Climate change: Prime Minister Frank Harper and the alliance of what?

What are we going to do about climate change?

Tony Abbott

Frankly, the Prime Minister wanted to be frank about his frankness.

“It’s not that we don’t seek to deal with climate change, but we seek to deal with it in a way that will protect and enhance our ability to create jobs and growth, not destroy jobs and growth in our countries,” he explained yesterday, standing beside his number one fan from Australia. “And frankly, every single country in the world, this is their position. No country is going to undertake actions on climate change—no matter what they say, no country is going to take actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country. We are just a little more frank about that, but that is the approach that every country’s seeking.”

Quite frankly, there might be something a bit obvious about this. Surely no reasonable party leader or head of government would suggest we destroy the present for the sake of the future. For one thing, “Apocalypse now to avoid apocalypse later” is a rather gloomy campaign slogan. For another, people living in the present tend to be rather selfish about not wanting to be inconvenienced.

In a speech in Britain some six years ago, Mr. Harper posited that economic growth and environmental welfare were each half of an answer to the riddle of security.

“It is true that economic growth on our planet cannot be sustained without better environmental preservation,” he said. “But it is equally true, as the current reaction to high energy prices in Europe is starting to show, that environmental progress will never be achieved unless the economic needs of the population are being met.”

We have possibly spent much of the last decade—the last two decades? longer?—wrestling with that riddle. That we shouldn’t have to choose between the economy and the environment is something like the one thing everyone wants to say. So it is really down to the details and the consequences.

The Prime Minister’s solution at the time was a cap-and-trade system, along with options to purchase credits or pay into a technology fund. And the government’s approach to climate policy since then has certainly possessed a certain kind of frankness. There was the retreat from cap-and-trade. There was the new line that cap-and-trade and a carbon tax were the same thing. There was the promise of regulations for the oil-and-gas sector. There were two missed guesses at when those regulations might be announced. And now there is some vague hope that maybe the United States might “like to work in concert” on new regulations for the oil-and-gas sector.

(The Liberals, meanwhile, proposed a carbon tax and then proposed cap-and-trade and now muse only of some kind of price on carbon. The New Democrats vehemently opposed a carbon tax while trying to argue cap-and-trade would be somehow different.)

Frankly, this might all align with some significant portion of the voting public. (Do we truly want to deal with climate change, or was that just a thing we were into for a few months in 2008? And, if we do, at what cost?)

According to the Sydney-Morning Herald, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Harper’s friendly visitor yesterday, is now seeking to establish a “a conservative alliance among ‘like-minded’ countries, aiming to dismantle global moves to introduce carbon pricing, and undermine a push by US President Barack Obama to push the case for action through forums such as the G20.”

The Prime Minister’s Office tells me the government is not part of any “secret alliance,” while arguing the government has done more, faster, to reduce emissions from the electricity sector than the United States (a problematic comparison given our two countries’ differing levels of reliance on coal-fired electricity).

However the two prime ministers are linked, they at least share the same policy prescription. Yesterday, Mr. Harper commended Mr. Abbott’s elimination of Australia’s “job-killing carbon tax.” At Question Period this afternoon, the Conservatives sent up a backbencher to a lob a question at Colin Carrie, apparently so that the parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment could express some admiration for Mr. Abbott. “Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, agrees with our approach to take actions to limit emissions without destroying our economy, like the NDP would like to do,” Mr. Carrie told the House. “We commend the Australian government for encouraging other countries not to impose a multi-billion dollar carbon tax.”

Indeed, under repeated questioning from the New Democrats today, Carrie would make repeated reference to the dreaded carbon tax (that would make 33 occasions on which he has so far invoked the policy). Conservative backbencher Robert Sopuck helpfully added one more to the official record just before Question Period (Mr. Sopuck is now at a mere dozen references and might want to think about trying harder).

Opposite Mr. Carrie was the NDP’s Francois Choquette, venturing that the real destruction would come as a result of climate change. ”Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister showed the full extent of his ignorance in combating climate change by pitting it against job creation. His apocalyptic vision for our economy is matched by the increase in extreme climate phenomena,” the NDP deputy critic declared. “We are talking about a cost of five billion annually to the Canadian economy! So it is Conservative inaction in combating climate change that makes the most damage to our jobs and our economy. When will the Conservatives take the necessary measures to comply with their Copenhagen commitments?”

There is something to be said for clarity: Mr. Harper is resolutely against a carbon tax, which his government now seemingly defines as either a direct tax on GHG emissions or a cap-and-trade system which establishes a price on GHG emissions. Fair enough. Now what about everything else?

If the Prime Minister likes to be heard speaking frankly, there are any number of ways he might lead a frank conversation about climate change policy in this country. For instance, does his opposition to a carbon tax include anything like the carbon levy currently being applied in Alberta? Does Mr. Harper want to adopt Mr. Abbott’s “direct action” plan?

There are those who would argue that a carbon tax is more efficient than the sort of regulations the Harper government has so far applied to other sectors and it should be noted that those regulations come with costs, but before we can even get to that discussion, we might need to know what each side is proposing—including, of course, the New Democrats and Liberals. Are the Conservatives willing to do nothing on the oil-and-gas sector until the United States is willing to do likewise? If so, why? Why precisely should we wait to act in concert on that file? Let us see some frank analysis about the economics that would inform such a stance.

What exactly is the choice here? The NDP’s cap-and-trade system or the Conservative government’s regulatory regime that doesn’t cover the country’s largest emitter? Destroying the economy or destroying the environment?

That surely can’t be it.

What about those Copenhagen targets? How are we going to meet those? What if waiting for the United States results in Canada not meeting its targets? Are those targets not important? What will it mean for the future of the planet and the country if those targets are not met?

For sure, not destroying things sounds like a decent idea—indeed it seems to be the very point of the climate change debate. And if Messrs Harper and Abbott wish to oppose a tax on carbon or an emissions-trading system, they’re surely entitled. But frankly it only raises an obvious question: If not that, what?




Browse

Climate change: Prime Minister Frank Harper and the alliance of what?

  1. Harper hasn’t the slightest intention of doing anything about climate change.

    Well….other than adding to it that is.

  2. Aaron wrote:
    “There are those who would argue that a carbon tax is more efficient than the sort of regulations the Harper government has so far applied to other sectors”

    Aaron, why don’t the media actually explain to people what a carbon tax entails? Either journalists haven’t bothered to think about it, or they would prefer that those who will be forced to pay the carbon tax, not know about it.

    A carbon tax works by reducing demand through increased prices. The “big oil” or other energy companies will NOT be hurt by a carbon tax as they will simply pass the costs on to the consumer of their products. The big companies will be hurt somewhat by reduced overall demand; but that only applies to nations with the carbon tax, as they can ship their products elsewhere.

    If Canada had a carbon tax, EVERYTHING would go up in price and people will suffer because of it; especially those Canadians of modest means. If journalists prefer to cast stones at the PM for his decisions, they should explain what a different decision would entail. You need to explain to them what a carbon tax would mean; unless of course, you are withholding that explanation for ideological reasons. (namely, the media for the most part is just looking for any excuse to make the PM look bad.)

    Carbon tax works by:

    1. Increasing the cost of gasoline. As gasoline is rather in-elastic in the market place, people will still need it, but will have less money for other items that are also required. People will have to decide to drive less, or cancel the kids soccer lessons, etc.
    2. Increase food costs. Unless you are a farmer who still uses and ox and plow, your fuel will cost more, your fertilizer will cost more, and basically everything else requiring energy will cost more. These costs will be passed on to the folks who need to buy food. Which is everyone.
    3. Travel by air. Of course costs will increase.
    4. Heating your home. Wouldn’t be an issue if you lived in Arizona or florida, but if you are a Canadian……the costs will hurt you badly.
    5. Electricity. If you rely upon power from a gas plant, costs will go up; and if you live in Ontario, it will go up even more due to the mafia like organization (Liberal Party) which has its fingers all over the power grid.
    6. Any item made from carbon based polymers. Anything plastic; most kids toys, most car parts, etc.etc..etc..
    7. Any goods that are not made locally in your area. In case folks are not aware, Canada is a BIG country. It takes a BIG TRUCK, with a BIG diesel guzzling engine to move the milllions of tons of goods every day across the country. Everthing you buy at your local furniture store, grocery store, or hardware store, will go up in price.
    8. Business and job creators. They won’t hire as many people if they cannot afford the costs of production.

    Now, if you take any one of thse things, it will hurt you to some extent, but a Carbon Tax will affect EVERYTHING. When combined, it will hurt poor Canadians the most.

    There are some folks who criticize Harper for his stance, but those who do are the same folks who either don’t understand what a Carbon tax will do to them, or those who DO understand what a Carbon tax will do….and just don’t care. They have bought into the climate change hysteria, and consider people the problem; not the solution.

    There is only ONE media company in Canada willing to tell people what a Carbon tax will actually do; and it isnt’ macleans magazine.

    We need to start telling BOTH sides to a story, not picking and choosing what to report based upon your dislike of the current Government.

    • Your comment is only partially true. In a free market the manufacturing and transportation companies should seek to maximize their profits by lowering their costs. They would look for ways to use fewer fossil fuels or substitutes for fossil fuels in order to become more competitive. There would be more onus on them to introduce processes that are less carbon-intensive, which would be more efficacious, by the way, than end-users recycling their plastics.

      • Bonnie,

        In the free market, companies already seek to maximize their profits; those companies which fail to do so, fail as a viable entity. Firms are always looking for ways to maximize profits, as that is the mechanism by which they survive. It is fine to state that we should find more efficient fuels, or less carbon intesive fuels, but right now, we don’t have them. There is no such thing as a viable solar powered, or wind powered car. Only gasoline does the job, and we still need massive trucks, with massive fuel sucking engines to move our goods around Canada.
        I’m a big fan of reducing waste, and legislation for packaging for example is something that could be done. Just look at what a simple CD comes in, or DVD. What about lays chips…3 cents worth of tasteless chips, in a 35 cent, lasts for hundreds of years plastic container. Crazy.

        But, regardless of the validity of your comments, mine are also still true. A Carbon tax will hurt everyone, but the poor will feel it the most. Feed the kids, or keep them warm in winter? They should have to make such choices.

        • I think you mean Pringles? You’ll be glad to know that the latest recycling initiatives here in the lower mainland now accept these tubes.

          On a more serious note, using less carbon-based fuel is one way to cut production costs and enhance competitiveness. Perhaps it isn’t the packaging that is the problem but over-consumption. I read a comment on another blog today that stated “China is the biggest bubble man has ever seen.”

          As for choosing between heat and food, I agree. No one should have to make this choice.

          • Bonnie,

            Maybe they don’t have the same packaging in BC, but in Ontario, you get about 35 grams of really crappy chips, and they are packaged in a solid plastic container. It’s crazy. The cost of making the package, is more than the chips are worth.

            As for less carbon based fuel….I’m all for it. Once they invent one. Right now however, we run on dead dinosaurs and plants.

            As for China….I worked there for a while. Walking in China, is like smoking two packs of cigarettes a day….you can hardly breathe. China is a far bigger problem in the world today than Canada could ever be.

        • “A Carbon tax will hurt everyone, but the poor will feel it the most. Feed the kids, or keep them warm in winter? They should have to make such choices.”

          You’re simply a bald-faced liar, Jimmy.
          The BC government has returned more in tax cuts and credits than it’s collected in carbon tax.

          • From the Huffngton Post;

            Since it was introduced in 2008, the tax has steadily increased four times in four years to its current rate. Drivers pay almost seven cents in carbon tax for every litre of gas.

            The B.C. government boasts that the carbon tax is revenue neutral because personal income taxes were cut by the same amount. However, the CTF argues that offsetting doesn’t actually benefit the average taxpayer.

            The income tax cut only covers $228 million of the $1.2 billion brought in by the carbon tax and average taxpayers can’t access other tax breaks like ones set up for venture capital or research development.

            “It’s ridiculous for an average taxpayer to be told it’s revenue neutral when they are forced to pay the ever-increasing carbon tax but have no ability to access the corresponding tax breaks,” said Jordan Bateman, the CTF’s B.C. director in a news release.

            He said the tax “is hurting B.C.’s competitiveness both in North America and internationally. Taxpayers—both individual and business—need relief.”

          • The Canadian Taxpayers Federation doesn’t like a tax.
            I’m shocked, Boob.
            And not only has in not forced people to choose to “feed the kids, or keep them warm in winter,” it has hasn’t hurt BC’s economy which has done better than the rest of Canada:
            http://www.sustainableprosperity.ca/dl1026&display

          • “it has hasn’t hurt BC’s economy which has done better than the rest of Canada:”

            What’s it like living in the land of lollipops, fairy tales and unicorns Lenny?

            That link you provided says it all.

          • From Lenny’s linked report;

            “BC’s per capita consumption of fuels subject to the tax has declined by 19%”

            This reflects not a drop in fuel consumption, but the increase in those, myself included, who cross the border to fill up with gasoline or diesel at 20 to 30 cents less per litre.

    • There’s no need to visit the fevered imagination of Sun News to find out what a carbon tax “would do”. One only has to visit BC to learn that you’re full of cr@p.

      • Really? I live here. Gas is pricey, which is annoying, but our biggest problems are inflated housing costs and wages that don’t support home ownership. Shouldn’t a free market bring these things into balance? They certainly aren’t caused by our carbon tax (which unfortunately was poorly thought out from a policy perspective, being what then-Premier Campbell described as “revenue-neutral”.

        • There are many other factors which contribute to gas and housing prices besides the carbon tax including in which area of the province you live. Ontario has no carbon tax, but the housing prices in Toronto are astronomical and Montreal had the highest gas prices in Canada for several months last year and Quebec has no carbon tax.

        • My comment wasn’t directed at you.

          • A comment as rude as yours appears to be shouldn’t be directed at anyone.

        • Bonnie,

          For you, the fact gas is pricey is a mere annoyance, but imagine what it feels like to someone with a low income job who needs to drive to work?

          As for housing prices in BC, or the city of Toronto, it is all about supply and demand. The prices in Vancouver and Victoria are astronomical mainly due to the number of people who have moved there over the last twenty five years. Many of these large homes are being purchased by asian immigrants with tons of cash, and the folks who grew up in BC can’t compete. That is just how the market works.

          If you want more affordable housing, then tell the eco-nuts stop protesting every time a developer wants to build more houses/ condo’s.

          • There are plenty of multi-family developments underway across the lower mainland. They are “affordable” but the vast majority of these don’t afford much by way of quality of living. A shortage of available land has had a lot to do with the steep increases in property values here. My point is, for the vast majority of folks, salaries have not kept up. BC has the highest housing costs and among the lowest salaries. Many enterprises are here are closely held, with the spoils going to the owners while the employees are treated as interchangeable parts. This is a major reason why most would find a carbon tax that is not “revenue-neutral” to be unaffordable.

      • I lived in BC for four years lenny. A carbon tax doesn’t much affect me as I can afford it, but my comment is simply pointing out that “carbon tax” may make you feel like a good progressive…..but it hurts the poor the most.

        One other point about BC. Visually, it is a beautiful place, but if you live in the cities, you eventually tire of stepping over junkies and homeless people on your way to work. Oh..and the needles and human feces they leave all over the place isn’t that pleasant either.

        • You’re just making it up, Jimmy.
          The poorest households in BC receive more back in climate tax credits than they pay in carbon tax.

          “If you want more affordable housing, then tell the eco-nuts stop protesting every time a developer wants to build more houses/ condo’s.”

          Yeah, it’s real tough to get condos built in Vancouver.

          Have you ever posted anything that isn’t a utter fabrication?

          • He’s not fabricating, just using dramatic turns of phrase to make his points. Homelessness is a problem, but I haven’t noticed any needles or other effluent during my walks through Gastown.

          • Uh no, he’s entirely making it up.
            There is no housing shortage due to environmentalists nor are the poor forced to choose between heat and food due to BC carbon tax.
            It’s not hyperbole, it’s lying.

          • Lenny,

            In the entirely fictitious world you inhabit…..anything you don’t dream up in your own addled mind is just a fairly tale.

          • You mean like the carbon tax forcing people to choose between food and heat, or housing pricing in BC being caused by environmentalists?
            Hahaha!
            You’re not the least bit ashamed of yourself, are you?

    • Canadians who demand that the government not impose a multibillion dollar carbon tax should just as much demand multibillion dollar climate reparations not come from the government…..leave it solely to the private free market insurance corporations to make repairs.

  3. From reading the comments, one would think that a carbon tax was the only option. The agreement between Canada and US, signed by Bush Sr. and Mulroney used cap and trade to end the use of coal that emitted sulphur dioxide and ended the destruction of our lakes, rivers and trees from what was commonly called, acid rain.

    Canada could stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry which the IMF pegs at $34 Billion a year and invest it in renewable energy and assistance for homeowners to make the homes more energy efficient.
    http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/05/15/Canadas-34-Billion–Fossil-Fuel- Subsidies/

    • budster,

      While we don’t agree on much, I think we could both agree on tighter emission standards for vehicles. We’ve done it already, but if you have seen the newest models of pick-up truck out there…..you’d see that the manufacturers aren’t really doing any more than they have to.

      • The new fuel efficiency standards were set by the Obama administration in 2012. Given we’re part of the Auto Pact, Canada had no choice but to follow.

        Any reduction in emissions since Harper came to power are due to the loss of manufacturing in Canada and the change from coal-fired to gas fired energy producing plants in Ontario in spite of Harper’s Minister of the Environment taking the credit for them.

    • Citing the Tyee, that’s a laugh.

      • I’m sure they do. I asked for evidence that more than 20% of fuel consumed in BC is purchased in the US.
        You can’t provide it because it’s a complete fiction.

    • The citation is from the International Monetary Fund.
      While Boob gives us…unsubstaniated assertions from Wingnut Welfare outfit, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

      • The IMF, part of the UN, the very outfit that wants to cripple western economies with wealth transfers to third world countries run by despots and dictators, all based on an unproven theory called Glo_Bull Warming.

        Go see the nurse Lenny, time for your medication.

        • The IMF is part of the conspiracy!
          Is Harper?
          He said that global warming is “perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today” and that he wants to address it.
          Is he a gutless liar without the fortitude to lead the world against the evil conspiracy despite having all that truth on his side, or is he part of the conspiracy?

          • You’re nutz

          • Your could at least tell me which way you’re leaning – Gutless liar or part of the conspiracy, when Harper says that global warming is “perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today” and that he wants to address it?

  4. “That link you provided says it all.”

    Yup.
    BC’s per capita GDP has outperformed the rest of Canada since the tax was introduced.

    “This reflects not a drop in fuel consumption, but the increase in those, myself included, who cross the border to fill up with gasoline or diesel at 20 to 30 cents less per litre.”

    I’m sure you have evidence that more than 20% of fuel consumed in BC is bought in the US?
    *snort*

    • Trips to Washington’s Whatcom Country last year exceeded 15 million – a high not seen since 1997

      Not to mention Point Roberts next to Tsawwassen, which also has a steady dialy stream of car and trucks heading south to fill up.

    • From Vancouver to Chilliwack and all of the small border towns of the Okanagan and Kootenays people cross the border daily to save money on fuel.

      • I’m sure they do. What you can’t demonstrate is that more than 20% of fuel consumed in BC is purchased the U.S. – because it’s a complete fiction.

        • If clues were shoes you’d be barefoot.

          You better back to your unicorn ranch in the sky Lenny, it’s time for your medication.

          • You’re obviously too busy to back up your assertions with evidence.
            I understand.
            But should you find the time, he’s a few “clues” you could follow if you’d actually like to know how much fuel British Columbians buy in the U.S. due to the carbon tax:
            How many people cross the border in provinces that don’t have a carbon tax?
            How many crossed before the tax was put in place (apparently at least as many did in 1997 when there was no tax)?
            How much of the population actually lives within a reasonable distance of the border (
            How do crossing volumes correspond to the value of the CAD?
            How much fuel do those trips potentially represent-
            What’s the average fuel capacity of a vehicle?
            How much total fuel is consumed in BC?

            I know, Boob, it’s so much more fun just making stuff up without all that boring evidence, isn’t it?

          • I can see why you just pasted a link without providing any relevant information from it – because even a business lobby group doesn’t claim that BC’s 19% drop in fuel purchased was replaced by fuel purchased in the U.S. In fact, just the contrary. It provides that there are a whole number of reasons for increased traffic to the US.
            Or maybe you didn’t even read it?
            However, there’s good news!
            Someone actually has considered the evidence pertaining to the effect of the carbon tax on cross-border fuel purchasing.
            Unfortunately, they do consider a lot of data and evidence which I know isn’t your thing.
            And sadly, the bad news is that your claim that BC’s 19% drop in fuel purchase was replaced by fuel purchased in the U.S. is shown to be bull$h%t.
            http://critical-angle.net/2013/08/18/the-effect-of-cross-border-shopping-on-bc-fuel-consumption-estimates/
            This means that given the uncertainties involved, I would say, in round numbers, that cross-border shopping accounts for about 1 – 2% more fuel use in BC than is reported by domestic sales figures in 2011-2012 compared to sales reported four years earlier. That is only a small part of the 17.4% percent drop in absolute per-capita fuel use and the 18.8% drop in fuel use relative to the rest of Canada, over the same time period reported by Elgie and McClay.

          • Citing a leftwing greenie blog, that’s hilarious Lenny.

            Nurses gave you some extra meds tonight.

          • If by “leftwing greenie” you mean “oil and gas industry geophysicist” then yes.
            But that’s completely irrelevant to the evidence presented.
            I’m sorry that your complete and utter failure to provide anything but an ad hominem argument to support your assertion or counter the evidence, data, and calculations all plainly presented at the link has resulted in your latest humiliation.
            Maybe one day a Conservative government will be able to eliminate all data and evidence, and you’ll be able to shamelessly make absurd claims without fear of embarrassment.

          • Border Crossings on the Rise

            The number of British Columbians crossing
            the border by car has increased sharply.
            Same day trips soared by 143% between
            2009 and 2012.

            In 2012 there were 5.7 million same day vehicle crossings between
            BC and the US; in 2009 just 2.3 million such crossings
            were recorded
            .

          • BC carbon tax was implemented on July 1, 2008

          • Thanks Bob!
            Is math hard? Let me help you.

            5,700,000 same-day border crossings in 2012 minus 3,500,955 same-day crossing in the last 12 months before the carbon tax was implemented
            =2,199,045 additional crossings in 2012.
            Let’s be generous and assume every single one of the crossings was made by a car with an empty tank for the purpose of filling up in the US to save the average $4.20 that the carbon tax has added to a tank of gas.
            At an average tank size of 60L you have a total of 131,945,700 additional litres purchased in the US.
            Whaddayaknow, that’s 2.04% of BC’s 2012 total fuel sales of 6,443,752,000L.
            Of course, anyone with half a wit didn’t need to do any calculations to see right away that you claim was ridiculous, but not being so endowed, I hope this has helped you.

          • 60 litres?

            Sure Lenny

            Same day crossings ring a bell?

            You’re math is faulty.

            There are more than just cars fueling up in Washington State Einstein.

          • You’re math is faulty………Your math, was going to say an expletive.

          • The carbon tax is applied to fossil fuels burned for transportation, home heating, and electricity generation.

            The reductions in sales in BC occurred across all the fuel types covered by the tax (not just vehicle fuel).

            That would include HFO, MGO, ULSD, automotive gasolines, marine diesel and marine gasoline.

            Getting clearer for you Lentard?

          • I see. Everyone is filling up their boats in the US!
            Except that the entire marine transport sector accounts for 10% of BC’s transport emissions.
            Keep dancing, Boob!

          • billy bob,

            In case you haven’t yet guessed…….Lenny is big on demanding evidence, proof, links, or facts….but when you provide the evidence he is looking for he won’t read it.

            No amount of factual evidence will change a mind that is protected by numerous layers of tinfoil wrapped tightly around the skull.

          • Oh dear, Boob.
            So many Bcers flocked to Washington to buy fuel and avoid the Carbon tax that Washington’s sales of fuel, uh, dropped.
            http://www.camsys.com/kb_cases_WSTC_RoadUsage.htm
            Sorry to interrupt. I’m sure you’re busy transcribing the method you used to make your original determination.

          • Heh.
            I must have missed the comment the contained any sort of factual basis for Bob’s claim.
            But then Bob’s calculation that, bunch more people going to U.S. = <20% of fuel consumed in BC was bought in US is consistent with your concept of a “fact”, isn’t it James?

    • Ah no, it’s a conclusion reached after a detailed consideration of the data. The analysis of which, and data itself, is all clearly presented.
      A worthless opinion, devoid of any evidence to support it looks like this, “This reflects not a drop in fuel consumption, but the increase in those, myself included, who cross the border to fill up with gasoline or diesel at 20 to 30 cents less per litre.”

      “The Insights West poll suggests that virtually every B.C. respondent said gas purchases were part of their cross-border trips.”

      I’m sure they do. Just as they did before there was a carbon tax.
      Which tells you precisely nothing about how many crossed the border to buy fuel because of the carbon tax.
      This isn’t hard.

      • Whaaa, cry some more Lenny, you are completely devoid of any critical thinking capability.

        Go back to your unicorn ranch in the sky, the nurses are waiting there for you with your meds.

        • Got me there, Boob. Your mad math skilz – more traffic at border = all reductions in fuel sales replaced with sales in US cuz carbon tax cuz bob says – is pretty impressive.

          • You’re a moron Lenny.

            That will never change.

            Believe in Glo-Bull Warming……….the death cult like no other.

  5. Australia has the right idea;

    Why are we removing the carbon tax

    Repealing the carbon tax and the Clean Energy Package is designed to:

    Reduce the cost of living – modelling by the Australian Treasury suggests that removing the carbon tax in 2014-15 will leave average costs of living across all households around $550 lower than they would otherwise be in 2014-15.
    Lower retail electricity by around 9 per cent and retail gas prices by around 7 per cent than they would otherwise be in 2014-15 with a $25.40 carbon tax.
    Boost Australia’s economic growth, increase jobs and enhance Australia’s international competitiveness by removing an unnecessary tax, which hurts businesses and families.
    Reduce annual ongoing compliance costs for around 370 liable entities by almost $90 million per annum.
    Remove over 1,000 pages of primary and subordinate legislation.

Sign in to comment.