"Green" Liberals

[B-rad]

And how about that rainforest in south america.

[Spokes]

there is more forrested areas in the world now than there ever have been. (I have been told, I could not find a reference for this so I could be wrong on that point)

JMHO, but I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Most of northern Europe was heavily forested 500 years ago - no longer. Likewise parts of the prairies - Red River valley and the Interlake in Manitoba come to mind. Also, vast acres of clearcuts in BC that, while replanted with small trees, are nowhere near replacing the mature forest that was there in the past.

Trees are trees. Having flown over BC off and on for 20+ years, I can say that any clearcut only remains so for a short while. New trees are constantly being planted. small trees become big trees. They suck up co2 just like 1st growth trees.

[North Shore]

Oh sure, but I'd bet the throughput of CO2 on a 200 year old doug fir is way larger than that of a 5 year old sapling.. Larger surface area and all..

[Topspin]

Oh sure, but I'd bet the throughput of CO2 on a 200 year old doug fir is way larger than that of a 5 year old sapling.. Larger surface area and all..

Not that I agree with the above about cutting down trees at all, but wouldn't one think that the younger cells generating energy to grow the tree are going to be far more efficient than the tired old ones of the 200 year monster?

[Icebound]

Tax is tax is tax.

Not exactly true.

There are lots of examples where "reducing the tax" results in other expenses for the individual. Just because these other expenses are not labelled "taxes" makes them no less real.

If you pay a toll to a private enterprise so that you can drive a highway, how is that different from paying a tax so that the government can build and maintain the highway for you? The private toll is still a "tax", even if it is not called one.

How is it different to pay "insurance" to a private company and get "free" health service, than to pay "tax" to a provincial government for the same services?

If "tax reduction" results in delayed (or eliminated) repairs to infrastructure, the cost to YOU (or your kids) is a lot more when it comes time to replace.

A favorite place to "reduce taxes" is to eliminate regulation and regulatory agencies. That gets you to the wonderful economic scenario now playing out in the US of A. And we know who is going to pay for THAT "reduced tax".



...

[Icebound]

Not only that, I believe that it is un-sustainable.

Lets assume for a minute that it was implemented, and that it was working. CO2 emissions radically reduced. Since this is the tax base to run the country, where will the governement get the revenue need. Oh wait, I know - raise taxes.

As far as I can tell, in the big picture this can only work if CO2 emisions do not reduce.

The same arguements were used with cigarette taxes in the nineties.... "How would the government survive if people stopped smoking and tax revenue dropped????"........


...

Does anybody actually believe the government wants people to stop smoking though? If this was the case why aren't they subsidizing things like nicorette, .....

.

Ontario has taken off the provincial tax on anti-smoking aids in 2007. That's equivalent to a subsidy...???

Some US states have seen reduced tax revenues since about 2004-5 and openly acknowledge that the days of funding government through tobacco taxes is OVER.

Whether the government wants people to "really" stop smoking or not is largely a function of the government.... I will venture that 'c'onservative "tax-reduction" governments are probably less-so-inclined, because they see tobacco as an "easy-to-justify" tax. If they can maximize their revenue there, they can justify their cuts elsewhere....

...

[Topspin]

Tax is tax is tax.

Not exactly true.

There are lots of examples where "reducing the tax" results in other expenses for the individual. Just because these other expenses are not labelled "taxes" makes them no less real.

If you pay a toll to a private enterprise so that you can drive a highway, how is that different from paying a tax so that the government can build and maintain the highway for you? The private toll is still a "tax", even if it is not called one.

How is it different to pay "insurance" to a private company and get "free" health service, than to pay "tax" to a provincial government for the same services?

If "tax reduction" results in delayed (or eliminated) repairs to infrastructure, the cost to YOU (or your kids) is a lot more when it comes time to replace.

A favorite place to "reduce taxes" is to eliminate regulation and regulatory agencies. That gets you to the wonderful economic scenario now playing out in the US of A. And we know who is going to pay for THAT "reduced tax".



...

How much of the government budget is actually required?

How much are we paying for the human rights tribunal?
How much are we paying so people can clog up the ER with a nosebleed?
How much are we paying so the government can subsidize a museum?
Why are we paying taxes for a company like translink that makes substantial profit but still gouges its users.
This list goes on for a while.

I agree with you, essential services like emergency service, highways and such are most definitely required. However the Canadian government has gotten a little bit carried away on accessories.

[Topspin]

Does anybody actually believe the government wants people to stop smoking though? If this was the case why aren't they subsidizing things like nicorette, .....

Ontario has taken off the provincial tax on anti-smoking aids in 2007. That's equivalent to a subsidy...???

Some US states have seen reduced tax revenues since about 2004-5 and openly acknowledge that the days of funding government through tobacco taxes is OVER.

Whether the government wants people to "really" stop smoking or not is largely a function of the government.... I will venture that 'c'onservative "tax-reduction" governments are probably less-so-inclined, because they see tobacco as an "easy-to-justify" tax. If they can maximize their revenue there, they can justify their cuts elsewhere....

...

Precisely.

Representative democracy, except it doesn't represent the tax payer, they are looking for the best ways to gouge them.

[Icebound]

Not only that, I believe that it is un-sustainable.

Lets assume for a minute that it was implemented, and that it was working. CO2 emissions radically reduced. Since this is the tax base to run the country, where will the governement get the revenue need. Oh wait, I know - raise taxes.

As far as I can tell, in the big picture this can only work if CO2 emisions do not reduce.

The same arguements were used with cigarette taxes in the nineties.... "How would the government survive if people stopped smoking and tax revenue dropped????"........


...

Apples and oranges. This carbon tax is meant to replace to an extent income tax, thier primary revenue source. Tax on cigaretttes was just another one of those taxes that government adds on, like GST or fuel taxes.

If you want to be revenue-neutral, and success of the program reduces the revenue in one sector (ie: the carbon tax sector), then they are quite justified in finding the revenue elsewhere, aren't they???

But I do not really believe that this scheme will work anyways. It is more likely these "polluters" will simply pass on the extra cost to the consumer.

Of COURSE, they will. And that's when the populace starts clamoring for other answers to their energy needs. That precisely the plan. "Let's build those things that are NOT being taxed."

When fuel costs spiked (and lets not mince words, by polluters what is really meant is everyones favorite wipping boy- the oil companies), the cost of everything here went up substancially. Nothing like increasing the price of groceries half again to help out the masses.

The price of groceries is going to go up anyway.

We can fool ourselves into pretending that we are "saving" money... But if we are not given an incentive to change our energy habits, the prices will eventually skyrocket out of sight. And the money we "saved" will be quickly lost.

So why not take that "saved" money, and use it to encourage the building a different energy infrastructure???

....

[Topspin]

The price of groceries is going to go up anyway.

We can fool ourselves into pretending that we are "saving" money... But if we are not given an incentive to change our energy habits, the prices will eventually skyrocket out of sight. And the money we "saved" will be quickly lost.

So why now take that "saved" money, and use it to encourage the building a different energy infrastructure???

....

Can you explain why the Venezuelans are paying so little for oil products? I'm curious.

[Icebound]

Can you explain why the Venezuelans are paying so little for oil products? I'm curious.

Because Hugo controls the country's oil, and he thinks that nobody else will ever succeed him as leader.

How is the "electorate" (I'm being charitable)... How is the "electorate" going to support anybody else, when this is the guy giving them 3-cent-a-litre gasoline?

...

But sooner or later a few key people are going to figure out how to corner that 3-cent gas and sell it across the border for 1.20... "the black market is the real market".

When such black-market pipelines develop, local shortages will drive the price up. And it won't be a doubling of the gasoline price... it will be 10 times. Will his economy be able to stand that? And will his presidency?


...

[CYOX]

Anyone else notice our champions of the environment are using a 737-200 vs the Conservatives Airbus. Kind of makes you wonder who exactly does care about the world, or at least who is dumb enough to say they do and then charter the most fuel hungry aircraft in the country for its size.