<blockquote><cite>Posted By: DeanK</cite>Nope.. its the just do it approach that got us there.. no planning no foresight... just doing it because we need to.
The approach needs to be properly looking at the situation before jumping on the bandwagon..
Look at ethanol... JUST DO IT.. obviously its GOOD thing!!!! it reduces fossil fuel Consumption!
then there is the reality we are facing today...</blockquote><p>
To follow your logic, we need to discuss and carefully consider a carbon tax (or tax shifting in general) instead of jumping into it.<p>
Why then would you criticize Dion for bringing the issue? At least he's doing it.
I said he's an idiot for Saying Canadians will support a Carbon Tax and seemingly hitching his election wagon to it..
I never said he was an idiot for discussing it and seeing it if could work.. big difference between shoving it down some throats and getting everyone to plan together...
I think you're reading too much into this. I don't see him hitching his election wagon to it. I see this as him testing the waters. Shame that the timing sucks, but at least someone is talking about it.<p>
And there's a big difference between talking about something and "shoving it down some throats". If he makes it an election platform and you don't like it, then vote for one of the other parties. They are all against it.<p>
For what it's worth, here is the main point of his plan, which is something I agree with:<p>
<i>"We must create competitive advantages by lowering taxes on things we want more of – income, (business) innovation, savings and investment. And we must shift those taxes towards the things we want less of – pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, smog and waste,"</i><p>
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: zander</cite>I think that's why an honest open debate is needed - instead of dismissing this idea right away.</blockquote>What we need is a debate on what can actually be done, and not on theoretical postulations.
When you consider places like Toronto and Vancouver, it is not possible to put into play the things that must be done. Everyone can't move into the city, nor car pool, nor even upgrade their homes. Sure we can move toward those goals, but that will take time. In the meantime, we get screwed with a carbon tax? I don't think that will fly.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Jimmytufish</cite>What we need is a debate on what can actually be done, and not on theoretical postulations.<p>
When you consider places like Toronto and Vancouver, it is not possible to put into play the things that must be done. Everyone can't move into the city, nor car pool, nor even upgrade their homes. Sure we can move toward those goals, but that will take time. In the meantime, we get screwed with a carbon tax? I don't think that will fly.</blockquote><p>
That's exactly why a debate is needed - to figure out what works and what doesn't. I wouldn't support moving in this direction until that has been figured out. But I would support someone who committed to moving towards a carbon tax (or tax shifting in general) and holding that kind of discussion.<p>
"And there's a big difference between talking about something and "shoving it down some throats". If he makes it an election platform and you don't like it, then vote for one of the other parties. They are all against it."
He sure as shit is trying to to shove it down the throats of people who would usually vote Liberal... Time for this guy to go, before he completely destroys whats left of the Liberal party.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Jimmytufish</cite>Dion isn't looking for ideas, he's saying he will implement a carbon tax.</blockquote><p>
That's your assumption. ;)<p>
He hasn't released enough details on it to make any sort of conclusion about implementation. I think it's clear he's just bringing up the idea to see how it flies. <p>
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: DeanK</cite>He sure as shit is trying to to shove it down the throats of people who would usually vote Liberal...</blockquote><p>
I don't agree, but if this was really the case - how would you go about this? What better way then to begin discussing the issue as part of an election platform.<p>
Would you rather he kept quiet about it and then turned around and implemented it if elected?
" don't agree, but if this was really the case - how would you go about this? What better way then to begin discussing the issue as part of an election platform."
well you know.. maybe have the grass roots liberal electorate actually discuss it at their meetings... nah.. that would be crazy..
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Jimmytufish</cite><blockquote><cite>Posted By: zander</cite>I think that's why an honest open debate is needed - instead of dismissing this idea right away.</blockquote>What we need is a debate on what can actually be done, and not on theoretical postulations.
When you consider places like Toronto and Vancouver, it is not possible to put into play the things that must be done. Everyone can't move into the city, nor car pool, nor even upgrade their homes. Sure we can move toward those goals, but that will take time. In the meantime, we get screwed with a carbon tax? I don't think that will fly.</blockquote>
It's not a question of moving people into the city. It's a question of people prioritizing. Do they really need the 2500 square foot house in oakville? Do they really need the 3 cars?
A tax like this would change everything. It would encourage houses to be built to LEED standards (instead of the crap they throw up now). It would encourage innovation in the work place, it would encourage innovation in the private sector.
And the GTA has more than enough of a population to support an efficient mass transit network. All of southern ontario has enough population. It's just a change in attitude that is needed.
Here in north america we have just been able to do whatever we want. There is no such thing as collective responsibility. If someone would have introduced this tax 20 years i guarantee that the GTA would be of a hugely different and more compact shape and nobody would be worse off for it. In fact most people would be better off for it.
I think you're overestimating the impact of the tax, spaceman, unless it is a HUGE tax. I agree with the concept of a carbon tax, but I suspect that people will not give up their homes in the suburbs. Most will suck it up and not let it interfere with their lifestyle.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: cherenkov</cite>I think you're overestimating the impact of the tax, spaceman, unless it is a HUGE tax. I agree with the concept of a carbon tax, but I suspect that people will not give up their homes in the suburbs. Most will suck it up and not let it interfere with their lifestyle.</blockquote>
Either way though it's good. If it has little impace and people suck it up then we have taxes to do green things with. If people adjust then we less tax money but it's having a positive impact and people are saving money.
I'm assuming that if it's revenue neutral we are holding steady on the massive surpluses we have seen in the last decade. If it turns into a revenue losing venture (i.e. more people go more green and thus save themselves money - thus lowering government coffers) than the surplus will decrease....
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Jimmytufish</cite>Dion isn't looking for ideas, he's saying he will implement a carbon tax.<div class="ThankfulPeople">Thankful People:<span><a href="http://www.newwinnipeg.com/community/account/54/">DeanK</a></span></div></blockquote>