David Suzuki speaks up personally for the carbon tax

Sat, 2009-04-18 07:52Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

David Suzuki speaks up personally for the carbon tax

“If [BC Liberal Leader Gordon Campbell] goes down because of axe the tax, the repercussions are the carbon tax will be toxic for future politicians. No politician will raise it. That’s why environmentalists are so upset.”

David Suzuki

With that quote in the Globe and Mail today, David Suzuki explained why enviromental groups (and the DeSmogBlog) are criticizing the BC New Democratic Party, which is continuing to campaign against the tax.

Suzuki also said:

“If environmental voters decide they can’t stomach voting for the NDP or the Liberals, they have got the Greens. If you vote for the Greens, you are making a statement about the carbon tax and the other things you don’t like about the Liberals and the NDP.”

 

Previous Comments

A carbon tax is a bad policy. It’s too expensive and too ineffective (Sweden’s $150/tonne carbon tax reduced their ghg output by a meagre 2%). It’s the equivalent of implementing a policy to feed caviar and fois gras to the homeless.

Robert McClelland,

Assuming your example is genuine. Just because one example has failed, that is no proof that the concept is flawed.

Early flying machines had a high failure rate, but now flying in a commercial airliner is the safest means of travel. [I am ignoring the CO2 for the sake of argument]

Your argument only goes to show that you will stoop at nothing and use any dishonest trick in an attempt to confuse the issue concerning an argument that you are deperate to win.

If anyone is demonstrating signs of senility, look no further than yourself.

You are showing distinct signs of Troll behaviour. Please start being honest.

=======================================================

Back to the subject in hand.

A carbon tax can be set at any rate, be progressive, or be revenue neutral. There are numerous possibilities. It can also be tweaked as human behaviour modification by the tax is better understood.

What’s more expensive: money or the environment?

Hint: without the environment, money has no value.

The poor are going to suffer far more than the rich from the results of climate change.


Norway’s carbon tax showed the same meagre results as Sweden’s. Environmentalists have become enthralled with any action such as a carbon tax that they’re failing to examine whether or not it works efficiently; which it doesn’t. A cap and trade system on the other hand, is a proven winner even if it is more difficult to set up. That’s why the NDP backs that instead of the gimmicky carbon tax.

This guy attacks the NDP for taking a policy position on tackling climate change that even the National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy agrees is the best approach? And yet, he says not a word about the fact that the Campbell Liberals have the absolute worst environmental record of any government in BC History.

He doesn’t mention that the Libs’ carbon tax proposal lets big oil and gas companies, and industry off the hook. That’s because Campbell’s plan, that Suzuki has gone gaga over, doesn’t cover some 30% of carbon emissions, including: ‘fugitive emissions’ (gas flaring) by oil and gas industry; cement and aluminum production; emmissions from agriculture, and much more.

Suzuki also doesn’t say a word about the fact that the Campbell Liberals support off-shore oil drilling; allowed oil, gas and mining exporation in BC Parks; gave billion dollar subsidies to the oil and gas industry; support coal-bed methane exploration in prime BC wilderness; and are spending $3.5 billion to build a 10-lane bridge to replace the Port Mann - which will increase single vehicle traffic exponentially, cause massive urban sprawl in the Fraser Valley, and cause huge increases in GHG emissions.

Oh, and let’s not forget that the Campbell government moved to de-regulate the monitoring and enforcement of environmental standards across the province - expecially for forestry and industry. They cut 30% from environmental budgets, cut enforcement staff, and have allowed industry to monitor and regulate themselves. Environmental enforcement staff have largely lost the ability to pro-actively investigate and enforce provincial laws. In most cases, they can now only act in the event of a formal complaint.

The Campbell government is an unequivocal environmental disaster, and Suzuki is willing to sweep all that under the carpet, to promote his personal pet project, that will see a massive downloading of costs onto middle and low-income British Columbians, while big business gets off almost scot-free?

I guess this proves the point that some enviros will  cut off their nose to spite their face.

I am curious.  I have no vested interest in this issue but as an observation I’ve noticed considerable fighting going on the boards lately. Now normally this is between the global warming is a hoax people or Paul S/G (I’d say Paul deal with a lot of crap from people but isn’t a hoaxer) and those of us who accept that the climate issue is a significant problem.  Suffice to say I think it saddens me somewhat to see so many people on the same side of an issue, disagreeing with how to deal with, acting in an insulting way to each other.  By all means save that stuff for the hoaxers, but keep respect for people that disagree on the policy. 

I’ve heard various things like carbon taxes are useless and the best way to deal with emissions posted back and worth.  You’d think they were satanic or the best thing since sliced bread.  Rather I wonder has anyone ever considered both?  Cap and trade system with a carbon tax?  Is that not possible at the same time?  Using permit sales and carbon tax revenues to fund emission reductions across the public and private sectors?  I am curious here why its only 1 or the other and has there ever been any significant consideration of this type of policy in any of the states or provinces?…..

 

The reason for not implementing both has to do with the economic cost. Look at what happened when gas prices spiked to nearly $1.50/litre last year. The effect of that rippled through the economy, causing for instance, the price of food to rise by 10%. You can’t just say do this and this and this while ignoring the effect of what it will do to the economy.

Suffice to say I think it saddens me somewhat to see so many people on the same side of an issue, disagreeing with how to deal with, acting in an insulting way to each other.  By all means save that stuff for the hoaxers, but keep respect for people that disagree on the policy.

Carl, the actual “fight” has always been between people who propose doing something, and people who insist on doing nothing. That’s why I prefer to use the word “inactivists” rather than “deniers” or “skeptics” or “hoaxers” or “truthers” etc.

The common thing about these do-nothing-ers is that they keep screaming about how cap-and-trade or carbon taxes will kill the economy or create unintended consequences and stuff, but they never consider what the cost of Business As Usual will be – effectively, they simply assume that the cost of Business As Usual will magically turn out to be zero – or they make up some random small number and call it the “cost of adaptation”.

bi

True, I wont argue perspective.  Doing nothing has costs unless you don’t believe there is a cost, which clearly some people don’t, a good point you make.  Though I tend to think, using more than 1 mechanism to reduce emissions and pay for pollution a good thing.  It seems pretty clear that the real environmental costs of things is not reflected in the stuff we consume.  Cap and trade and carbon taxes are really just a small patch on that problem.  They only really address emissions and not other environmental related problems like waste management and disposal, land destruction, contamination, and many more associated problems.  Just take the oil sands development for example, the true environmental costs are hardly being paid for.  A cap and trade on it, would only seek to reduce their greenhouse emissions but do nothing for the true cost of the environmental destruction and have that reflected in the price of the oil they sell. 

That all said, business as usual approaches benefit very few in the long run..but the original intention of my post is in attacking carbon tax vs cap and trade.  It seems silly to go after people on the same side of the issue with differences in policy opinions….I still say both, and more, the economy failing seems a pretty weak argument.  If market forces are as wonderful as they are then it should be fine, good regulation is good policy. As long as social justice and concern for the poor is included I don’t care if the rich are not as rich as they used to be.

 

Michael Smyth, Vancouver Province columnist, and hardly a political leftie, published a column this Sunday in clear oppostion to the carbon tax:

Politically correct carbon tax is flawed
“The bottom line: Campbell’s carbon tax is just bad policy. And the NDP are right to oppose it, politically correct slings and arrows and all.”

Here’s a link to Smyth’s blog, where he lists more emissions sources that are exempt under the Campbell Liberal plan.

You mean the same Mike Smyth that holds Tim Ball up as an expert in contemporary climate science?

Just bringing some balance to the blog, seeing as DeSmog won’t post any material that contradicts your narrow view on the carbon tax and the environment.

Charging taxes on emission of carbon dioxide would not help that much. There are also many other reasons which contribute to global warming. Up today many trees had been cut which lead to deforestation. Reduced number of trees means less photosynthesis so more carbon dioxide accumulate in the atmosphere. wholesale dress

A carbon tax is a bad policy. It’s too expensive and too ineffective (Sweden’s $150/tonne carbon tax reduced their ghg output by a meagre 2%). It’s the equivalent of implementing a policy to feed caviar and fois gras to the homeless.


Lemonade diet

Taxes on emission of carbon dioxide would not help that much. It will only be a burden to all citizen.

korean fashion

Application of tax to reduce carbon dioxide is a smart way for me. It will only create anger and financial burden to all.

korean fashion