Environment
Happy New Year to all my faithful readers. My next topic seems timely as the environment has supplanted health care as the number one issue. This year global warming is especially important when one considers how little or in some cases no snow the Eastern half of the country has received. When I moved to Toronto, I expected cold and snowy winters, not mild and wet winters like I was use to in Vancouver, yet so far to date that is what we have been experiencing.
Now I should note that global warming is a very important issue to tackle, but not the only component of a successful environmental policy
Kyoto Protocol
I believe the science behind global warming is quite strong and don't doubt we must take action. While Kyoto Protocol is one way of achieving this, my main goal is what we deliver, not through what mechanism. I would rather we not sign Kyoto Protocol and dramatically reduce GHGs then sign it and do nothing. However not signing it and doing nothing as the current government is doing is clearly not acceptable. I was opposed to Canada signing Kyoto Protocol for two reasons
1. I believe you develop a plan before you sign, not sign and develop a plan after.
2. No one region or sector of the economy should be unfairly targeted.
Had Paul Martin as opposed to Jean Chretien been PM, I probably would have been more supportive since I know Paul Martin would never unfairly target Alberta, whereas I was less sure about that on Jean Chretien. I am also confident Stephane Dion would not single out any one province.
Now that we've signed Kyoto Protocol we have an obligation to do the best we can to meet our targets and if we fall short, as we likely will, that means we must take even more aggressive efforts in our second phase, otherwise we will have some catch up to do.
I don't pretend to be an expert on how to meet our targets, but these are some things that I think would help go a long way.
1. Bring in a revenue neutral tax that lowers taxes on green companies and raises them on high polluting ones.
2. Remove the GST on hybrid cars while slap a pollution tax on SUVs and gas guzzling cars
3. Work with industry to seek voluntary targets where possible, but if industry refuses to go along, then introduce mandatory reductions.
4. Put more into R&D in green technologies so as we can shift our economy towards a greener one.
5. Finally last by not least, individuals should make a more conscious effort to do their part since governments alone cannot do all the lifting, we as Canadians must do our part. I do my part by taking the streetcar everyday to work and back
I believe we can have a strong economy and a clean environment at the same time, it is not an either or. Any party that says we must choose between one or the other should be rejected.
Other Environmental Issues
While global warming is the most pressing one, there are other important ones to deal with. We should take action to reduce smog which I've heard is quite bad here in Toronto in the summer. We also need to work with the Americans to clean up the Great Lakes. In terms of water diversion, there should be a moratorium on major diversions and bulk water exports until such time as a proper study can be done on its effects. I am not outright opposed to bulk water exports if they are properly controlled, but until such time as we can figure out how to do that, we should leave it off the table since it will be very difficult to turn back the clock if we do it wrong.
We should also work with developing countries on developing cleaner energy by helping encourage a stronger green export sector. We also need to work with other countries including the United States on cleaning up the environment. Even though the US record is not very good, bashing them to score political points doesn't do any of us good. Rather we need to be more forceful in trying to establish better environmental management and even signing similiar treaties such as the Acid Rain Treaty, which was signed under the Mulroney government. We also should work with state governments interested in reducing GHGs since despite the resistance on the environment file by the Bush administration, many state governments such as California have been showing leadership here so we should work with them. Here in Canada we should also work with each province to see they do their part in areas that fall under their jurisdiction.
My next topic will be on cultural policy, which although not relevant to anything major today, it is an area I am definitely to the right of the Liberal Party but not as right wing as most Tories.
Now I should note that global warming is a very important issue to tackle, but not the only component of a successful environmental policy
Kyoto Protocol
I believe the science behind global warming is quite strong and don't doubt we must take action. While Kyoto Protocol is one way of achieving this, my main goal is what we deliver, not through what mechanism. I would rather we not sign Kyoto Protocol and dramatically reduce GHGs then sign it and do nothing. However not signing it and doing nothing as the current government is doing is clearly not acceptable. I was opposed to Canada signing Kyoto Protocol for two reasons
1. I believe you develop a plan before you sign, not sign and develop a plan after.
2. No one region or sector of the economy should be unfairly targeted.
Had Paul Martin as opposed to Jean Chretien been PM, I probably would have been more supportive since I know Paul Martin would never unfairly target Alberta, whereas I was less sure about that on Jean Chretien. I am also confident Stephane Dion would not single out any one province.
Now that we've signed Kyoto Protocol we have an obligation to do the best we can to meet our targets and if we fall short, as we likely will, that means we must take even more aggressive efforts in our second phase, otherwise we will have some catch up to do.
I don't pretend to be an expert on how to meet our targets, but these are some things that I think would help go a long way.
1. Bring in a revenue neutral tax that lowers taxes on green companies and raises them on high polluting ones.
2. Remove the GST on hybrid cars while slap a pollution tax on SUVs and gas guzzling cars
3. Work with industry to seek voluntary targets where possible, but if industry refuses to go along, then introduce mandatory reductions.
4. Put more into R&D in green technologies so as we can shift our economy towards a greener one.
5. Finally last by not least, individuals should make a more conscious effort to do their part since governments alone cannot do all the lifting, we as Canadians must do our part. I do my part by taking the streetcar everyday to work and back
I believe we can have a strong economy and a clean environment at the same time, it is not an either or. Any party that says we must choose between one or the other should be rejected.
Other Environmental Issues
While global warming is the most pressing one, there are other important ones to deal with. We should take action to reduce smog which I've heard is quite bad here in Toronto in the summer. We also need to work with the Americans to clean up the Great Lakes. In terms of water diversion, there should be a moratorium on major diversions and bulk water exports until such time as a proper study can be done on its effects. I am not outright opposed to bulk water exports if they are properly controlled, but until such time as we can figure out how to do that, we should leave it off the table since it will be very difficult to turn back the clock if we do it wrong.
We should also work with developing countries on developing cleaner energy by helping encourage a stronger green export sector. We also need to work with other countries including the United States on cleaning up the environment. Even though the US record is not very good, bashing them to score political points doesn't do any of us good. Rather we need to be more forceful in trying to establish better environmental management and even signing similiar treaties such as the Acid Rain Treaty, which was signed under the Mulroney government. We also should work with state governments interested in reducing GHGs since despite the resistance on the environment file by the Bush administration, many state governments such as California have been showing leadership here so we should work with them. Here in Canada we should also work with each province to see they do their part in areas that fall under their jurisdiction.
My next topic will be on cultural policy, which although not relevant to anything major today, it is an area I am definitely to the right of the Liberal Party but not as right wing as most Tories.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight | 12:21 PM
2 Comments:
This may not be particularly important, but except with respect to some arbitrary benchmark at a fixed point in time, there's no such thing. As soon as you change the tax regime, you invite people to alter their economic behaviour. Even if you don't expect to change net government revenues, you will have dramatic effects on others depending on whether they are even in a position to take advantage of the change. Their interests shouldn't be ignored. All of that is just a roundabout way of stating that "revenue neutral" is an unnecessary self-limitation on the general idea of using taxes to influence economic behaviour.
That is the point in that it will change people's economic behavior. When I say revenue neutral tax, I am talking about now, as people's behavior changes it will no longer be revenue neutral.
The aim is to reduce emissions per unit of fuel, yes? Hybrids aren't necessarily more emissions-efficient than all non-hybrids. The tax should be based on proven (road-tested) emissions performance irrespective of broad categories such as "hybrid" or "SUV" or "gas-guzzling" (those may only be good first-order generalizations).
Not disagreeing here. I think automobiles that produce less GHGs should be GST free.
If government pencil-pushers can determine an optimum change, surely that should be the reduction, period. In which case, why should it not be mandatory? And if the government pencil-pushers aren't really the experts, why would we risk major economic upset on their say-so? "Mandatory reductions" sounds like a nice fallback position, but if we're going to negotiate with the people who know their own business (and we should) then we should set out to accept a negotiated position without any other reservations.
Voluntary reductions are preferable, but the gravity of the problem is too serious to not rule out mandatory reductions if voluntary ones fail.
I've never heard anyone propose to fund more R&D into "dirty" or "bad" technology. Sounds like a statement of the obvious, unless you mean increasing R&D credits and grants overall.
I mean both credits and actual money here.
Yeah, we should all do our parts. If we can agree to tax me less, I'll have the extra disposable income for which I'm currently not budgeted in order to live "green". (If living "greener" were cheaper, I'd already be doing it.) How about you
Lower taxes is part of the problem, but not all of it
country house
Post a Comment
<< Home