Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

We already pay a vast carbon tax

JIM STANFORD

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 3:23 PM EST 10/07/08

‘We're forking over vast sums not because it's economically necessary or efficient, but because those collecting the money have power.' ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. J in B.C. from Canada writes: How exactly do you propose to collect $15-$20/barrel tax on oil bought from foreign countries? An import tax, so a $140 barrel of oil becomes $155-$160 when it enters Canada? What about domestic producers? How would the Federal Government add tax to Provincial resources? National Energy Program?

    The only oil companies that you could tax are the ones in Canada and that tax would be passed straight on to us at the gas pumps. Just what we need, another 15 cents a litre added to gas prices. Duh.
  2. Prsn Nep from Canada writes: Thank you, Jim Stanford. it is refreshing to see some logical arguments. We've been bombarded by so much propaganda that we were on the verge of being brain washed.
  3. Michael Manning from Mississauga, Canada writes: Why are socialists like Jim Stamford always free with other people's property?

    Everything he said about petroleum could, with equal logic, be applied to every other commodity and service in our economy.

    If you think that milk prices are too high it's because those fat cat dairy farmers are reaping unfair profits.

    Is $20 too much to pay for a haircut? It's all the fault of those greedy barbers.

    I imagine Mr. Stamford would feel himself hard used if the government forced him to write and paid him for that work only what a bureaucrat decreed it was worth.
  4. Will Hoaccio from Canada writes: Sometimes I think the CAW tries to make itself look silly...
  5. K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: Governments do get kickbacks from the high oil prices in several ways: provincial governments get royalties, both levels of government receive corporate taxes on the profits (though of course not as high as Jim Stanford would like), and there is GST paid at the pump.

    It's probably true that the Alberta government could reasonably be taking a bigger share of the money from the oil-sands projects. Ultimately they want to take as much as they can without excessively discouraging future investment (they do initially own the resources, and set the price that companies pay for the right to extract it), but given the growth, inflation, and sky high oil prices, it seems like there might be a lot of room to go up there. Alberta should play a little more of Danny Williams' game.

    There is a constitutional issue with the federal government doing it in the same way, though Mr. Stanford is right that they could impose extra corporate taxes. The only question remains -- and again the column failed to address it -- whether higher taxes would substantially reduce investment in oil extraction. (Contrary to J in BC's assertion, this would not have any measurable effect on crude oil or gasoline prices.)

    I don't blame the oil companies for anything. It's not their fault oil demand is soaring and there isn't enough sweet, light crude left to meet it. But the point that the country as a whole should be gaining more benefit from its own natural resources is a fair one.
  6. west slope from Canada writes:
    Man, has CAW been wearing its ignorance and short-sightedness on its sleeve lately.

    Stanford does not know or understand the oil markets.

    If he did, he would not have pointed a finger at OPEC that most observers agree had lost control of the price of oil to the upside.

    If he did, he would have pointed out that Saudi production has fallen at the same time that production from Russia, Mexico and other producers has fallen.

    If he did understand these markets, he would have pointed a finger at robust demand growth in emerging economies, especially the ones with price controls and fuel subsidies.
  7. Brian . from Edmonton, Canada writes: Most oil in the world is state owned. In Canada it is state owned too, but the state that owns it is the United States.

    With the fox guarding the hen house, don't expect our government to act like they own the oil any time soon.

    If it's our oil, we can sell it to corporations for whatever we want. Free market remember? Of course, we prefer to give it away.
  8. M R from Calgary, Canada writes: Why does the G&M allow a communist thinker, whose economic theories were discredited in the 1920s by Mises, publish such rubbish. The oil markets are free markets, and the invisible hand moves the prices based on supply and demand. Perhaps there is some artificial demand issues due to speculation, but that isn't the only thing.

    And the provinces own the oil - and they sell it for the royalty price. The oil companies who invest in the infrastructure of production make money on the rest. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or buy shares in an oil company. But don't propose government regulation that helps no one.
  9. J Albert from Toronto, Canada writes: west slope - you don't understand. For Stanford and the UAW 'it's just about them'. All that matters is to keep making cars and trucks - even those noone wants to buy. It isn't Stanford job to understand markets - just to get more dough from the various public treasuries.

    Even at $80 a tank, most of the driving costs are the vehicle (i.e. its depreciation.) So the obvious solution is to cut the cost of vehicles. Now Jim - does paying CAW member $140,000 a year to attach widgets to bolts have something to do with the high price of vehicles? Jim - are you there?
  10. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: Just like the left. What we need is not a broad and simple rule like, "Whatever you do, if its polluting, we're taking a cut."

    What we really need is to micromanage each sector. $50 for oil. Maybe $37.25 for coal. $65.15 for plastics from oil, unless the the corporate returns exceed 7.5%.......But wait, that's in my riding...maybe just a little less for plastics....

    In such overwrought strategies, red-tape details can suffocate a plan. This has happened in places to even the conservative measures on GHGs, where companies of special importance to individual Cabinet Ministers got special breaks and exemptions. (The Impala Car-Credit fiasco comes to mind.)

    The advantage to the Liberal plan is its simplicity. Carbon costs what it costs what it costs. Perhaps there should be a special higher tax on oil production, perhaps not. But that has little to do with changing consumption practices. The technology required already exists. What we really need is to start using what we've got and build a consumer base for industry investment.

    Jim should know, there's more to GHGs than Oil. Coal, Natural Gas and other sources also play their part.

    For the conservative posters out there, please take note.

    If Jim were to encounter a conservative in an alley who pulled out a copy of the Green Shift, there'd only be one thing to say (In an Aussie dialect):

    "Tax, grab? That's not a tax grab. Now THIS is a tax grab!"
  11. Cuban Cigar from Canada writes: Michael Manning from Mississauga - your logic would make sense if the economy ran on milk and haricuts.
  12. K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: Cuban Cigar, what does that have to do with anything?
  13. Nick Beerman from Calgary, Canada writes: I guess by the author's logic an increase in the price of bread at the grocery store would be a bread tax.

    Using the figure of 430 litres of gasoline equals one ton of carbon dioxide a $10.00 per ton tax comes to $.023 per litre and for a $50.00 per ton tax comes to $.115 per litre. What is that in the face of the recent price increases in gasoline.

    If we want the untaxed price of gasoline to go down all we have to do is use less gasoline. How do we do that? The answer is simple. We, as a nation, start making better decissions as to when and where we drive and what vehicles we buy.

    Duh.
  14. Bill Tubbs from Vancouver, Canada writes: J in B.C. was first to point out the obvious problem in Stanford's idea of imposing an excess-profit tax on producers. OPEC countries are not subject to Canadian regulation. I think he means tax Canadian producers to recover their profits for redistribution within Canada. (As the Alberta government is doing to some extent by increasing royalties). The problem with this is that it only reduces Canadian production and doesn't reduce the oil price. Perhaps he is thinking we should make Canada an autarky and disconnect ourselves from the world market (stop exporting oil to the US - we'd have to build a pipeline from Alberta to Quebec - isn't this the National Energy Program all over again?). If that is what he is saying he is clearly not an economist. Opinions like this really don't help the public debate.
  15. J Albert from Toronto, Canada writes: Brian . from Edmonton - hmm - maybe people in Alberta are a little red on the back of the neck.

    Your provincial government own the oil in AB. In other places, the farmers own it. Of course, it doesn't create much cash flow sitting in the ground - so governments and farmer pay companies with expertise in extraction to get it out. The owners get all kinds of $$$ - royalties, lease payments etc. - not to mention tax, tax, tax.

    You've hit a gusher of mallarky - too bad it's not worth anything. You might want to stick to the comic pages.
  16. J Albert from Toronto, Canada writes: There's no point in building an oil pipeline from AB to ON - there are no facilities to refine it. In fact, Shell Canada just pulled the plug on a project on a project to build a refinery was to process the heavier oil. Look for gaoline prices in ON to be far above the national average in 5-6 years.

    (During the Rae years, the chemical sector in Ontario started to wind down. We don't have the needed infrastrutcure to handle heavier oil. The price for light sweet crude is going to keep going up - and wer'e going to pay, pay, pay.)
  17. Arec Bardwin from Canada writes: CAW CAW CAW

    Let's impose a 50% automakers tax. No cars = no oil usage.
    Problem solved
  18. Arec Bardwin from Canada writes: Brian . from Edmonton, Canada wrote: Most oil in the world is state owned. In Canada it is state owned too, but the state that owns it is the United States.

    With the fox guarding the hen house, don't expect our government to act like they own the oil any time soon.

    If it's our oil, we can sell it to corporations for whatever we want. Free market remember? Of course, we prefer to give it away.

    _______________________________________________________

    I don't suppose you have any data to back that up do you?
    Hey if you say it, it must be true right?

    These evil american companies produce 85% of Candian oil: Encana, Canadian Natural Resources, Talisman, Syncrude, Suncor, Pennwest, Nexen, PetroCanada, and Canadian Oil Sands.

    Oh wait.

    Those are all Canadian companies employing hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

    Dumba.ss.
  19. OLP AGM beer a from Canada writes: A socialist is similar to a communist in they both follow a simple concept. What is theirs is theirs and what is yours is also theirs.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top