View Single Post
      10-26-2018, 11:20 AM   #18
JohnnyCanuck
Major
Canada
1010
Rep
1,210
Posts

Drives: 2018 Audi RS3
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnerDriver View Post
While you're "shaming" the prime ministers, what is your take on the benefits of carbon tax on emissions?

These prime ministers advocate that, like Zug said above, the carbon tax does no good to the environment.

When asked about it, Trudeau simply refused to answer. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. His environment minister will not have an answer as well, she's got less of a clue than he does.

So, what gives? Carbon tax is good. Why?

Once the federal government answers that question, all provinces will abide by it.
I never read, respond, or consider anything Zugs has to say so I wouldn't have even read the post.

However, the vast majority of credible sources I read support a carbon tax and I defer to what are, to me, rational arguments from people who know a lot more than I do on the subject:

In short, the World Bank says it as neatly as anything I've read:
A price on carbon helps shift the burden for the damage back to those who are responsible for it, and who can reduce it. Instead of dictating who should reduce emissions where and how, a carbon price gives an economic signal and polluters decide for themselves whether to discontinue their polluting activity, reduce emissions, or continue polluting and pay for it. In this way, the overall environmental goal is achieved in the most flexible and least-cost way to society. The carbon price also stimulates clean technology and market innovation, fuelling new, low-carbon drivers of economic growth.
I've seen similar arguments made in the Guardian, the LA Times, by the Brookings Institute, World Business Council For Sustainable Development, and by private sector and industrial leaders who internally shadow price carbon like Unilever.

It intuitively makes sense. If it become more economically viable to innovate within industrial production to produce less environmental damage (and I would be taxing habitat destruction as well if I were in charge) then production methods change. Yes, consumers pay more but if the tax incentivizes industry and the rebate makes consumers whole, the net benefit in terms of environmental measures makes the approach (irrespective of a carbon tax or a cap and trade) worthwhile. The only other idea that the Doug Fords. Brian Pallisters, Jason Kenneys, and Andrew Scheers have is to increade penalties for polluters. That's been proven, time and time again, not to work. My issue is that none of them have a practical idea or alternative ... they're just saying no because they think that will win them an election not because they have a principled objection with an alternative approach in mind. Not one of them has said that they don't believe in climate change. They all say that they believe action on GHG emissions is necessary. But, they don't have a single idea worth the weight of the napkin they scrawled it on.

Remember, it was the Stephen Harper government that signed onto the Paris Accord ... all Justin Trudeau is doing is implementing the most reasonable approach to get us to the targets that our previous CPC government agreed to. It's why Mark Cameron (former policy director in the Prime Minister's Office under Stephen Harper) has fully endorsed the federal carbon tax.
MrRoboto1731.50
________2134.50
Deniz45.50