I support internalizing negative externalities, and I've yet to see a coherent argument, with facts and figures, laying out how the carbon tax *isn't* doing that and presenting a more appropriate alternative.
Everyday I wake up and immediately smear Carbon Tax all over my body. Then I go to that guy's house and stuff Carbon Tax into his chimneys and vents. And then I leave a trail of Carbon Tax from his driveway to his front door so all his neighbors think he's smuggling Carbon Tax into the neighborhood.
1) Studies show it is effective.
2) Cali has a cap and trade system which works until companies like Tesla can sell carbon credits. Cap and trade is really weird and needs good regulation and oversight to work, which I don't think Cali does.
3) Short answer: It actually helps as families will make more back in tax returns than they pay out. Now that doesn't help people that need that are living paycheque-to-paycheque, but it does help people above that bar.
Long Answer: The affordability problem is not a carbon tax problem, but several problems coming together. Housing is combination of bad zoning laws, corporate consolidation and greed, and NIMBYs. Food is corporate consolidation and greed. Utilities is just de-regulation (which results in corporate greed). Transportation costs (ie needing to own a vechile) are almost a direct result of bad zoning laws and unwillingness to fund public transit. And high local taxes are arguably also a function of zoning laws. This is not a "scrap the carbon tax and everything will be fine" kind of thing. This is a "we are going to enact a bunch of little different things and together they will help" kind of thing especially when it comes to housing. Edmonton has already enacted some of these, making it easier to build multi-family homes, easier to split lots and build 3-4 story apartment buildings. This means both rental prices and housing prices have stayed steady despite the growing population of Edmonton. And until we recognize this, nothing will get done.
What an incredibly neutral and unbiased way to ask a question. I’m sure any discussion about pros and cons of such a tax will be met with carefully thought out and honestly weighed responses.
Wait, are you saying that the poster has ill-intentions and is possibly trying to poison the well to try and get it lifted?? Where in the world would you get that idea??
Jeez like anytime Justin and those clowns ask a question it’s always mired in talk to bait you into answering yes then the go and post some ridiculous twist on how we support high interest rates, unaffordable housing, being soft on violent crimes and how we support banning hunting rifles
There is no Alberta carbon tax (any more).
I think carbon tax is effective. Most people won't voluntarily reduce their consumption of natural resources unless it costs them.
I don't care about the increase because the rebate will go up slightly as well.
I did the math this morning. Based on my specific use, the amount the rebates don't cover is an average of $8/month. I am ok with that, but the next vehicle I buy will be significantly more fuel efficient. Then I will likely come out ahead.
Yeah I assure you the Alberta Carbon tax isn't the biggest problem we face right now. However, it is cool to understand where your money is actually going.
Read into the things you money is going into instead of being upset because someone cast confusion on you.
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work/alberta.html
There is no Alberta carbon tax thanks to the UCP. There's a federal carbon tax that Alberta has no control over and can't be used to fund projects in Alberta
The federal program returns more of the carbon tax to people’s pockets.
100% of the federal carbon tax is returned to the province in rebates and emissions reduction programs.
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work/alberta.html
Under the federal program “More than 90% of Albertans will receive a carbon tax rebate from the federal government.” ( https://energyrates.ca/alberta/alberta-carbon-levy-rebates/ )
Under the old alberta carbon levy (NDP plan) “about 60 per cent of Alberta households would get full or partial rebates” (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/carbon-tax-alberta-election-climate-leadership-plan-revenue-generated-1.5050438 )]
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/cai-payment.html
Do you mean the current federal tax or the historical provincial one?
Either way we need some plan to stop increasing the rate of forest fires. The current plan while imperfect is designed to target high income earners more than low income earners. It does miss at times but overall I'm for it.
Those who are for fighting climate change but opposed to the current carbon tax what solutions do you propose?
Ps. OP you really like loading you deck...
"Do you think it should increase in a year when everyone can't afford rent/food?"
Government needs to take a stand against polluters. Taxing companies that making billions and don't have to deal with their byproducts/infrastructure is the only way to even begin to make a difference. If they want to invest somewhere else, fuck em. Resources are finite. So no, I don't think it goes far enough.
What Alberta carbon tax? We have the federal carbon tax because Kenney (much like Doug Ford in Ontario) killed the provincial carbon scheme in order to score political points by fighting the feds, and hope that attitude would help get his friend Andrew Scheer elected Prime Minister (who was promising to scrap it entirely).
I don't have a problem with a Pigouvian tax like the carbon levy, though I think it could use some tweaking here and there.
Like I've said so many times before. Call it whatever you want , it won't change how much the government collects.
If AB decides it needs to collect $60 billion, it will collect it one way or another. So you can remove one tax, or will introduce a new tax or raise other taxes. The province can't operate if it collects 0 taxes.
I can get behind heavy polluters but not the ppl of Canada. I have to pay a carbon tax to fill up my car and go to work so I can get taxed there as well.
Man, if you can’t afford to live in Alberta because carbon taxing pushes you over the limit, then there might be bigger issues in your life you need to reconsider.
1. I don’t like the carbon tax. I don’t hate it either, but I have doubts about the limits of the free market to control enough behaviour to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
2. Studies show it is effective with individuals, and like a sin tax on tobacco or alcohol, many people curtail usage if the price increases, but not all our usage is done by individuals. Corporations can pass their costs onto us, and have less incentives to reduce their usage.
3. That being said the increased costs and impact on inflation from carbon tax is negligible according to economists. An increase will add pennies to our costs, and there are much larger targets to look at for our inflation crisis, including corporate greed.
Personally, I’d prefer hard caps, no trades, no exceptions for industries, nothing. It seems to me that the biggest polluters have less costs than individuals despite more impact, and I feel the only way we can get greenhouse gasses like CO2 and methane under control is by creating standards, and enforcing regulations. It would need to be done carefully and include retraining, subsidies and other assistance but that’s how we tackled the ozone issue and acid rain, and I feel the results would be better.
But I guess we live in a neoliberal era, and everyone from the NDP, Liberals and Conservatives all think the free market is the only tool we have anymore.
I’ll take my rebates while I can because when the federal cons win the next election I know I’ll go back to getting nothing so I might as well enjoy it while I can.
The carbon tax does not impact the vast majority of Canadians in a substantial way.
There is a calculator where you can estimate the carbon tax impact on your household based on income, gas use, etc. My household of 4 people on low-middle income pay about $20-40 per month (50 if I reeeaallly pushed it) between us after the rebate.
If the price to pay to 'do my part' towards reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is less than ad-free Disney+, that's fine. It's worth it in the long run compared to the future costs of escalating climate change.
I like it in that, after keeping careful track of my own expenses and tabulating both direct costs (utility bills, fuel, propane) and the best available estimate of the carbon tax impact on food and consumer goods (about .15% inflation annually, per Bank of Canada) I get back more from the rebate than I spend. And it's not close.
I do not think it's effective because the price point for alternatives to natural gas heating and internal combustion engines are too high for the carbon tax to meaningfully change consumer behaviour, and I suspect this would remain true if the Carbon tax doubled.
I think it should stay put as is because the net result is a wealth transfer from Carbon emitting industry to households and because you can bet retailers will not be rolling back any price increases attributed to the carbon tax. I do not think it should be increased because I believe we need to drop the pretense that the carbon tax is going to solve our carbon problem and focus on more impactful programs instead.
Also, California doesn't have a carbon tax. They have layers of emissions-targeted programs, including cap-and-trade and a clean fuel standard that can increase costs for consumers in direct and indirect ways. You probably could not find an example that is less of an apples-to-apples comparison than California, which is why individual aspects of its carbon reduction framework are cherry-picked and presented out of context to fuel the misinformation campaigns you appear to have succumbed to.
I support internalizing negative externalities, and I've yet to see a coherent argument, with facts and figures, laying out how the carbon tax *isn't* doing that and presenting a more appropriate alternative.
just because you asked it like a sarcastic con baby i love it because it obviously makes you pout.
Everyday I wake up and immediately smear Carbon Tax all over my body. Then I go to that guy's house and stuff Carbon Tax into his chimneys and vents. And then I leave a trail of Carbon Tax from his driveway to his front door so all his neighbors think he's smuggling Carbon Tax into the neighborhood.
1) Studies show it is effective. 2) Cali has a cap and trade system which works until companies like Tesla can sell carbon credits. Cap and trade is really weird and needs good regulation and oversight to work, which I don't think Cali does. 3) Short answer: It actually helps as families will make more back in tax returns than they pay out. Now that doesn't help people that need that are living paycheque-to-paycheque, but it does help people above that bar. Long Answer: The affordability problem is not a carbon tax problem, but several problems coming together. Housing is combination of bad zoning laws, corporate consolidation and greed, and NIMBYs. Food is corporate consolidation and greed. Utilities is just de-regulation (which results in corporate greed). Transportation costs (ie needing to own a vechile) are almost a direct result of bad zoning laws and unwillingness to fund public transit. And high local taxes are arguably also a function of zoning laws. This is not a "scrap the carbon tax and everything will be fine" kind of thing. This is a "we are going to enact a bunch of little different things and together they will help" kind of thing especially when it comes to housing. Edmonton has already enacted some of these, making it easier to build multi-family homes, easier to split lots and build 3-4 story apartment buildings. This means both rental prices and housing prices have stayed steady despite the growing population of Edmonton. And until we recognize this, nothing will get done.
What an incredibly neutral and unbiased way to ask a question. I’m sure any discussion about pros and cons of such a tax will be met with carefully thought out and honestly weighed responses.
Wait, are you saying that the poster has ill-intentions and is possibly trying to poison the well to try and get it lifted?? Where in the world would you get that idea??
Jeez like anytime Justin and those clowns ask a question it’s always mired in talk to bait you into answering yes then the go and post some ridiculous twist on how we support high interest rates, unaffordable housing, being soft on violent crimes and how we support banning hunting rifles
Yeah, biased questions are shitty no matter who asks them. Details at 11.
There is no Alberta carbon tax (any more). I think carbon tax is effective. Most people won't voluntarily reduce their consumption of natural resources unless it costs them. I don't care about the increase because the rebate will go up slightly as well. I did the math this morning. Based on my specific use, the amount the rebates don't cover is an average of $8/month. I am ok with that, but the next vehicle I buy will be significantly more fuel efficient. Then I will likely come out ahead.
Yeah I assure you the Alberta Carbon tax isn't the biggest problem we face right now. However, it is cool to understand where your money is actually going. Read into the things you money is going into instead of being upset because someone cast confusion on you. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work/alberta.html
There is no Alberta carbon tax thanks to the UCP. There's a federal carbon tax that Alberta has no control over and can't be used to fund projects in Alberta
The federal program returns more of the carbon tax to people’s pockets. 100% of the federal carbon tax is returned to the province in rebates and emissions reduction programs. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work/alberta.html Under the federal program “More than 90% of Albertans will receive a carbon tax rebate from the federal government.” ( https://energyrates.ca/alberta/alberta-carbon-levy-rebates/ ) Under the old alberta carbon levy (NDP plan) “about 60 per cent of Alberta households would get full or partial rebates” (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/carbon-tax-alberta-election-climate-leadership-plan-revenue-generated-1.5050438 )] https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/cai-payment.html
https://twitter.com/Garnet\_2203/status/1767171821667782901
Do I like paying taxes? No Does the carbon tax make me change my usage of things related to the carbon tax? No
I like my rebate. Helps with the ridiculous price of gas and high groceries prices.
Do you mean the current federal tax or the historical provincial one? Either way we need some plan to stop increasing the rate of forest fires. The current plan while imperfect is designed to target high income earners more than low income earners. It does miss at times but overall I'm for it. Those who are for fighting climate change but opposed to the current carbon tax what solutions do you propose? Ps. OP you really like loading you deck... "Do you think it should increase in a year when everyone can't afford rent/food?"
Government needs to take a stand against polluters. Taxing companies that making billions and don't have to deal with their byproducts/infrastructure is the only way to even begin to make a difference. If they want to invest somewhere else, fuck em. Resources are finite. So no, I don't think it goes far enough.
What Alberta carbon tax? We have the federal carbon tax because Kenney (much like Doug Ford in Ontario) killed the provincial carbon scheme in order to score political points by fighting the feds, and hope that attitude would help get his friend Andrew Scheer elected Prime Minister (who was promising to scrap it entirely). I don't have a problem with a Pigouvian tax like the carbon levy, though I think it could use some tweaking here and there.
I wish it were more.
Like I've said so many times before. Call it whatever you want , it won't change how much the government collects. If AB decides it needs to collect $60 billion, it will collect it one way or another. So you can remove one tax, or will introduce a new tax or raise other taxes. The province can't operate if it collects 0 taxes.
I can get behind heavy polluters but not the ppl of Canada. I have to pay a carbon tax to fill up my car and go to work so I can get taxed there as well.
Man, if you can’t afford to live in Alberta because carbon taxing pushes you over the limit, then there might be bigger issues in your life you need to reconsider.
1. I don’t like the carbon tax. I don’t hate it either, but I have doubts about the limits of the free market to control enough behaviour to avoid the worst effects of climate change. 2. Studies show it is effective with individuals, and like a sin tax on tobacco or alcohol, many people curtail usage if the price increases, but not all our usage is done by individuals. Corporations can pass their costs onto us, and have less incentives to reduce their usage. 3. That being said the increased costs and impact on inflation from carbon tax is negligible according to economists. An increase will add pennies to our costs, and there are much larger targets to look at for our inflation crisis, including corporate greed. Personally, I’d prefer hard caps, no trades, no exceptions for industries, nothing. It seems to me that the biggest polluters have less costs than individuals despite more impact, and I feel the only way we can get greenhouse gasses like CO2 and methane under control is by creating standards, and enforcing regulations. It would need to be done carefully and include retraining, subsidies and other assistance but that’s how we tackled the ozone issue and acid rain, and I feel the results would be better. But I guess we live in a neoliberal era, and everyone from the NDP, Liberals and Conservatives all think the free market is the only tool we have anymore.
I’ll take my rebates while I can because when the federal cons win the next election I know I’ll go back to getting nothing so I might as well enjoy it while I can.
Yep. It’s all good.
Found the guy that writes the UCP's surveys
The carbon tax does not impact the vast majority of Canadians in a substantial way. There is a calculator where you can estimate the carbon tax impact on your household based on income, gas use, etc. My household of 4 people on low-middle income pay about $20-40 per month (50 if I reeeaallly pushed it) between us after the rebate. If the price to pay to 'do my part' towards reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is less than ad-free Disney+, that's fine. It's worth it in the long run compared to the future costs of escalating climate change.
I like it in that, after keeping careful track of my own expenses and tabulating both direct costs (utility bills, fuel, propane) and the best available estimate of the carbon tax impact on food and consumer goods (about .15% inflation annually, per Bank of Canada) I get back more from the rebate than I spend. And it's not close. I do not think it's effective because the price point for alternatives to natural gas heating and internal combustion engines are too high for the carbon tax to meaningfully change consumer behaviour, and I suspect this would remain true if the Carbon tax doubled. I think it should stay put as is because the net result is a wealth transfer from Carbon emitting industry to households and because you can bet retailers will not be rolling back any price increases attributed to the carbon tax. I do not think it should be increased because I believe we need to drop the pretense that the carbon tax is going to solve our carbon problem and focus on more impactful programs instead. Also, California doesn't have a carbon tax. They have layers of emissions-targeted programs, including cap-and-trade and a clean fuel standard that can increase costs for consumers in direct and indirect ways. You probably could not find an example that is less of an apples-to-apples comparison than California, which is why individual aspects of its carbon reduction framework are cherry-picked and presented out of context to fuel the misinformation campaigns you appear to have succumbed to.
No I don’t especially at times like these
My rebate covers the increase in my groceries and high gas prices so it pretty much balances out things for me.