3 ms·

This is happening in Ontario right now as we speak. The Ontario government is fighting against the federal revenue-neutral carbon tax and has instituted a smal

by Pxtl 7y ago

This is happening in Ontario right now as we speak. The Ontario government is fighting against the federal revenue-neutral carbon tax and has instituted a small grab-bag of subsidies for businesses doing green refits. So in essence, they're taking a neutral system that put money to taxpayers and turned it into a subsidy on corporations that pollute, and claiming it as a populist victory. And the public ate it up. I've heard nonsense like "I recycle and don't litter, why should I have to pay a carbon tax" as if those things are related.

martythemaniak 7y ago
It should also be noted that the federal carbon tax is a tax-and-rebate scheme. Ie you get taxed on the carbon and the revenues get refunded to the consumers. If you make a lower-carbon choice, you keep your money. If you don't, nothing really changed. It's also slightly progressive, since lower-income folks will actually come out ahead by a bit without making any changes. Warning: strong political opinions below. What we're seeing is really a replay of the ACA reaction in the US. Obamacare was a rejigged Romneycare, which was a rejigged Heritage Foundation plan which was a reaction to the Clinton's healthcare plans. It was a conservative, market-friendly approach to solving an issue... until it was actually implemented. Then we found out it was just a talking point meant that was never meant to be acted upon, a mere cover that allowed conservatives to pretend they were interested solving an issue. Likewise, the tax-and-rebate scheme is basically most conservative and market-friendly approach to tackling climate change that actually produces results. But now that it's actually been implemented, the Ford/Kenney/potential-Scheer governments are reacting by repealing it and replacing it with nothing that produces results. Because they don't have the guts to say simply "No, we don't believe in this and we're not going to do anything about it"
- Joakal 7y ago
  Lets say it cost consumers $100. After Carbon tax, company gets $20 tax. Price becomes $120. Government says to consumer, here's $20. Consumer and company see no difference. Government cost goes up to maintain the scheme. This is why people say the carbon tax/price must go towards non carbon ressearch/products.
  - lodi 7y ago
    Let's further say that there exists another company that can produce the same widget with fewer emissions, but it costs $110 base price + $0 carbon tax to do so. Now the green company actually has a viable product, and consumers are incentivized to switch to it.
    - Joakal 7y ago
      Consumers still see $100 net pre and post tax. That's why I think the rebates are flawed.
sandworm101 7y ago
>> "I recycle and don't litter, why should I have to pay a carbon tax" as if those things are related. The recycling part is as least a little related. The recycling of metal requires less energy than the creation of new metal from ore, especially for steel (cars) and a aluminum (cans). So recycling metal does contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions.
TheTruth1234 7y ago
Yup, because generally people are jack@sses.

by Pxtl 7y ago

martythemaniak 7y ago

It should also be noted that the federal carbon tax is a tax-and-rebate scheme. Ie you get taxed on the carbon and the revenues get refunded to the consumers. If you make a lower-carbon choice, you keep your money. If you don't, nothing really changed. It's also slightly progressive, since lower-income folks will actually come out ahead by a bit without making any changes. Warning: strong political opinions below. What we're seeing is really a replay of the ACA reaction in the US. Obamacare was a rejigged Romneycare, which was a rejigged Heritage Foundation plan which was a reaction to the Clinton's healthcare plans. It was a conservative, market-friendly approach to solving an issue... until it was actually implemented. Then we found out it was just a talking point meant that was never meant to be acted upon, a mere cover that allowed conservatives to pretend they were interested solving an issue. Likewise, the tax-and-rebate scheme is basically most conservative and market-friendly approach to tackling climate change that actually produces results. But now that it's actually been implemented, the Ford/Kenney/potential-Scheer governments are reacting by repealing it and replacing it with nothing that produces results. Because they don't have the guts to say simply "No, we don't believe in this and we're not going to do anything about it"

Joakal 7y ago
Lets say it cost consumers $100. After Carbon tax, company gets $20 tax. Price becomes $120. Government says to consumer, here's $20. Consumer and company see no difference. Government cost goes up to maintain the scheme. This is why people say the carbon tax/price must go towards non carbon ressearch/products.
- lodi 7y ago
  Let's further say that there exists another company that can produce the same widget with fewer emissions, but it costs $110 base price + $0 carbon tax to do so. Now the green company actually has a viable product, and consumers are incentivized to switch to it.
  - Joakal 7y ago
    Consumers still see $100 net pre and post tax. That's why I think the rebates are flawed.

sandworm101 7y ago

>> "I recycle and don't litter, why should I have to pay a carbon tax" as if those things are related. The recycling part is as least a little related. The recycling of metal requires less energy than the creation of new metal from ore, especially for steel (cars) and a aluminum (cans). So recycling metal does contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions.

TheTruth1234 7y ago

Yup, because generally people are jack@sses.