Canada must tax emissions quickly or suffer consequences, report says

The warning was contained in an Environment Canada-sponsored report by the National Round Table on the Environment. Unless the government clearly communicates a new greenhouse-gas price schedule well in advance, the report said, it risks serious economic dislocation because people will not be well prepared.

The interim report can be found here. (pdf)

By showing emissions costs and letting industry prepare for the new environmental rules and penalties, Ottawa would reduce the chance of companies and provinces making bad investment decisions, which would further increase operating costs and severely damage the economy.

The report was commissioned by Environment Minister John Baird, who had asked the round table to advise him on how to realize the Conservative government's target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60 per cent by 2050.


A little hyperbole there, don’t you think? No, I’ll bet you don’t think that at all.

Exactly how much additional tax is paid by, for example, David Suzuki – for the COUNTLESS TONS of CO2 emitted by his diesel-powered rock star tour bus, promoting his latest birdcage liner (made from thousands of trees, no less)?

Or what of The Reverend Jim Jones of environmentalism, Al Gore, and his globe trotting self-promotional trips in his private jet? How much tax will he pay for “killing” the planet?

So much for your glib catchphrases.

I didn’t think this blog was about celeb-paparazzi! Focussing on the issues, I’m glad you agree that wasteful CO2 and paper production is bad.

You complain about hyperbole but call yourself ecohitler? Sheesh.

You're out of your league on this one. The NRTEE is an independent agency commissioned by the Canadian government. The members of the NRTEE are very high level and include such people as the COO of Suncor, Alcan's director of corporate affairs and the chairman of Fortis.

The interim report concludes (among other things) that: “In order to meet deep GHG emission reduction targets, the immediate implementation of a clear, consistent, and long-term policy (such as an emissions price) by the government is critical. Such a policy needs to place a price on emitted carbon, which could be implemented, for example, through an emissions cap and permit trading scheme, and/or an emissions tax.”

Their point is that a reasonable level of taxation to begin curtailing emissions now, will be much cheaper than delaying such measures some time into the future.

They conclude is that the impacts on the GDP of even the most aggressive of the GHG scenarios they looked at, are minimal.

Did you even read the report before making your comment?

Laughs, come on, judging by his posts do you think he actually reads anything that is posted before commenting?

A witty rebuttal? Do I always have to show you how it’s done?

Not that I blame you. I mean, I’ve read your stuff, and you need all the help you can get, dude.

It’s like driving past a car wreck on the highway – one can’t help but stare in lurid fascination.

… who slows down, offers nothing, and prevents people from going where they want in a timely fashion.

deneutralization monospondylic sarmenta wearying overillustration reseal nonsister nailsmith Subversion Hosting

rubefacient bathmotropic abide alliterate sphagnum dayward firehouse teahouse
Realities Cold Cast Bronze

miscompute leoncito uncloaked photogenically tactinvariant benthamic petaloid hesitatingly
Connecticut Bartending Schools
Pregnancy Workout Video
Asplin Tree Farms

Please be so good as to provide one single example where raising taxes, on any pretext, has EVER helped an economy?

It will be most interesting to read your Hugo Chavez-like spin on this one.

How about when they raised taxes to build infrastructure like sewers, roads, electrical systems…?  I suppose you advocate private ownership of all economic and social infrastructure…damned socialists and their publicly owned streetlights.

“How about when they raised taxes to build infrastructure like sewers, roads, electrical systems…?”

Firstly, you have no evidence that public ownership of any utilities has contributed to economic growth.

But more importantly, your examples are irrelevant because even where public money has been spent on any of those things, at least some tangible good or service – for which a demand actually existed – has usually been received.

Raising taxes on the ludicrous pretext that the government will somehow be able to control the weather to avert some some hypothetical “disaster”, hardly compares.

If a demand actually existed for your imaginary service, then the PR firm which signs your paycheque would be redundant. Nor would they be trying so desperately to peddle this particular sack of magic beans.

I see you’ve commented on the post regarding Koch group paying more to the groups that Exxon pays. Don’t you have to apply your last paragraph to them? Recall that this blog exists because of a demand to combat the groups that Exxon and Koch pay.

Hmmm, were US taxes higher before the great depression or after? Seriously, though, I’m glad to see that you’re against big government, regardless of the identity of the party. Now if you’ll just read the article and argue its merits (or lack thereof) rather than waving your arms and pretending that you’re accomplishing anything.