I am surprised to find something on the issue of climate change in the National Post that is not full of contempt for reality. Nowhere in the article is there any of the NP's contempt for science or reason, it's actually a very sensible piece (acknowledging the author's clear conservative credentials and perspective).

Sadly, for those of us who have trouble stomaching a vote for the present Conservative party, the article author is probably right about Dion. I think that guy is going to get creamed in any election we have. Time will tell but he does not inspire confidence in me, at least.

What's even more incredible to me is that despite what I fear to be Dion's titanic ineptitude, Harper still can't get a poll to suggest he has a strong chance at a majority. He's possibly even less charismatic than Dion, but seems a lot more competent.

JTK

One must be very careful in assessing people's proposals for carbon taxes, because the devil is in the details.

In particular, if one looks around at the various proposals, one needs to recall that:

$100/ton CO2e => $1/gallon tax on gasoline.

I've seen proposed taxes as low as $10-$20, i.e., $.10-$.20 / gallon, a "vast" tax which most car drivers would barely notice in the face of the ongoing price rises from Peak Oil effects. yes, long-haul truckers would notice.

I have some suspicions that some carbon tax proposals are genuine attempts to do something useful and efficient, whereas others might be misdirection ("See, we're all for action" but then the price is set low enough to be in the noise.)

For example, if I were a coal producer, and oil+gas prices were going up faster than coal, I'd be OK for a (modest) carbon tax, because people would switch as they could from oil+gas to coal, i.e., synfuels and more coal for electricity.

Please, this is not a good piece. Kay, who seems to be making a career out of penning misleading articles hacking at progressive proposals while leaving lousy Conservative plans alone, has made a serious error here.

It's easy to get caught up in Kay's call to change behaviour (as a green I'm all for it), but the method he chooses would be a disaster.

Carbon taxes work, but they work best to reduce CO2 emissions when the tax is applied upstream because taxing energy at the consumer level, as Kay recommends, is placing the burden on those least able to effectively reduce their carbon footprint. Consumer energy demand is only elastic over the long term, that is, it takes you and I a lot of time and effort to significantly reduce energy use. In the short term, people have a hard time changing habits. Add an extra tax into the mix with no fiscal relief, and changing habits gets even harder because raising capital funds to do things like buying more efficient water heaters and more fuel-efficient cars gets even harder.

Taxing upstream is the golden rule of carbon taxation.

The SUV-driving suburbanite is a pox on our desire for a clean and climate-normal environment, but hitting them with a huge tax increase on energy will not ease them into trading the SUV in for a more energy efficient car, or upgrading their water tank, home insulation or gas furnace. Instead, they'll despair at their inability to find any funds to do so, especially given the extra tax they would be paying. And any tax high enough to force them to change would, in the end, leave them with assets highly depressed in value due to high supply and low demand.

These people are actually house poor (huge mortgages), and have become dependent upon an infrastructure built and encouraged by government policy. They can't just sell their homes and cars and move 'downtown' closer to work. They are stuck. The answer, for them, is a combination of better transit, telecommuting, higher efficiency energy use (etc...), combined with an legislated end to expanding suburbs. In time, they will intensify into higher-density urban regions, which are more efficient.

The point of a carbon tax being a wholesale tax is that producers bear the cost, even as they pass it down through higher prices. Producers quickly see that they can reduce the cost of the taxation by reducing emissions. And when producers reduce emissions, it's on a massive scale, not at some random piecemeal rate driven by nearly-broke consumers.

Carbon taxation, when combined with a tax shift on personal incomes gives us a win-win. It keeps the negative effects of the tax away from low income persons -- who aren't the problem anyway -- and cushions some of the blow to middle and higher income families. Those families then can, if they so wish, make lower carbon choices while still having some liquidity. Industry, in order to reduce increased costs driven by the carbon tax THEY PAY, reduces emissions, and consumers can actually afford to change.

In Kay's scheme, low-income families like mine would be very hard hit by consumer carbon taxation, and yet would have no relief from a tax shift, despite having a low carbon footprint to start with. Middle income earners would be forced to make, on their own, a massive infrastructure shift which could only actually be realized by decades of government intervention in land management and transportation. Large emitters would continue to emit greenhouse gases, as reducing emissions would do nothing to save them costs.

Kay seems to be avoiding looking at Conservative plans, which also prices carbon upstream (at an unpredictable rate, while grandfathering dirty coal plants), and also has a host of programs to provide energy-reduction incentives. I say this clear bias of his is a severe 'tell.'

The Liberals have imposed a carbon tax in BC already and we will soon be paying two carbon taxes. Our local school district although small in comparison to most will have to pay $50,000 towards the already existing carbon tax. How is this a good thing?