Dion: “Make Polluters Pay and Put Every Single Penny Back into the Hands of Canadians”
06/20/2008 by Daniel Rosenblum
Introducing the carbon tax shift, Dion eloquently explained:
The Liberal Green Shift is as powerful as it is simple. We will cut taxes on those things we want more of such as income, investment and innovation. And we will shift taxes to what we all want less of: pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and waste. We need to make polluters pay an put every single penny back into the hands of Canadians.
The Green Shift Plan will be good for the environment and good for the economy. Good for the planet and good for your wallet. We need to make real progress in the fight against climate crisis, and at the same time make our economy more competitive. While energy prices continue to rise, we need to encourage energy efficiency.
Some have said that nobody would have the courage or the political will to
do what we believe is right. We need to do it. We will do it.
Dion’s message and a detailed description of the Green Shift can be found in the Green Shift Handbook, easily downloaded from the Green Shift web page. The Green Shift will begin with an immediate $10 per tonne tax on carbon and steadily rise by an additional $10 per tonne each year, reaching $40 per tonne within four years.
The tax will apply at the wholesale level to all fossil fuels based upon their respective carbon content. The tax will not apply to gasoline at the pump, since the existing excise tax on gasoline at the pump is already the equivalent of $42 per tonne of carbon.
Revenue-neutrality is a key element of the Green Shift, which clearly states that “For every dollar raised in taxes there will be a dollar returned to Canadians in tax cuts.” The Auditor General will ensure the Green Shift’s revenue-neutrality.
The Green Shift will return the “pollution dividend” to Canadians through:
- Significant, broad-based income tax reductions, increasing each year as the pollution tax revenue rises;
- Reforms to the tax system to make it fairer for low-income Canadians, including;
o Introducing a new, universal child tax benefit worth $350 per child, per year,
on top of all existing child benefits;
o Replacing the existing $1,000 employment credit with a $1,850 refundable
employment credit targeting those making less than $50,000 per year;
o Enriching the Working Income Tax Benefit, making it available on the first
dollar earned; and
o Making the Disability Tax Credit refundable;
- Additional support for rural and Northern Canadians, with every rural Canadian receiving, up front, an annual Green Rural Credit of $150;
- A boost in the Northern Residents Deduction for those living in
Canada
- Broad-based corporate tax reductions;
- Small-business income tax reductions;
- Accelerated capital cost allowances for green technologies; and
- Better research and development incentives.
The Green Shift is already receiving massive press coverage in
Canadian environmentalists have been far more supportive. According to an article in today’s Montreal Gazette, Greenpeace offered qualified support for the Green Shift arguing the price should be even higher, Équiterre says it’s the type of policy it could support and the Sierra Club Canada’s executive director said, "The benefit of a carbon tax is that it can be applied quickly, thereby raising the price of carbon emissions sooner; cap-and-trade systems have their benefits but they do take longer to implement properly."
That’s CTC’s response, too. We applaud Dion’s political courage, but we prefer a higher carbon tax. We fully support the concept of revenue neutrality and like the “shift” and “dividend” language, although we would prefer more direct return of the revenues through a Green Shift/carbon tax dividend or offsetting tax reductions. We applaud Dion’s targeting of Green Shift/carbon tax revenues to low-income rural energy users, necessary for both equity and political reasons. Finally, we’re intrigued that the Green Shift does not tax gasoline at the pump, although we expect that some portion of the tax will be passed through to retail customers. As we noted in a post last week, gasoline prices have already increased as much in the last year as we proposed for the next ten years. A floor on gasoline prices maintained by a revenue-neutral carbon tax might be appropriate.
There will be plenty of time to carefully examine the details of the Green Shift and, we’re sure, plenty of lessons to be learned about both the substance of the Green Shift and the politics of promoting a carbon tax. Stay tuned!
Photo of Stéphane Dion: http://www.liberal.ca/glance_e.aspx
After learning more about the basics of the carbon tax concept by reading about how it is proposed in Canada, it occurred to me that the words "carbon tax" don’t say enough. the word "tax" has a negative connotation and it doesn’t tell the rest of the plan that people would see is to their benefit. Can the name "carbon tax" be changed to incorporate some of the positive part of the story?Beth
Comment by Beth — June 26, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
“Green Shift” says a lot in two words.
Nothing greener than “Green” and a tax “Shift” means replacement of one revenue source with another. Thus, Dion’s referring to taxes, but pointing to a “green” change in the funding source (“tax things we want less of”) and in revenue distribution (“into the hands of Canadians”).
Impressive elegance; I’d never guess that English is Dion’s second language!
The Senate debate started to clear the smokescreen. Lieberman’s cap-and-trade scheme IS a clumsy, ineffective and easily-manipulated tax that would have enriched traders and corporate energy interests.
Global warming deniers and fossil fuel corporations hope that uttering the word “tax” will crash ANY measure to price carbon.
As you suggest, Beth, we’re focusing attention on the benefits (both individual and global) of a revenue-neutral carbon tax. But it’s difficult to be heard. So many folks react to the word “tax” as if it were “torture” or “terrorism.” They never hear that we’re proposing to distribute the tax revenue (collected “upstream” from fossil fuel producers) to individuals.
I like “Carbon Tax and Dividend” — a bit more descriptive and might help balance the story, but Dion’s “Green shift” seems unbeatable.
We don’t want to be accused of hiding the fact that we seek to price carbon and yet we don’t want to turn people off before they hear our proposal.
Our strategy is lots of good information. Pass the word.
Comment by James Handley — June 26, 2008 @ 11:53 pm
Still too complicated! I like Hansen’s "Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend" approach better. Nevertheless, an interesting development.
Comment by Peter — June 28, 2008 @ 7:56 am
After reading the posts on this site, and seeing what the "Green" crowd has in store for the world, all I can say is God Help Us All!!!! You people truely freighten me.
Comment by Mike — July 4, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is a function of human population growth. So the planets’ population grows another 30 percent over the next 20 years. The green shift has nothing to say about this. This policy is a "solution" to a problem that people don’t want to define. The relationship of our institutions to technolgy and our attitudes to nature require profound reform–and they talk about CO2 emissions instead. If the liberals are so intent upon creating another tax which enrichs government (note no contribution by government to solution of problem), then I suggest a huge tax on post secondary education as this is obviously the most polluting structure in society (it gives credentials to complete morons like Dion).
Comment by Mark — August 12, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
[...] to get all political on you are anything, but that’s why a carbon tax like the one proposed by Stephane Dion is such a great thing. It would make the human labour in the above question cheaper, and the diesel [...]
Pingback by Demolition | Raisingspaces — August 13, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
I support Green Shift and even more – it is a global emergency and everyone must sacrifice something, somehow. It is absurd and alarming that Prime Minister Harper and many others say that because China and India pollute more than Canada does we need not do anything costly or significant. Should I then not clean up my yard, maintain my residence responsibly, recycle, compost, because my neighbours don’t -take the attitude I won’t do it until they do? How irresponsible and ridiculous! WE have been blessed with so much therefore we must do more. That is what REAL LEADERS do.
Comment by Eleanor Ulasy — August 30, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
Stephane Dion the Inspector Clouseau of Politicians, I bet he has a $250,000 Image Consultant, who laughs all the way to the bank. This guy would make any party lose, just proves to me more and more every day that those liberal fanatics that join the liberal party just get lured in by the other university students who know where the free beer is for the after election party. Good Luck Inspector.
Comment by Bob — September 8, 2008 @ 10:10 am
I am soooooo glad I am not a Canadian anymore. My sister (who is still in Canada and still proud to be a Canadian) told me about Dion ideas. Wow, have you read Animal Farm laterly "two legs bad, four legs good. The consumer some how is still going to get it in the end, and pitting green and not green against each other is still trying to divide and conqeur. Of course what politician isn’t trying to better himself by causing some group to hate some other group. Those rich polluting oil companies need to pay and you green consumers need to get a tax break. Come on now. We need to be responsible about our planet, not dictated to about how I am going to rob from the rich evil "not green" people and give to the poor children and families. Let’s see if the rich evil companies won’t cut some jobs out to pay for the new found taxes.
Good luck in your elections and this new revenue neutral tax.
Comment by Anna — September 27, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
Here we go once again…..increasing the child tax benefit, increasing the employment credit, enriching the working income tax benefit, and making the Disability Tax Credit refundable….what about the pensioners who make up a goodly percentage of our population and already bear significant tax burdens?????
Comment by Judith — October 9, 2008 @ 1:59 pm