Pebbles Take

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Ignatieff wants to raise Gas, Electricity, and heating costs while destroying Canada's industrial economy

What Ignatieff's environmental policy actually means:

Raising gasoline taxes, heating oil taxes, coal taxes, and other fuel taxes. How will a campaign be run on the Liberals wanting to raise gasoline prices, electricity prices, heating prices?

A program which attack industry, and could lead to the shut down of industrial production throughout Canada?

A policy plank that advances the federal government into natural resources (a provincial jurisdiction) - re carbon sequestration

Pointless Purchasing of Internation Emissions Credits which do not reflect actual reductions in GHGs.

These policies are really symbolic of how little Ignatieff knows about Canada's history with similar initiatives. He hasn't learned the lessons of: Joe Clarks gas tax, the Cape Breton Coal Mines, the NEP and the consensus about buying foreign emissions credits.

11 Comments:

  • haha why not read it first eh?

    By Blogger YYC Liberal, at 10:48 PM  

  • I read through the policy and certainly didn't get that impression. what leads you to believe higher costs will be a result?

    By Blogger Bob The Red, at 4:38 AM  

  • Higher costs are inevitable - but we are one of the world's least efficient users of energy. Not coincidentally, our manufacturing productivity growth has been woeful for a couple of generations.

    As for international emissions credits, there is a huge difference between the Russian credits the Liberals were talking about (basically rewarding one good round of negotiating) and credits from the developing world that are based on verified reductions. Canada simply cannot reach its Kyoto target with internal reductions without crippling the oil and gas sector, but there are a lot less economically valuable emissions in the world than refining oil sands.

    By Blogger OttawaCon, at 6:27 AM  

  • Now that you've thrown all the pebbles in your little bag, care to put forward a single idea? Or is the answer to do nothing and enjoy our robust industrial economy?

    By Blogger CL, at 8:06 AM  

  • Hey Pebbles, can I come over so we can 'BAM BAM'?

    By Blogger P. North, at 10:21 AM  

  • Are you David Herle? You sound like him talking about Harper. It didn't work then and this style of attack won't work now.

    The world is more complicated than that. There is a cost to the environment when energy is collected or expended. That cost should be built into the cost of the energy and borne by the user. You can avoid higher costs, or any costs, by reducing consumption. That is the point of Ignatieff's plan.

    It should be debated on its merits not with hysterical fearmongering.

    By Blogger GritPatriot, at 10:28 AM  

  • yawn....

    By Blogger James Bowie, at 12:15 PM  

  • Hey red bob . . . when did the libs ever lower prices on anything, ever in modern history????
    Are you saying that when they add huge consumption taxes to carbon energy sources in your mind they will be cheaper???

    Won't hurt the west as much, but Ontario and Quebec will shut down, factories will move south, unemployment will his 50%.

    By Blogger EX-NDIP, at 1:36 PM  

  • He doesn't want to add taxes, he wants to change how companies are taxed. So instead of taxing based on revenue/income.. tax based on pollution. Those are straight from his mouth to me when I asked him outright.

    No idea if that's a good idea, but that's what he said.

    By Blogger IcoHolic, at 2:02 PM  

  • If your just shifting the taxes, are you really creating an economic incentive to take an action?

    If the tax is revenue neutral, then no extra cost will be born by companies that do nothing.

    This makes it totally ineffective.

    Also, if companies did jump on the bandwagon, revenue would be lost to the treasurery that is not made up elsewhere automatically. (ie if someone stops smoking, it benifits in lower future health care costs)

    The plan als would make for interesting financial propositions.

    Say a big bank wants to pay no taxes. Under this plan, they would pay much less taxes, and the burden would be shifted away from one of Canada's most profitable industries.

    By Blogger Kyle G. Olsen, at 8:23 PM  

  • I'll never take this blog seriously again. Ever.

    By Blogger Jason Bo Green, at 12:06 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home