how not to win an election

Using less fuel doesn't necessarily equate to less carbon emissions.

A pollution tax makes sense. A carbon tax is regressive.

but it would always mean less fuel right? and most of the time a reduction in carbon emissions.

and you get this back in income tax savings so most BC'ers are able to make choices to come out ahead on this, right?

sorry, are you arguing against carbon tax?

Using less fuel doesn't necessarily equate to less carbon emissions.

A pollution tax makes sense. A carbon tax is regressive.

I have a feeling you would argue it either way, but tell me how using less fuel doesn't equal less carbon emissions. Last time I checked the carbon is in the fuel. So more fuel burned = more carbon emissions.

I'm arguing against pretty much any tax, especially one that is unfair.

What do you do, tell people to drive less and take public transit? Works fine if you have public transit, otherwise it's not helping.

If you live in Vancouver, the winters aren't that cold. If you live in Hixon, you'll be using more oil to heat your home.

Switch to electricity? That costs more. Speaking of which, the local provincial government has, for years, been pushing for people to switch to using natural gas because it is more efficient for heating. Now they turn around and want to add tax to it.

It could go on and on.

Like I said earlier, tax people for having children, as those children are going to leave a pretty big carbon footprint. Tax dogs and cats too, as well as lima beans, as they increase the carbon footprint.

I'm arguing against pretty much any tax, especially one that is unfair.

.

well i too would love no taxes, but that ain't gonna happen.

so if the government is going to get money from us, i would rather have it be on things that i have SOME control over

right now the only way you can pay less tax is to work/earn less. THAT is ridiculous. taxes should be on things we DON'T as a society want people to do or that we want people to minimize.

What do you do, tell people to drive less and take public transit? Works fine if you have public transit, otherwise it's not helping.

Even if you don't have access to public transit, there's ways to reduce your transportation related carbon footprint: How about using a vehicle that's less of a gas guzzler? Based on the cars I see on the roads, pretty much everyone could make an effort to use a more fuel-efficient car. Funny how the skyrocketing gas prices have led many people to buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars…
A few years ago, I watched a documentary that had an interesting stat: the average car in Europe has a fuel consumption about half of the average car in North America… WHY? maybe it has something to do with the fact that gasoline has always been way more expensive in Europe than here…

If you live in Vancouver, the winters aren't that cold. If you live in Hixon, you'll be using more oil to heat your home.

Again, even in Hixon, there's ways to decrease your heating oil consumption: How about increasing your house's insulation? (there's even govt grants for various green home improvements) Or perhaps lowering the thermostat? (wearing a sweater never hurt anyone: I should know, I wore one all the time in the winter when I was growing up in Montreal)

no matter what you think about pollution control, whether you favor cap and trade or a tax, or subsidies. the consumer will ALWAYS pay.

and its necessary, the reason we are in this trouble environmentally, is because we all live excessively and have been used to cheap pollution via driving everywhere.

there is no painless way to get off gasoline and improve the environment.

making gas more expensive makes substitutes increasingly feasible, and brings in competition to create new technologies. the government CANNOT spur on innovation in the manner that markets can.

Like I said earlier, tax people for having children, as those children are going to leave a pretty big carbon footprint.

so if the government is going to get money from us, i would rather have it be on things that i have SOME control over

So you're both in agreement - tax the breeders.

e led many people to buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars…
A few years ago, I watched a documentary that had an interesting stat: the average car in Europe has a fuel consumption about half of the average car in North America… WHY? maybe it has something to do with the fact that gasoline has always been way more expensive in Europe than here…

I do believe thats also due to the large use of diesel vehicles over there. For some stupid reason the car companies don't think we're worthy. Prior to my latest vehicle purchase I was looking @ a Jeep Liberty CRD, just as much torque as a 5.7l hemi with the fuel economy of a 4 banger.

A Carbon tax is a great idea….come on the gas isn't going to last forever and hopefully this would be a good start to ween us off. However I don't trust the Liberals 1 iota to implement it properly. Fuck look @ all the other billion dollar boondoggles they've had while in power. HRDC, Gun registry, Sponsorship, to name a few.

Like I said earlier, tax people for having children, as those children are going to leave a pretty big carbon footprint.

Not sure if that was esarc or not. Tough to justify taxing someone on something that someone else might do someday in the future.

Besides, you wanna penalize people who provide the next generation? The next generation that will be propping up CPP, healthcare and all of our wonderful socialist programs when you're retired? Kinda shortsighted.

Back to the original theme of the thread - it's not about whether the carbon tax is a good idea or not - it was simply the worst sales job of all time. Fully in line with the thinking of a professor. "I've got a good idea, and if I just explain it to people, they will agree with me."

Unfortunately, if your main policy plank is "We're gonna bring in a massive tax", it doesn't matter what explanation you follow it up with, it's still a massive tax in the voter's mind. Good luck with that.

That's why it was a mistake to call it a 'tax' in the first place. It isn't a tax, it's a penalty, or perhaps a disincentive. A tax is revenue the gov't takes it to spend on public projects. The carbon 'penalty' is revenue paid by the users and re-distributed equally. The biggest users pay, the smallest users come out ahead.

If you're a big user of carbon-emitting products, you pay more than you get back in the re-distribution formula. People who oppose this need to sit down and work out the math. Joe average commuter comes out ahead in most cases.

Kn.

Like I said earlier, tax people for having children, as those children are going to leave a pretty big carbon footprint.

i know you are trolling on this, but in case anyone reads it with any sincerity, remember those kids are going to grow up and pay tax etc so taxing the parents wouldn't make any sense.

i know you are trolling on this, but in case anyone reads it with any sincerity, remember those kids are going to grow up and pay tax etc so taxing the parents wouldn't make any sense.

Says proud daddy GW.

Open the floodgates of immigration if you're worried about taxation levels. Most of the environmental problems on the planet are exacerbated due to the sheer numbers of humans consuming.

6 billion is causing a problem, scale that number back by half and many things get much more manageable.

Let's add,

Call the election during hurricane season.

Open the floodgates of immigration if you're worried about taxation levels. Most of the environmental problems on the planet are exacerbated due to the sheer numbers of humans consuming.

Immigration poaches the best and brightest from the developing world. Nothing beats wrecking the lives of others so we can call ourselves green.