3 ms·

No, the two claims are not at all inconsistent. Households are seeing more money than they would otherwise, which was the point of the comment you're replying t

No, the two claims are not at all inconsistent. Households are seeing more money than they would otherwise, which was the point of the comment you're replying to. See page 10 of your link: >Taking into account only the fiscal, or “use-side” impacts, we project most households will see a net gain, receiving more in rebates from federal carbon pricing under the Government’s HEHE than the total amount they pay in federal fuel charges (directly and indirectly). The quote you're pulling specifically factors in a projected "economic impact" of lost investment, which it compares to the "fiscal impact". The economic impact is precisely the point. The fiscal impact is how to make the medicine go down. It would be great news if we can sacrifice some economic growth in the short term in order to create a potentially popular wealth transfer program that also efficiently disincentivizes burning fossil fuels. If this approach can be scaled up, then the economic losses incurred will be outweighed several times over by averting climate change catastrophe. That's the whole idea.

JacobThreeThree 5y ago
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the politicians and the media never mention the economic impact cost of this plan, and only tout the rebate. >It would be great news if we can sacrifice some economic growth The bank of Canada is projecting "significant macroeconomic consequences, touching every region and sector" and "asset values across the financial system could be subject to sharp declines in valuation, which might generate credit and market losses, and it might increase the stress on the financial system". https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/bank-canada-plans-new-tools-assess-climate-impact-economy-2021-11-03/ https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/bank-canada-plans-new-t...
- allemagne 5y ago
  The Bank of Canada also seems to recognize the economic costs of doing nothing. Full context of both your quotes: >"Climate change and the transition to a low-carbon net zero economy will have significant macroeconomic consequences, touching every region and sector of the Canadian and global economies," the bank said in a statement tied to the United Nations' COP26 global climate summit in Scotland. And: >Separately, Bank of Canada Deputy Governor Toni Gravelle said the steps needed to mitigate the effects of global warming would lead to massive restructuring and the risk that some parts of the economy would shrink. >"Asset values across the financial system could be subject to sharp declines in valuation, which might generate credit and market losses, and it might increase the stress on the financial system," he told a climate panel in Toronto.
  - JacobThreeThree 5y ago
    >The Bank of Canada also seems to recognize the economic costs of doing nothing Nothing in that quote mentioned anything about the cost of doing nothing.
    - allemagne 5y ago
      Yes, they do. From both quotes (emphasis mine): >"_Climate change and_ the transition to a low-carbon net zero economy will have significant macroeconomic consequences ... " >Separately, Bank of Canada Deputy Governor Toni Gravelle said the steps _needed to mitigate the effects of global warming_ ...

JacobThreeThree 5y ago

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the politicians and the media never mention the economic impact cost of this plan, and only tout the rebate. >It would be great news if we can sacrifice some economic growth The bank of Canada is projecting "significant macroeconomic consequences, touching every region and sector" and "asset values across the financial system could be subject to sharp declines in valuation, which might generate credit and market losses, and it might increase the stress on the financial system". https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/bank-canada-plans-new-tools-assess-climate-impact-economy-2021-11-03/ https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/bank-canada-plans-new-t...

allemagne 5y ago
The Bank of Canada also seems to recognize the economic costs of doing nothing. Full context of both your quotes: >"Climate change and the transition to a low-carbon net zero economy will have significant macroeconomic consequences, touching every region and sector of the Canadian and global economies," the bank said in a statement tied to the United Nations' COP26 global climate summit in Scotland. And: >Separately, Bank of Canada Deputy Governor Toni Gravelle said the steps needed to mitigate the effects of global warming would lead to massive restructuring and the risk that some parts of the economy would shrink. >"Asset values across the financial system could be subject to sharp declines in valuation, which might generate credit and market losses, and it might increase the stress on the financial system," he told a climate panel in Toronto.
- JacobThreeThree 5y ago
  >The Bank of Canada also seems to recognize the economic costs of doing nothing Nothing in that quote mentioned anything about the cost of doing nothing.
  - allemagne 5y ago
    Yes, they do. From both quotes (emphasis mine): >"_Climate change and_ the transition to a low-carbon net zero economy will have significant macroeconomic consequences ... " >Separately, Bank of Canada Deputy Governor Toni Gravelle said the steps _needed to mitigate the effects of global warming_ ...