[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

Stop producing it then.

I tell you what - how about you shut down all Bombardier because all its products consume oil, then talk to us about shutting down the oilsands.

Deal!

[viper37]

I would have expected some compromises with Alberta: do not fight the carbon tax and we will authorize Trans Mountain.  Otherwise, it will remain on definite hold.

That was the original deal with Alberta.  But then the Liberals bought the damn thing.  Now they have to proceed so they have no leverage left.

I know.  They could have still put it on hold until Alberta complied, since that was the original deal.

Not as the owner of the pipeline

bah.  Once they've wasted so much money, what is it to stall the project?  Private sector does it all the time: by a patent, sit on it until the right moment comes.

[Zoupa]

Stop producing it then.

I tell you what - how about you shut down all Bombardier because all its products consume oil, then talk to us about shutting down the oilsands.

I'd make that trade in a second.

[crazy canuck]

Stop producing it then.

I tell you what - how about you shut down all Bombardier because all its products consume oil, then talk to us about shutting down the oilsands.

I'd make that trade in a second.

ditto

[crazy canuck]

CC, you might like this:

Conservatives release a countdown to their climate change plan, which will be released June 19.

Couple of observations:
-they call it a climate change plan, not an environmental plan.
-they're actually promoting it, not just releasing a plan on a Friday afternoon just so they can get it out of the way

https://www.facebook.com/AndrewScheerMP/videos/2730682650335152/

I have read what passes for the Conservative "plan".  There is no plan.  There is no explanation for what they intend to do to replace the carbon tax.  It seems entirely predicated on the assumption that if industry is left to its own devices a solution will somehow be found. 

A CBC report sums it up best

To explain how they would achieve greater reductions at a lower cost, while not implementing any kind of carbon tax, might be near to impossible.

But then, Conservatives are also playing to a particular audience. Public polling has shown consistently that Conservative supporters are less concerned about climate change than those who are inclined to vote for the Liberals or New Democrats. Scheer surely can't afford to ignore the issue entirely — but he needs to do less to carry, say, 40 per cent of the vote than Justin Trudeau or Jagmeet Singh will feel compelled to do.

That seems as good an explanation as any for what Scheer presented on Wednesday.

He can't say how he would fulfil Canada's international commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But he can say he has a "plan" — 60 pages and 11,000 words and many nice pictures. And he can say that it doesn't include a carbon tax.

And maybe he thinks that's enough.

Well, certainly not enough for me.  Time to look more seriously at the Greens.

[Valmy]

The whole point of carbon taxes is to let industry find a solution.

[crazy canuck]

The whole point of carbon taxes is to let industry find a solution.

Yes, now what is missing if there is no carbon tax?

[grumbler]

The whole point of carbon taxes is to let industry find a solution.

Cap and trade works even better.  SO2 emissions in the US went from 21 million tons in 1990 to 5 million tons in 2010.  Estimated costs in 1990 to cut the emissions from 21 million tons to 10 million tons were $6.1 billion.  Actual costs through 2010 (when the actual cut was to 5 billion tons) were estimated at between $1.1 billion and $1.7 billion.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/justingerdes/2012/02/13/cap-and-trade-curbed-acid-rain-7-reasons-why-it-can-do-the-same-for-climate-change/#3c3bbc76943a

[crazy canuck]

The whole point of carbon taxes is to let industry find a solution.

Cap and trade works even better.  SO2 emissions in the US went from 21 million tons in 1990 to 5 million tons in 2010.  Estimated costs in 1990 to cut the emissions from 21 million tons to 10 million tons were $6.1 billion.  Actual costs through 2010 (when the actual cut was to 5 billion tons) were estimated at between $1.1 billion and $1.7 billion.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/justingerdes/2012/02/13/cap-and-trade-curbed-acid-rain-7-reasons-why-it-can-do-the-same-for-climate-change/#3c3bbc76943a

This is what I thought the Conservatives were going to announce in the place of a carbon tax.  The question of which would be more effective could then be analyzed based on the details of both plans.  But the Conservatives plan to replace the carbon tax was to remove the carbon tax and replace it with.... nothing.

[Barrister]

The whole point of carbon taxes is to let industry find a solution.

Cap and trade works even better.  SO2 emissions in the US went from 21 million tons in 1990 to 5 million tons in 2010.  Estimated costs in 1990 to cut the emissions from 21 million tons to 10 million tons were $6.1 billion.  Actual costs through 2010 (when the actual cut was to 5 billion tons) were estimated at between $1.1 billion and $1.7 billion.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/justingerdes/2012/02/13/cap-and-trade-curbed-acid-rain-7-reasons-why-it-can-do-the-same-for-climate-change/#3c3bbc76943a

This is what I thought the Conservatives were going to announce in the place of a carbon tax.  The question of which would be more effective could then be analyzed based on the details of both plans.  But the Conservatives plan to replace the carbon tax was to remove the carbon tax and replace it with.... nothing.

Although light on details, it does sound like the conservatives are doing a cap in trade on industrial emitters.

[Oexmelin]

Because light on details it does look like the Conservatives are not giving this a lot of thought and are mostly responding to criticism rather than take issue seriously.

[Barrister]

Because light on details it does look like the Conservatives are not giving this a lot of thought and are mostly responding to criticism rather than take issue seriously.

Or they think there's electoral value in some strategic ambiguity.  Or a combination thereof.

[Malthus]

Man, I read the plan, and was it ever disappointing.

For ease of reference, it is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wd71esdae06ki33/ARealPlan.pdf?dl=0

The main platform message is "technology, not taxes". Very light on details as to how this will be achieved, other than two points:

- Green homes tax credit: a credit to encourage more energy-efficient houses through tax credits on renos. Great if you own a house and plan to renovate it. Cost estimate to be around $900 million.

- A Green Patent Credit. This is a tax reduction (to 5%) for income from green tech patents, supposed to encourage tech development.

The rest is aspirational stuff (support better regulations, encourage useful tech, invest in "smart grid" tech, etc.)

The actual concrete plans are both neat and worthy initiatives, but it strikes me as wishful thinking that they will come anywhere close to managing our problems. Even according to the plan, they are talking chump change (the touted "Green Patent" plan is expected by cost estimate to be around $20 million per year, rising to $80 million after four years).

The plan appears to be 'we will encourage industry to create better technologies, which will solve the problem without necessity for any great financial sacrifices by Canadians'. In short, they appear to be selling wishful thinking.

I guess it is better than claiming there is no problem needing to be solved.

[Barrister]

Well no - the real "meat" of the plan is that they are requiring major emitters of over 40kT of CO2 per year to decrease their emissions.  This is where the bulk of the actual CO2 reductions would come from.  They don't spell out the mechanism of how this will work - I'm assuming it's some form of cap-and-trade.

[crazy canuck]

I guess it is better than claiming there is no problem needing to be solved.

Not really.  If they claimed there is no problem, at least they would be being honest and the public can elect someone who does take the problem seriously.  They want to be able to claim there is a plan when there is none and they want to be able to claim that they take climate change seriously when they don't.