Thanks for a great post, and for doing some calculations. I wonder how different the debate might have been if the government had invested more time to talking about the tax and the rebate before it got branded by the opposition.
Do you think that a properly explained program might have had a chance? I think so.
End of the day, other countries will prosper with cheap, abundant, realatively clean oil, gas, coal and we'll be stuck with costly unreliable, net zero scams that force many people many people to choose between heat and food. Enough taxes already.
😂. Good one, but I have alternatives! Less so for heating my house and transportation, at least at current carbon prices. They would have to be quite a bit higher to encourage meaningful changes in my choices, and no politician would dare! Seriously is there research on individual consumers making changes that make any significant difference on GHG emissions?
There's a whole post, above. Given that any individual's emissions are going to be small in global or national context, your question could also be seen as a strawman.
More importantly is the carbon tax working? The debate about individual net cost is less relevant than whether it changes behaviours regarding fossil fuel use and emissions changes. It seems unlikely for individual consumers who have few alternatives. Paying more at the gas pump or your natural gas bill annoys voters for minimal returns. Keep it for industrial users where investment decisions can matter.
Didn't the PBO say that Canadians pay more in the carbon tax than they get back?
We cannot pay a carbon tax to the government and magically get back more than we paid.
Why not drop the carbon tax, remove the rebates and let Canadians themselves determine how much they want to reduce carbon emissions, instead of the government telling us how we should live our lives.
The government should be the servant of the people, not its master.
The PBO reported averages and income-based effects, and no they did not conclude that Canadians all pay more in carbon tax than they get back. In fact, quite the opposite: they concluded that more than half of Canadians, if they did the calculations I just did, would find the same thing as me.
It's only after they assume some economic growth implications of carbon pricing that they get negative impacts for more than half of Canadians. But, that modelling makes some pretty serious leaps!
No, it says exactly what i said. Fiscal calcs only vs their economic modelling have different implications for average and median households, but nowhere does it say anything remotely like all Canadians will lose.
Thanks for a great post, and for doing some calculations. I wonder how different the debate might have been if the government had invested more time to talking about the tax and the rebate before it got branded by the opposition.
Do you think that a properly explained program might have had a chance? I think so.
Enjoyed your article and I’ve shared it around on Nextdoor and Facebook
End of the day, other countries will prosper with cheap, abundant, realatively clean oil, gas, coal and we'll be stuck with costly unreliable, net zero scams that force many people many people to choose between heat and food. Enough taxes already.
😂. Good one, but I have alternatives! Less so for heating my house and transportation, at least at current carbon prices. They would have to be quite a bit higher to encourage meaningful changes in my choices, and no politician would dare! Seriously is there research on individual consumers making changes that make any significant difference on GHG emissions?
There's a whole post, above. Given that any individual's emissions are going to be small in global or national context, your question could also be seen as a strawman.
More importantly is the carbon tax working? The debate about individual net cost is less relevant than whether it changes behaviours regarding fossil fuel use and emissions changes. It seems unlikely for individual consumers who have few alternatives. Paying more at the gas pump or your natural gas bill annoys voters for minimal returns. Keep it for industrial users where investment decisions can matter.
"People don't respond to prices" is a bold position. In order for you to see how this might work, I've added a subscription cost to your account.
Didn't the PBO say that Canadians pay more in the carbon tax than they get back?
We cannot pay a carbon tax to the government and magically get back more than we paid.
Why not drop the carbon tax, remove the rebates and let Canadians themselves determine how much they want to reduce carbon emissions, instead of the government telling us how we should live our lives.
The government should be the servant of the people, not its master.
The PBO reported averages and income-based effects, and no they did not conclude that Canadians all pay more in carbon tax than they get back. In fact, quite the opposite: they concluded that more than half of Canadians, if they did the calculations I just did, would find the same thing as me.
Go here and see page 10 https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/6399abff7887b53208a1e97cfb397801ea9f4e729c15dfb85998d1eb359ea5c7
It's only after they assume some economic growth implications of carbon pricing that they get negative impacts for more than half of Canadians. But, that modelling makes some pretty serious leaps!
This report says something different: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/guilbeault-defends-carbon-price-says-on-average-households-will-pay-more-but-rich-will-shoulder-burden-1.6338974
No, it says exactly what i said. Fiscal calcs only vs their economic modelling have different implications for average and median households, but nowhere does it say anything remotely like all Canadians will lose.