It didn't turn out to be rev-neutral in the UK either. I like the idea, though because it will likely cause some people to cut back on their consumption.
We are all in the position of 'being corrected' relative to this issue. As it stands, all we can point to are the announcements (or conspicuous silence) from the American administration.
What we do know is that the coal industry in the USA (and Canada to a lesser degree) are by far and away the largest polluter (air-borne toxins) as well as the largest emitter of CO2... From my perspective, I don't really buy into the CO2 issue, however, IF the focus of the US administration is based on CO2 emissions, coal usage (energy production) should be the biggest target.
In the end, the problem that the Americans have is that they have a significant dependency on coal-fired plants that produce electricity. Hitting that industry with higher costs would translate to the consumer and with the economic situation in the States, there is no way that the democrats will pass legislation that will impact the cost of living to the locals.
I guess that we will just have to wait and see, but in the meantime, it sure is annoying to watch the Americans rail-away at oil consumption or the tar sands when coal is the biggest villain in this area.
You mean 'pray tell'... And since you asked so nice, I will:
The carbon tax is based on usage of emitting substances and seeing how they are measuring usage against payment, there is an equation. In short, just for you, the more you use, the more you pay.
You fail to grasp the big picture on this in realizing that it isn't just physics that is in play here... That's your problem
But they still count right or does that not support your management model?... Sorry about that. (I'll give you some time to repeat that a few times)
.. So, the significantly higher volume of carbon particulate that ends up in the oceans that result from burning wood along with the higher CO2 output relative to, say, methane, doesn't increase the acidification?
Wow, you've defied the laws of physics... Congratulations.
.. So, organics aren't the building blocks for hydrocarbons?.... Wow, another startling revelation that debunks more conventional science!
Let's take a look at your compelling position on the reduction on income taxes in BC, shall we?.. And let's also bear in mind how it relates directly to the carbon tax, OK?Quote has been trimmed
So, it seems that the carbon tax is independent of the prov income tax credits, doesn't it... Perhaps you'd know this if you bothered to inform yourself, but alas, that isn't in the cards, is it?
While the one-page article from the newspaper was extraordinarily detailed and specific, it doesn't link the carbon tax to the personal income tax cuts that have been available for years in BC does it? Further those very same cuts are available to everyone regardless of the carbon tax... So it seems that you must rely on linking unrelated variables to make an argument... Well, it ain't working so well for ya.
Further, I highlighted a couple of words in your shallow research. The first is 'intended'... Now, I'm going to need you to open your mind a bit on this and think outside the theoretical and focus on reality... Just 'cause BC intends to have a revenue-neutral tax, what is the probability that it will actually happen?
Lucky for you, they provide the answer further on.. I highlighted that for you as well... '70% went back to individuals'... Does this provide a clue that the tax isn't really revenue neutral? I'll give you a hint. It has to do with the...