8 responses to “The Liberals’ Cap(at what?)-and-(allocate to whom? and)-trade program”

  1. Wesley

    Excited to follow your new blog, Andrew.

    I think you raise a good question regarding what happens to the government revenue. In standard undergraduate economics courses, we work under the assumption of a “benevolent” government that makes good use of its resources… you’re right in suggesting that use of the term “equitable” is far too vague.

    All in all though, I don’t fault the Liberals for adopting a “cap and trade” platform – in my opinion it is one of the less damaging ways of cutting our emission levels. But of course, before I throw in my full support, I’d need more straight answers…

  2. crf

    You seem to think there is some way of logically countering anti-carbon-tax slogans like “it’s a tax on everything!!!”.
    There isn’t. People knew Harper was lying about the Liberal’s carbon tax. They voted for him anyway (albeit, minds were not made up exclusively on the carbon tax issue, but it had a large effect). The main complaint voiced in the press with “green shift” wasn’t that it wasn’t well explained, but that it was too complicated (in effect, creating too much cognitive dissonance with the global-warming denialism/skepticism given above-equal time in the press). The press claimed they wanted something simpler than a carbon tax.

    The only way a sensible policy will be implemented is if a party refuses to campaign on it, because the media and voters themselves have proven beyond any doubt that they do not have enough self-discipline to avoid tempting lies.

  3. Robert McClelland

    A carbon tax is a bad policy. The price/ton needs to be high to even begin having an effect. Sweden is a perfect example of this. Despite the high price of $150/ton it has only resulted–by the Swedish government’s calculations–of a 2% decrease in CO2 emissions.

Leave a Reply