For example, it is important to note that in this piece from today's Ottawa Citizen, they are not arguing contra a carbon tax. Rather, they are arguing that a carbon tax like that which the Campbell government has levied in B.C. is not anywhere steep enough to change economic behavior, and therefore the rationale given for it should not be changing economic behavior. Rather, its rationale should be to fund
...technological advances to make clean energy as cheap as possible as quickly as possible. Toward this end, all of the revenues raised from new carbon taxes or auctioning pollution allowances should be dedicated to the research, development and deployment of new technologies that the private energy sector cannot and will not do.
They make reference to Denmark and Norway, a pair of countries that imposed a carbon tax back in the 1990s:
...while Norway uses its revenues for government spending, Denmark earmarks its carbon tax revenues for clean energy, such as wind power, which has become a vibrant national industry. As a consequence, Norway's emissions climbed 43 per cent while Denmark's declined 15 per cent.
Now, as it stands currently, apart from the accelerated capital cost allowance for green technologies, the Federal Liberal Green Shift seems tilted too much towards the Norwegian, and too little towards the Danish model, for my tastes. But Dion is apparently big on listening, so perhaps that will change.
9 comments:
...but fails to mention the Swedish example, which was a tax shift from personal taxes to a taxed on carbon and sulphur emissions, but yet _was_ successful in reducing CO2 emissions considerably. (Down 25% in the first 10 years.)
Norway's increase in emissions was caused at least in part by the growth of its oil industry during the time frame.
The only clearly cited reason I've ever seen for failure of cap-and-trade and emissions taxation programs is that of political meddling in the process. If you offer too many exemptions (for example Harper's cap-and-trade will exempt coal burning power plants built prior to 2004 -- which is all of them) the programs fail.
By dedicating public money at this scale to technology development, we would now be into micromanaging the direction of green technological development. I think this is a bad idea. We're already seeing billions of public money being poured into carbon capture and storage, which is a clearly limited use technology with an uncertain future (involving centuries of government monitoring of sites, by the way). Meanwhile geothermal energy, which has tremendous potential in Canada is largely being ignored. Why? Well, just look at who has the political clout. When supra-rich oil companies want billions of taxpayers' dollars to develop a storage system for their use, we pay up. When money is needed to help further develop and implement a technology useful in every home in Canada, which would significantly reduce the burning of natural gas and oil, nothing happens.
The idea of government funding all this development is nothing more than picking winners and losers, and I don't think government is any good at that at this scale. Every government will just spend the largess to gain political points.
What you do, is hit the polluters with the tax, and let them figure out how to reduce the tax's impact by reducing their own emissions. Meanwhile, the persons unable to do much to cope with higher prices due to the tax, get a tax cut to cope.
Those of us who have worked hard over the years to cut our GHG emissions can also actually get rewarded under Dion's scenario.
I, for one, already lead as low a carbon lifestyle as I can -- and that's low. My family of five produces a monthly carbon footprint something like one-half of the average Canadian's monthly carbon footprint -- and that includes rarely used allowance of 1200 miles of air travel per years (I've flown four times in the last 20 years). I deserve a tax cut thanks, and I shouldn't be paying higher prices due to a carbon tax. Frankly, I can't afford it.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger are from a subset of economists who are trying to figure out the costs of fighting global warming vs not doing anything. Though the models remain highly speculative, the models at least keep suggesting that something should be done.
Note that they admit much difficulty in setting a fiscal cost on human suffering. A point well worth keeping in mind when considering merely economic arguments.
"I, for one, already lead as low a carbon lifestyle "
Well ain't you a cool dude.
I personally lead a low fart lifestyle. It's just a small thing anyone can do to save the planet and spare your friends.
I think I am morally superior to you and the other low carbon weenies out there.
I bet he signed up with Blogger with that username just to write that comment.
Yeah but it keeps him off the streets so he can't cause trouble.
You've missed the big story of course. I'll help you out:
The prestigious American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.
In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
Slowly but surely the AGW myth is getting debunked.
*sigh*...Liars and deniers.
From The American Physical Society:
"APS Climate Change Statement"
APS Position Remains Unchanged
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
An article at odds with this statemen recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed."
Thanks for the link, TG. They obviously took a lot of crap for the earlier statement. Thing is, the statement itself was so heavily qualified as to be pretty harmless. But they then mentioned C. Monckton as the scientist they'd found to challenge the IPCC consensus. He's that English nutter that used to advise Thatcher; remember, he looks like Rodney Dangerfield? That's what ticked me off.
I think he looks more like Marty Feldman. Too bad he's not as amusing and either he or Dangerfield were.
Creepy, inbred ponce.
Post a Comment