But doesn't a carbon tax target major industrial producers of GHGs, producers with such thick bottom lines that the price at the pump means little?
Keystone pipeline shut down after crude leak in South Dakota
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
I'd rather go out in a flash than suffer a slow lingering death. Your choice on how to go is your own. Fluoridation? Do you assume my well is treated?
NOPE. BC's carbon scam hit school districts for their heating costs.
DOn't forget that almost everyone's pension plans are heavily invested in in those same companies.Including your government pension.
So basically it is a consumption tax, although scaled so that fuels producing higher amounts of GHGs pay a higher tax. So theoretically, in that aspect, users will be encouraged to switch to cleaner fuels and/or supplement their needs with alternative fuels. The downside is, if I read this right, that it will cost progressively more to produce GHGs as the tax and the price of the fuel rises. Isn't that the plan?
Yes the REAL money in oil lol
BC's carbon tax is massive success and that really ruffles the old stock feathers.
Carbon eh? It's a success? Is that why I can't see Vancouver Island from my office through the brown skies after 2PM like I can in the morning?
And it's why China is choking in a battleship gray smog and they are making more advances that any other country. Refreshing to see Floosy admitting it was all about hiking taxes on everyone and never about cooling the earth.
Define what it has been successful about this tax.
PS - Does the BC gvt collect the eco-taxes on BCers that travel to Washington State to tank-up?
No it hasn't.
Traffic is just as crazy if not even busier than it was before in the biggest population centers
Traffic is just as crazy if not even busier than it was before in the biggest population centers
It did achieve the reduction of cash available to school and hospital boards to fund their programs .
Nah, but they're more than happy to collect from US tourists bringing their bloated yankee bucks north. It all comes out in the wash.
Oddly enough, I have been asked at the Canadian border when returning from day-trips south if I filled my tank while in the US, but the answer is always "No" so it never goes past that point. I wonder if they'd want duty or taxes if I said "Yes"?
Nah, but they're more than happy to collect from US tourists bringing their bloated yankee bucks north. It all comes out in the wash.
Oddly enough, I have been asked at the Canadian border when returning from day-trips south if I filled my tank while in the US, but the answer is always "No" so it never goes past that point. I wonder if they'd want duty or taxes if I said "Yes"?
Odd that you or others would be consuming all that gas to go to some place without a carbon tax in order to fill up. An effective reduction strategy for carbon.
It also serves to educate fossil fuel users that the cost of such goes beyond what you pay at the pump, or the truck, or the pipe, or where ever they buy it. This will become more and more of a lesson as the taxes rise.
Did taxes and education eradicate smoking cigarettes? No, but it sure as heck reduced the use by a huge amount. It's to the point now where an increase in consumption tax on tobacco doesn't even make the news. There's a parallel in there if you think about it.
I don't think anyone can deny the need for fossil fuels at this point, but it's also getting harder to deny that there is an environmental price to pay for continued use. I see carbon taxes as part of the educational long game here.
The only thing that will reduce the use of fossil fuels is a cost effective alternative .
We have not yet reached that stage . Lots of people are rushing out to purchase electric cars , this will eventually lower the cost making them more wide spread . It still will be along time before electric will be powering ocean going freighters or 747's for that matter even long haul trucks .
Yes a change away from fossil fuels will happen but not soon .
It has already started, albeit at no breakneck speed. One of the major sources of GHG's is the transportation industry, and individual automobiles are a big part of that. Reduction in vehicle use, especially in major centers where public transit networks are more extensive is indicated through increased ridership numbers. The proliferation of cycling infrastructure shows that overall personal health statistics and reduced small vehicle use can go hand in hand.
It's still a politically sensitive issue that has a lot of elected officials acting cautiously, but overall public perception has reached the point where the majority of voters believe that the burning of fossil fuels presents a significant environmental threat and that action of some sort is needed. More and more, wantonly wasteful and unnecessary use of fossil fuels is taking on the social persona of public drunkeness or smoking in a car with children. This grassroots shift in the way we look at the issue is just a start.
You're comparing an utterly useless product like cigarettes with a substance that virtually runs the global economy? Seriously?
Plan on attracting new manufacturing to Canada with the promise of nice, clean, unreliable, intermittent wind and solar power? Good luck with that.
Of course this all flies in the face of the fact that we're not reducing jack sh*t. All we're doing is transferring the "problem" (and our cash and jobs) to developing and third world countries that have SFA in the way of environmental laws.
I believe you spelled "indoctrinate" wrong.