Is the carbon tax the best way to reduce pollution?
Andrew Scheer doesn’t like the carbon tax. Doug Ford and his provincial Conservatives in Ontario are joining Saskatchewan in a court challenge.
Ontario had a carbon tax and Ford cancelled it. Ottawa is going to impose a carbon tax on any province that does not have a plan or a plan that Ottawa deems to be workable.
In fact, this imposition of the tax may be one of the things the next election focuses on.
The basic argument against the tax is it will cost the taxpayer more money. A study by the Canadians for a Clean Prosperity, a non-partisan group, tells a different story. If the federal government imposes the tax, the Greenhouse Gas Pricing Act states government must rebate all of this tax to the province it collects it from.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said he favours giving it back to the people directly. This seems to me to be the best as we already see some provincial governments with a price on carbon putting it into general revenue.
British Columbia is one since the NDP took over the government. The Liberal carbon tax that was going back to the people is now pushed into general revenue.
David Sawyer says the Trudeau method of rebating back to the people is used it would give them more money back than they would spend. It’s not the tax that will cost the taxpayer more to live, but the method used to redistribute the money collected.
The carbon tax is not a tax on the people; it’s a tax or levy to punish the companies or people who are polluting. Why tax everyone when you can tax the polluters?
The politicians opposing the tax have yet to suggest a better method.
Several Nobel prize winners have said carbon tax is the best method to fight global warming. The carbon tax is supposed to be revenue neutral. If it’s not, blame your provincial government.
Perhaps we should also be looking at a levy/tax on companies who do not buy biodegradable products, but buy cheaper products that go into our landfills.
We should also be looking at phasing out consumer plastic products. I wrote a column a while ago that said if we went to zero pollution, we would have negligible results on global warming. That is still true, but if we ignore global warming we are not able to influence the big polluters, so I guess we should do our part.