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.