Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

[Halifax Tar]

There, FTFY

You right though.

 

[Good2Golf]

I’m assuming you’re talking about these economists? This is the first I’ve heard of it.

Bruce Arthur: Pierre Poilievre says one thing. 200 experts refute it. Who to believe?

Canadian economists signed a letter this week addressing the main arguments against carbon pricing. Here's what they said, and why it ought to matter.

www.thestar.com

Yes. Those economists.

Interestingly, nowhere in their letter do they critique the details of the CPC’s issue with the carbon tax, that is that carbon pricing should be focused on where it has the most impact to materially reduce emissions, which is the industrial sector, so a Industrial Carbon Tax makes sense. However, a consumer carbon tax (notwithstanding promises of ‘you’ll get rebates back to offset the tax’ from Trudeau) has, by the very studies that the learned economists refer, notes that taxes are best based on market segments that have the greatest impact on reducing carbon, and that’s industrial and manufacturing, not home heating and personal transportation.

If anyone wants to check out the report that the economists referred to, but failed to differentiate the differing impact between consumer and industrial carbon taxes, they can check them out here:

https://climateinstitute.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ERP-assessment-2023-EN-FINAL.pdf

EDIT to add: And for a recent piece from CTV analyzing the 3-to-1 benefit of industrial carbon taxation over consumer carbon tax…

Industrial carbon price cuts three times the emissions of consumer levy: report

Canada's carbon price could slash greenhouse-gas emissions by more than 100 million tonnes a year by 2030, but only about one-fifth of that will come from the consumer carbon price at the centre of Conservative attacks.

www.ctvnews.ca

The [Canadian] climate institute concluded that together, all existing climate policies should prevent 226 million tonnes of emissions from being released in 2030, or one-third of the total emissions Canada produced in 2021.

Without any of those policies, emissions will be 40 per cent higher in 2030 than with all of them, said institute president Rick Smith.

But the carbon pricing system for big emitters is by far the biggest contributor.

The consumer fuel levy will prevent between 19 million and 22 million tonnes of emissions by 2030. The big industrial price will prevent between 53 million and 90 million tonnes.


"Industrial carbon pricing is the most important contributor to emission reductions," Smith said.

Smith said because most climate policies interact with each other, it is very hard to attribute one specific total to an individual policy, which is why there is a range in the report.

He also said the reason is simple math: big industry emits far more than households and small businesses do, so cutting its emissions delivers a bigger impact.

That is true even though the price big emitters pay is only applied to a portion of their emissions, while consumers pay it on all fuel purchases.

The report's findings somewhat counter some of the political rhetoric surrounding carbon pricing, including the disproportionate amount of attention heaped on the consumer carbon policy.

"This debate on the consumer carbon price has sucked way too much oxygen out of the room," Smith said.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is adamant that if he wins the next election, consumer carbon pricing is toast. He has been less clear about the big emitters system.

 

[QV]

I believe these 200 economists who signed this letter like I believed the 50 intelligence experts in the US who signed that letter.

The LPC election tactics are just a carbon copy of the DNC these days.

 

[Rifleman62]

How much could the Liberals spend to get SNC to build a dome (wall) over Canada to prevent the 31% of Chinas' and the 7+% of Indias' emissions from polluting Canada?

Note that Greece is the latest country, after Germany and Japan, to express interest in buying LNG from Canada. A no go because of the Trudeau climate cult.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Carbon pricing with rebates is economically sound, but that conclusion relies on a narrow analysis. "Ceteris paribus", but ceteris are not paribus. There are different points at which the scheme could have more effect, and points at which it is more harmful. And if it's impeding our ability to maximize substitution of natural gas for coal worldwide, it's probably net harmful, because the point of the entire exercise is to reduce worldwide emissions and the amount of emission reduction we achieve locally is dwarfed by what could be achieved globally.

 

[Maxman1]

I believe these 200 economists who signed this letter like I believed the 50 intelligence experts in the US who signed that letter.

The LPC election tactics are just a carbon copy of the DNC these days.

They even invited Hillary Clinton as a speaker to one of their events.

 

[QV]

They even invited Hillary Clinton as a speaker to one of their events.

I don't doubt JT hitched his wagon to the Clinton train. Lots of private discussions occurring too, I'd bet.

 

[ArmyRick]

How much could the Liberals spend to get SNC to build a dome (wall) over Canada to prevent the 31% of Chinas' and the 7+% of Indias' emissions from polluting Canada?

Note that Greece is the latest country, after Germany and Japan, to express interest in buying LNG from Canada. A no go because of the Trudeau climate cult.

Didn't work out well for Springfield (ref Simpsons Movie 2007), just saying.

 

[ArmyRick]

I believe these 200 economists who signed this letter like I believed the 50 intelligence experts in the US who signed that letter.

The LPC election tactics are just a carbon copy of the DNC these days.

For every one of those "economist" you will probably find at least 3 that say the Trudeau carbon tax is totally not working. As is his printing money schemes and not balancing the budget until 2025, nope, 2032, nope 2045, wait....

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't doubt JT hitched his wagon to the Clinton train. Lots of private discussions occurring too, I'd bet.

And money being washed between the two Foundations. Money flows back and forth between the two like bilge water on a choppy sea.

 

[Edward Campbell]

….nothwistanding the 100+ economists who were somehow paid to agree with Trudeau that the consumer carbon tax is a good thing…

As a broad, general principle, using "market forces" to solve public policy issues that involve scarcity is a good thing, especially for those who claim to be conservatives or Conservatives. But, I have two problems:

1. I cannot figure our what is "scarce' in global climate change except for the (quite understandable) willingness of a some very large countries too switch from coal powered electricity to nuclear or even oil or gas. Thus, I cannot see how a Canadian carbon tax that tries to reduced our 1.6% of global emissions to 1.5% is productive. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to be cleaner and greener, I just don't see how that tax attacks "scarcity."
2. The carbon tax as implemented remains me a lot of other sin taxes on e,g. alcohol and tobacco and I'm not sure they are shining examples of successful policy - helpful maybe but hardly big success stories, or am I missing something?

I believe that global climate change is real and I believe it is a serious problem for some. I believe Canada should do something to help to mitigate its impact where we can. I just can't quite figure out how the Canadian carbon tax helps a whole lot.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

As far as things go for our carbon emissions, Canada taking every fossil fuel off the market; with everyone going nuclear/wind/solar, would have the same effect as me pouring a canteen out on a forest fire. It does "something" without having and actual impact.

Trudeau and his ilk solely care about being seen pouring out that canteen, vice caring about how dehydrated everyone will become fighting the fire. The world's major polluters are not in Canada, but our unfortunate addiction to cheaply manufactured, Chinese goods definitely contributes to the mess. But we don't want to talk about that.....

 

[brihard]

I paid into EI all my working life and was never able to claim anything. How refreshing it would have been if it were actual insurance to cover unforeseen unfortunate events, and not a kitty to be raided for new social spending that should have been paid out of general revenues if the feds wanted to provide new social programs. Then at least my "premiums" might have been reduced when the embarrassingly large surpluses started to accumulate.

As an interesting point of comparison: if a couple each work a full 35 years or so and max out their EI contributions each year, that’s about equal to the benefits they’ll draw if between them they do two full length parental leaves, which is an EI benefit. Given our national concern over falling birth rates, and the key role paid parental benefits plays in allowing people to escape the workforce for a year at a time to raise a newborn, this is a pretty important benefit and policy piece.

 

[Brad Sallows]

As an interesting point of comparison: if a couple each work a full 35 years or so and max out their EI contributions each year, that’s about equal to the benefits they’ll draw if between them they do two full length parental leaves, which is an EI benefit. Given our national concern over falling birth rates, and the key role paid parental benefits plays in allowing people to escape the workforce for a year at a time to raise a newborn, this is a pretty important benefit and policy piece.

I agree with the policy aim. I disagree that it's correct to pay for it out of EI. If it's important public policy, it ought to be paid out of general revenues, which is pretty much where every other important benefit and policy is dealt with. EI was chosen because it was generating surpluses, even in spite of the ways in which it was already abused to be a wage subsidy before parental leave subsidy was added to the mix. Given the number of programs that all taxpayers pay into and only a few draw from, the excuse that this one (parental leave) should be paid for by employed people because it benefits employed people was always risible.

EI surpluses should have been used to reduce EI premiums.

 

[Halifax Tar]

EI, as far as that goes there is no changing it or walking it back. That would be political suicide.

It's a non starter really.

 

[Good2Golf]

The carbon tax as implemented remains me a lot of other sin taxes on e,g. alcohol and tobacco and I'm not sure they are shining examples of successful policy - helpful maybe but hardly big success stories, or am I missing something?

Agree with the ‘as implemented’ Mr. Campbell, but the difference is that unlike smoking or booze, Canadians have an existential need for home heating and commuting to work…and until the government supports large-scale subsidization to renovate home heating to electricity/heat-pumps and provided EV rebates, the current tax 100% and give back 90% she’ll game isn’t going to do anything substantive other than attrit taxpayers’ money…

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As an interesting point of comparison: if a couple each work a full 35 years or so and max out their EI contributions each year, that’s about equal to the benefits they’ll draw if between them they do two full length parental leaves, which is an EI benefit. Given our national concern over falling birth rates, and the key role paid parental benefits plays in allowing people to escape the workforce for a year at a time to raise a newborn, this is a pretty important benefit and policy piece.

Not to mention the reduction in longterm childhood problems that can be averted by that program, which have a longterm benefit to the healthcare system.

 

[Eaglelord17]

As far as things go for our carbon emissions, Canada taking every fossil fuel off the market; with everyone going nuclear/wind/solar, would have the same effect as me pouring a canteen out on a forest fire. It does "something" without having and actual impact.

Trudeau and his ilk solely care about being seen pouring out that canteen, vice caring about how dehydrated everyone will become fighting the fire. The world's major polluters are not in Canada, but our unfortunate addiction to cheaply manufactured, Chinese goods definitely contributes to the mess. But we don't want to talk about that.....

I would argue we don’t measure emissions properly. If your not measuring the end user and the process to get there, your really not measuring correctly.

China for example is 1/3 of emissions. That being said, most of that is emissions they generate producing goods to sell to the West. I also question if anyone is taking credit for the emissions of the shipping industry or not.

I think a smart Conservative (or even worker based NDP) environmental policy would be to create more industry and manufacturing in Canada well simultaneously tariffing goods made to a lower environmental standard. We would then be making goods to basically the highest environmental standards in the world, creating jobs, and not cutting out Canadians in favour of false emission cuts. Which would also have the side effect of causing places like China to reduce production (due to lack of customers) or increase environmental standards to allow them to sell and make profit in Canada.

We can’t force others to adopt more stringent standards, but we can deny them our money and resources until they do.

Right now its just a false shell game. ‘We reduced OUR emissions’ well simultaneously buying worse products made in less friendly ways and then shipped across the ocean on bunker fuel burning mega ships. Thats not a win, thats a global net loss.

Carbon tax is basically a subsidy for foreign businesses as they don’t have to pay it at all.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I would argue we don’t measure emissions properly. If your not measuring the end user and the process to get there, your really not measuring correctly.

China for example is 1/3 of emissions. That being said, most of that is emissions they generate producing goods to sell to the West. I also question if anyone is taking credit for the emissions of the shipping industry or not.

I think a smart Conservative (or even worker based NDP) environmental policy would be to create more industry and manufacturing in Canada well simultaneously tariffing goods made to a lower environmental standard. We would then be making goods to basically the highest environmental standards in the world, creating jobs, and not cutting out Canadians in favour of false emission cuts. Which would also have the side effect of causing places like China to reduce production (due to lack of customers) or increase environmental standards to allow them to sell and make profit in Canada.

We can’t force others to adopt more stringent standards, but we can deny them our money and resources until they do.

Right now its just a false shell game. ‘We reduced OUR emissions’ well simultaneously buying worse products made in less friendly ways and then shipped across the ocean on bunker fuel burning mega ships. Thats not a win, thats a global net loss.

Carbon tax is basically a subsidy for foreign businesses as they don’t have to pay it at all.

I love the idea! But there is a but. Are North American companies going to pay people a living wage or better ? The whole reason a lot of these companies left or folded in North America is they didn't want to pay their workers, so went to third world countries and China instead.

North Americans will also have to get used to paying higher prices for the goods.

There is no use bringing manufacturing back if the workers in those plants cant afford the good they are making.

 

[dimsum]

I love the idea! But there is a but. Are North American companies going to pay people a living wage or better ? The whole reason a lot of these companies left or folded in North America is they didn't want to pay their workers, so went to third world countries and China instead.

North Americans will also have to get used to paying higher prices for the goods.

There is no use bringing manufacturing back if the workers in those plants cant afford the good they are making.

If Peter Zeihan is correct, we’ll have to expect higher prices anyway, since China isn’t going to be the “cheap labour” (it already isn’t) soon due to demographics, and SE Asia may not be willing or able to pick up the slack.