
Compared with Cap & Trade, Fee & Dividend can be relatively simple to run, not requiring an international trading market with its iinevitable corruption & profit-taking.. [The ozone trade, simple by comparison with only a few firms involved, still had a chinese factory producing CFs so that they could be traded for cash & destroyed.]
The fee would made carbon-sourced products more expensive, which would lead to individuals [corporate & real] devising ways to lower consumption.
If the dividend were handled well- it would also add incentive to lower consumption. The simplest would be to just distribute the money equally to all, so all would have some incentive.
For gas, at the high end people might make buying decisions that “lower the intensity” of the price increases, at the lower end the guy who rides his bike everywhere would be able to buy a new bike every few years with his dividend.
[I think B.C. has payroll tax reductions in mind. Australia wants to supplement pensions & lower taxes.]
Oh, but how can this be? Everyone knows that the liberals are ‘strongly opposed’ to carbon taxes, according to the cbc vote compass.
“My main on-line hobby is reading all about the AGW hoax. I am convinced it is a hoax. I am convinced Harper knows it is a hoax. But he has powerful puppet masters and I do not for a minute think they will not impose drastic taxes and smoke and mirror trading schemes on Canadians if given a chance. As soon as they promise not to impose carbon pricing I will resume my donations. Until then I will keep it in a kitty to pay my tax increases.
Posted by: Simmy at April 4, 2011 1:03 PM ”
I agree with you. The Cons have not said they believe that Global Warming/Climate Change is a lie … in fact they used the term already in this election. I think the Cons have no backbone to stand up to this lie and particularly the enviroMENTALISTS. There in lies the danger; they do not deny it, so there is a very slim chance they might implimant something – though there is no indication. Thai is also a weakness I see annd when they deny this lie, I will feel more comfortable – like you.
Simmy – thank you for clearing up my mistaken opinion, you are right on.
The most horrendous part of cap and trade is the government imposing it would be selling dispensation to do something they deem offensive (without proof) if you pay for your penance.
Those that can’t or won’t pay, just what would the government do exactly?
Iggy says they would force the payment, how exactly?
Perhaps there’s a question our intrepid media could ask the professor.
I know what Mark Holland would say.
“We’ll shut them down”.