NDP plans won’t help environment

Well it seems I struck a nerve with my friends who like to see themselves as protectors of our world. Both Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Gue wrote interesting, yet misguided responses.

In his letter (“NDP on correct economic course,” April 18) Hoffman claims that the only information I provided was the carbon tax is a bad idea and that there is a coverup by the feds related to cost. I challenge him to read my letter again, as I outlined why the tax is a bad idea and how it won’t help the environment.

Mr. Hoffman is correct saying the best government estimate is the from the provinces, as it is the only government estimate that has been made public. If he can remember, it was the fact that the federal government has a cost analysis, but is refusing to release it that started this whole debate. By the way the prime minister’s lie about revenue neutrality has been laid bare as we now learn that revenue Canada will collect GST on the carbon tax. If Hoffman wants sources for the indirect costs, there are a number of financial and government policy think tanks that can provide this.

I reassert that there is no tie between the reduction of small business taxes and the carbon tax. The reduction in small business tax was part of the NDP campaign platform and implemented almost immediately after the election. As for rebates, $400 per year as a rebate does not cover the estimated $1,200 cost, direct and indirect of the carbon tax. Hoffman ignores the indirect costs that will apply to all goods and most services. Hoffman says long-term oil consumption will decrease. Not in our lifetimes, nor likely our children’s either as oil consumption continues to climb rapidly, primarily powered by the world’s great polluters that I mentioned in my first letter. By limiting capital, the NDP is not diversifying anything; instead they are stifling the economy.

As for Mr. Gue (“Carbon tax an appropriate, rational response,” April 11), who I respect greatly, I do believe we can have our energy cake and eat it too. Here is an example of how.

In Alberta we currently have 14 coal burning electrical generation plants that produce relatively inexpensive power. Through green incentives and government regulation, the industry has developed the cleanest coal burning technology in the world. The NDP have vowed to close these plants, citing the environment. Meanwhile in the rest of the world, 2,400 new coal burning power plants are being constructed or set to begin construction. These plants will not have the clean burning technology that we use and will create massive amounts of greenhouse gases that will contribute to global warming.

Instead of closing our plants, an act that would have little if any effect worldwide, wouldn’t we (and the world as whole) be better off if we kept them open, continued to incentivize developing the technology further and then exported this technology to the new plants being built? This would have a real and significant impact on the reduction of greenhouse gases and would allow us to enjoy cheaper electricity. Savings could then be used to incent further technological advances to deal with the problem of CO2.

Mr. Gue’s assumption that the only way to fund incentives is through a carbon tax is shortsighted in my opinion. As a scientist, I’m sure Mr. Gue would agree that science is answer to the carbon issue, not taxes that will do little to change the world’s predicament.

“I reassert that there is no tie between the reduction of small business taxes and the carbon tax.”

Jim Taylor Medicine Hat