How a Revenue Neutral *Carbon Tax Works
*(aka:  The Do-Not-Shriek-And-Run-Away Tax)

This poor, picked on, sadly misunderstand, slandered tax isn't nearly the monster it has been made out to be.  Let us explain:   You likely work for a living thus making a contribution.  For this, your employer gives you money.  Then  WHAMMO!  the government "fines"you for this constructive activity - almost 50c on your last dollar!!!  So 'income tax' is really  "penalize the do-gooders".  But, drive an extended limo, with heated wavepool, spewing greenhouse gases in your wake, and the government says 'Cool, no fine for THAT activity and, as a matter of fact, here's a little bonus' (subsidized fuel).  If you seriously own such a vehicle, you might be really agitated about now.....   but the rest of you should be, too.....

A carbon tax, when properly enforced,  reverses this, penalizing the activities that harm others and lessening the penalty when they contribute to communal well-being (much the same as our laws work:  if you beat up your neighbour you are put in jail;  if you nurse them in a hospital, you are paid...  fair - wouldn't you say?....  OK, OK, not if you own that limo OR if you own/direct a fossil fuel company... ah ha!).  So this brings us to.....

The simplest and fairest way of collecting the tax is simply to impose it at the oil and gas well heads, and at the mine entrance, exactly where the fossil fuel comes out of the ground.  This should spur development of all the  wonderful and clean sources of energy we have at our disposal.  If you want a detailed and excellent explanation go here: Carbon Tax Center

Still not convinced? Please peruse below ....
It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change.
                                              Charles Darwin
The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.                  Lev. 25:23-24.
Vancouver Sun, February 23, 2008

In 2006, in MegaTonnes of co2 equivalent

Canada                   273

Alberta      115  (oh dear....)
Ontario 71
Sask   22
Queb    22
BC      12
NS      11
NB       10
Nfld       5
Man.      2
NWT     0.3
PEI       0.1
Stop giving money to GHG emitters                                    Published: Sunday, February 24, 2008

John Dillon, Montreal Gazette

Canadians are preparing to demonstrate their commitment to fighting climate change by reducing power use for one hour on March 29. Though largely a symbolic gesture, this collective effort will send a strong message to politicians concerning the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But will Finance Minister Jim Flaherty back this commitment in his February 26 budget?

Currently some federal spending and many tax breaks have the perverse effect of encouraging the industries that are most responsible for increased GHG emissions. During a recent seven-year period the federal government spent $8.3 billion on subsidies to the GHG-emitting oil and gas industries. For the most part these subsidies continue today at around $1 billion a year.

Why do these subsidies continue for industries that earned a record $31.1 billion in profits in 2006? In 2007 Imperial Oil alone had profits worth $3.2 billion.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper calls Canada an "energy superpower" as he promotes more investment in Alberta's tar sands. Extraction of synthetic crude from the tar sands produces three times as much greenhouse gas as conventional petroleum. If tar sands operations continue to expand, it will not be possible to meet our international commitments to reduce carbon emissions undertaken at the Kyoto and Bali conferences.

In his last budget, Flaherty announced a very slow phase out of a tax break allowing tar sands operators to defer taxes until all their capital costs have been paid off. But this subsidy, worth about $300 million a year, will not end until 2015.
By 2015 GHG emissions from the tar sands alone are predicted to equal or exceed the annual reductions from all the emission-cutting programs announced to date by the federal government.

During 2006 and 2007 the federal government announced $8.6 billion in new spending on 20 energy efficiency and GHG reduction initiatives over the next two to nine years. After accounting for inflation, these funds amount to less than the subsidies provided to the oil and gas industries from 1996 to 2002.

More importantly, Environment Canada predicts that all the government's subsidy and regulatory programs together would only reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by 105 million tonnes of CO2 in 2012. As a result, total Canadian emissions would remain 31% above Canada's Kyoto targets. Other analysts say that Environment Canada's predictions overestimate the likely effects of their programs by a wide margin.

What then should Mr. Flaherty do in his budget?

A first step would be to announce an immediate end to the accelerated capital cost allowance (ACCA) for tar sands, instead of phasing it out in 2015 which may only encourage companies to speed up the pace of tar sands development in the meantime.

Secondly, Mr. Flaherty should redirect the spending on this and other subsidies for oil and gas exploration and development to programs promoting energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy alternatives. In general, programs that promote public transportation, improved vehicle technology, more efficient freight transport, and the retrofitting of buildings are among the best options.

Since redirecting subsidies alone will not reduce our greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to meet our Kyoto commitments, Ottawa must announce other initiatives including putting firm limits on greenhouse gas emissions from large industrial emitters and a carbon tax.

Consequently, a third budget initiative should involve a tax on carbon emissions to promote energy efficiency, conservation and markets for low-carbon alternatives. In conjunction with a tax on the carbon content of various fuels, Flaherty's budget must also include measures to ensure that low-income Canadians and those living in remote communities without alternatives to fossil fuels are not penalized financially.

Finally, Flaherty should reorient current policies that promote fossil fuel production abroad through Canadian and multilateral agencies. The government should refocus the priorities of Export Development Canada enabling it to help Canadian companies ensure their products and services support a greener, less fossil-fuel dependent energy future.

Similarly, it should redirect existing energy financing from the Canadian International Development Agency and the World Bank for fossil fuels to renewable technologies and energy efficient projects.

Canadians participating in Earth Hour by turning off lights at 8 p.m. on March 29 will send a powerful message to Ottawa. Will Ottawa listen? Or will the government continue pumping tax dollars into the industries that are most responsible for the rise in greenhouse gas emissions?

John Dillon is Program Coordinator for Global Economic Justice at KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives and co-author of a forthcoming KAIROS report entitled Pumped Up: How Canada subsidizes fossil fuels at the expense of green alternatives. www.kairoscanada.org.  In November 2007, KAIROS, a social justice organization of Canadian churches, and Ecojustice, the Canadian Environmental law group, demanded that Canada's Auditor General investigate the government's ongoing oil and gas subsidies in the context of cuts to programs for poor households. Adiat Junaid is communications coordinator of KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice InitiativesJo

Does Canada subsidizing the oil companies make sense?

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries December 2007 Import Highlights:  March 3, 2008

Monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in December 2007 has been released and it shows that two countries exported more than 1.50 million barrels per day to the United States. Including those countries, a total of five countries exported over 1.20 million barrels per day of crude oil to the United States (see table) The top five exporting countries accounted for 73 percent of United States crude oil imports in December while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 88 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top sources of US crude oil imports for December were Canada (1.784 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.675 million barrels per day), Venezuela (1.246 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.234 million barrels per day), and Nigeria (1.210 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Angola (0.439 million barrels per day), Iraq (0.378 million barrels per day), Algeria (0.348 million barrels per day), Ecuador (0.195 million barrels per day), and Brazil (0.171 million barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 9.823 million barrels per day in December, which is a decrease of 0.125 million barrels per day from November 2007.

Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in November, exporting 2.360 million barrels per day to the United States, which is a decrease from last month (2.431 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Saudi Arabia with 1.686 million barrels per day.

From U.S. Energy Administration
A Final and Very Important Note

We are perplexed and disturbed by the behaviour of some fossil fuel companies, some (but not all) corporations and by many politicians.  Don't they have children?  A basic understanding of fundamental science? Your guess is as good as ours.  But, one thing is for sure:  they and theirs can't get off this planet either (well, not for the 100 thousand years it will take the planet to recover).  By the way, none of the Green Life Guards have anything but their children's and grandchildren's well-being to gain....  well, OK, maybe some of us would like a peaceful old age.

Here is a list of organizations funded by Exxon Corporation which serve to confuse (thanks Green Peace): Exxon Secrets






Also, check out the Union of Concerned Scientists website for retorts to typical disinformation scenarios.

Finally, do a little of your own research on the disinformation video "The Great Global Warming Swindle"..... here is a good place to start.....

*Ouch! Look how much it is going to hurt if we don't do it - Sir Nicholas Stern's report to the British Gov't (got them jumping around like chiwawas on hot asphalt....):
The Actual Site (for you economics heavies)
A Summary (for the rest of us)
*The Ouch Factor is now much worse than when this was written.
.... oh, say can
     you see...?
... ordinary people entering extraordinary times
It's always possible to wake someone from sleep, but no amount of noise will wake someone who is pretending to be asleep.       ~ Jonathan Safran Foer