Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Let's think modern infrastructure, not carbon tax

TOM KENT

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 4:57 PM EST 09/09/08

We need to create a national power grid linking our energy resources ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. bill williams from Canada writes: -

    Mr Kent makes many good points but misses the main one: Rising energy costs and costs associated with meeting inevitable emissions restrictions will hamper the economies of those countries that have done little to get on with dealing with global warming ... Canada is merely the standout example. Pricing carbon with a well crafted tax regime puts money in public hands so that some of the bigger infrastructure changes can be afforded. If we increase debt to make important changes to infrastructure while failing to force Canadians to recognise the cost of carbon those infrastructure changes will languish ... people and businesses won't feel the pressure to use them.

    A truly revenue neutral carbon tax puts the cost where it needs to be and simultaneously gives government the resources to provide the alternatives that people then need: "Oh my gosh! look at what gas costs now. But, hey ... there's a train that I can take to work instead."

    It is important to get a cost on carbon and start escalating it and putting that money into alternative energy and transportation options. Obviously, if the tax comes right away it will take time to develop the alternatives fully. That's not bad either because part of the problem is under-utilization of assets in transportation that we already have and that can be improved at a rapid pace. Where people need help in the interim and options can't be made available quickly ... you help them with offsets to their cost of carbon: I have to pay more carbon tax because farmers are not set up to deal with it right away ... Fine!

    I understand Mr Kent's concern and the issue riddles the economy with chicken/egg carrot/stick issues that have a strong time component, but I do feel that there has to be a price signal and delaying that is just denial.

    -
  2. Adam Scott from Toronto, Canada writes: There is no justifiable reason to delay implementing carbon taxes, given that they have essentially nothing to do with infrastructure investment. A well implemented carbon tax comes with a large federal tax cut to offset it.

    If you want to stimulate the economy, what better place to start but through the development of new green industry, efficiency investments, and a shift in consumer behavior towards new technologies? This is what a carbon tax will bring.

    In fact, while we are at it, why not give industry a clear signal and set a realistic but strong cap on carbon emissions - and put in place a trading system to make meeting those targets easier.

    And what better way to lead by example, but through new investments in intelligent sustainable infrastructure by government as Tom Kent suggests.

    This article attempts to put false barriers in the way of smart policies. Quit procrastinating and get moving - the long-term health of our environment and our economy are dependent on it.
  3. bruce reid from Chippawa, Canada writes: Did the first three commenters read the article? Mr. Kent suggests the creation of a national energy grid and the refurbishing of our national rail system. Both of those measures would immensely benefit our economy and, by the by, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It's a great idea. But apparently it doesn't go far enough for Green tax proponents. Green people, why do you hate Canada so much? You should know that just because you pour a ton of money into a project, there's no guarantee that a solution will be found to a problem. Just look at cancer research. Of course we should keep looking, but let's not abandon our cars or coal plants on the vague hope that something better will soon be invented. Making it too expensive to drive to work won't help anybody. Forcing people to use a more expensive and less convenient mode of transportation won't help anybody. Make it easier to use the train, and people will leave the cars at home. Make it cheaper to buy Quebec Hydro, and Ontario won't build another coal plant. If a carbon tax on gas would keep people out of their cars, why wasn't there a massive shift in transportation modes this past summer, when gas jumped 30 cents a litre? Dion is suggesting, what - an extra few cents a litre? And he'll subsidize the people who use the most? Yeah - that'll work.
  4. bill williams from Canada writes: -

    Bruce,

    Yes, we all read the piece. I understand your frustration but we have had lots of time when we could have been making good progress on this issue and we have squandered it. I am all for the sort of projects that Mr Kent suggests, I just think that it is either shortsighted or disingenuous to suggest that we can make effective changes in infrastructure and make USE of infrastructure (old and new) without the price signal that needs to attend poor use or non-use.

    By the way, when we had this recent increase in energy costs the market did respond: auto sales moved toward smaller/efficient. The point is even if fuel costs move relentlessly higher that's not enough. If we let the market resolve this we're just letting the market settle the price of the last barrel of oil. The idea should be to get us away from the whole notion that we would ever burn that last barrel. The easiest way to do that is to start figuring out how much damage we're doing by burning the oil and incorporate the cost of that damage into the cost of the oil as a tax that can be used to help us pay for the new way of doing things. To our economy, the cost of the negative effects of fossil fuels is an 'externality'; that must stop.

    There are all kinds of ways of making sure that we can cope with the changes: higher taxes here; lower taxes there. By making the regime revenue neutral we can help those who need it and tax other uses higher while using the rest of the money to foster new industry, new infrastructure and all of the other things that we would lack if we didn't take action.

    We absolutely need the sorts of changes that Kent suggests, but it will be difficult to get our society adapting to the new situation if we can all push ahead in some of our bad old ways without lightening our wallets.

    PS- Lay off the 'why do you hate Canada so much?' baloney. If I hated Canada I wouldn't give a damn that we're vulnerable.

    -

    -
  5. Will Hoaccio from Canada writes: I've often wondered, to no avail, why Ontario has never had access to the Quebec Hydro market. It would benefit Quebec by increasing demand for their hydro power, it would benefit Ontario by mitigating some (though probably not all) of the need for new coal and nuclear facilities and it would benefit the environment by moving us towards a more sustainable power source. I really, really, can't see the downside to anyone involved. Maybe a national power grid is a bit rash, given the size of the country, but a hydro system linking the QC-Windsor corridor to the full Quebec Hydro network seems exceedingly plausible.

    As for national rail, that is a bit of a lemon. I like trains, but they will never be used in a national context until oil is 400$/barrel. Rail transit would receive a big boost from regional trips. Obviously a QC-Windsor or Edmonotn-Calgary HSR comes to mind here. A TGV style service would be sensible, but even more modest improvements to the Corridor could yield huge benefits. Electrification, more bypasses and more comprehensive track repair.

    Improving commuter services (GO, AMT, WCE) and local transit systems, though not in federal jurisdiction, could also yield benefits. Would it really be too much to ask that GO trains in the morning rush hour receive priority over empty freight trains pulling out of Union Station? I'm really not asking for the world here.
  6. Vic Hotte from Kettleby, Canada writes: Mr. Kent makes a very rational appeal for Canada to apply effort in modernizing energy and transportation infrastructure, but this would require the cooperation of ten provincial governments and the feds. Too often, they are bickering over their own political (and egotistical) agendas in the hope of getting re-elected every four years. Long-term planning and the 'vision thing' are not done well in Canada, unfortunately. We all know about the 'roads to nowhere' and other public contracts and subsidies that respective governments fondly lavish on their main supporters and cronies during their tenures. Often, it is difficult to get the real public's agenda on to the official public agenda.
    Mr. Kent writes, "Our peril is that politicians are ill-prepared with measures to sustain income and employment." Indeed, incomes in the private sector have stagnated, on average, for two decades, while government compensation packages and programs have increased, supported by the taxbase and mushrooming user fees -- multiple levels of government dependent on one level of taxpayer. Pet government policies and projects seem to have eclipsed public interest at least a decade or two ago. Hopefully, politicians of all stripes will read Mr. Kent's column carefully and collect some ideas.
  7. B H from Toronto, Canada writes: I very much agree agree that we need both improvements in infrastructure, and clear price signals. But I'm confused by Bill Williams' use of the term 'revenue neutral'. What revenue neutral means is that the total revenue the government receives from taxes is neither increased, nor decreased (hence 'neutral'). It's just shifted from one source (e.g. income tax) to another source (carbon tax). So a revenue neutral carbon tax does NOT "give government the resources to provide the alternatives that people then need". It provides NO new resources -- by definition. Perhaps you mean you think we need a tax shift that ISN'T revenue neutral, i.e., a net tax increase? Or do you think we should have a revenue neutral tax shift and, entirely separately, use other money to invest in infrastructure?
  8. agent sixtynine from Canada writes: Why is Dion not suggesting the cutting of income taxes across the board with his carbon shift? His plan will not be revenue neutral and amounts to social engineering.
    Never trust a liberal.
    Global temperatures have been steadily declining over the past couple of years. In fact, historic global temperature changes more closely track solar variations. Polar sea ice is beginning to recover.
    CO2 is not pollution.
  9. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: "No justifiable reasons for delaying implementing carbon taxes..."

    Well, other than most Canadians and two regions (the Prairies and Atlantic Canada) clearly do not support it, Adam Scott from Toronto. Carbon taxes haven't gone over so well in BC either.

    Thanks for a thought provoking article, Mr. Kent !

    Should Atlantic Canadians still be waiting on Canada to stop navel gazing and get working on something like this ?

    Or should we just route the future power from Atlantic Canada's Lower Churchill project and Bay of Fundy Tidal power directly to the Northeastern USA like we do with our natural gas pipelines ?

    Cheers
  10. A. Consultant from Mississauga, Canada writes: R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: "should we just route the future power from Atlantic Canada's Lower Churchill project... to the Northeastern USA like we do with our natural gas pipelines ? Precisely the point! Why spent huge sums of money to build transportation that is wasteful? The cheapest way to market for Atlantic Canada is to the U.S. Northeast not Ontario. A national power grid sounds impressive but would be terribly expensive to build and take decades to develop and build. Better to send surplus power to closer markets and for importing provinces to focus more on conservation and distributed generation; building smaller power plants closer to markets to reduce transmission infastrucuture. Whether we use fossil-fuels more efficiently because of global warming or for price there is a limited amount of it. Developing renewable power sources will eventually pay-off; if not for us for our children and their children. Costs come down through research, development and mass production. We do not want to wait until commodity prices signal market shortages - we need to develop them now. The pricing of carbon is a step in the direction of ensuring all costs of using energy are being accounted for. Perhaps the concept should be extended to the emitting of other harmful emissions such radiation. Once all costs are accounted for we can get on with developing alternatives that are less expensive as well as healthier.
  11. TERRI R from Kimberley, Canada writes: The point is putting money into health;education;infrastructure empowers the citizens of whatever country a level playing field and is better at re-energizing the economy. When we have military industrial complex ruled Governments there is NO MONEY LEFT OVER for basic human needs. And I am not refering to what the corporate ideology of basic human needs is, theirs is based on how much money we the commodities, er I mean citizens are worth.
  12. gary wilson from Calgary, writes: The carbon tax is a wise shift in tax collection. The great shame is a massive majority of the population doesn't understand the concept of a carbon tax, never will take the time to, and will never know how economically benefical it would be.

    Do yourself a favor and read about it. Not on the Liberals or Green Party's site. Those are obviously biased. Check the concept out on any economist's blog. You choose.

    Check out the success of the carbon tax policy in Norway, Sweeden, Denmark or Finland.

    Check out the writings of Paul Hawken, Mark Jaccard, John D. Dingell (Chairman of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee). Read the endorsements of the Wall Street Journal, Nobel Prize-winning conservative economist Gary Becker, Jeff Rubin the CIBC's chief strategist/economist, the Conference Board of Canada, the Christian Science Monitor, the New Yorker, or William Nordhaus (Yale professor widely considered to be the world’s leading expert on integrated economic assessment). Read for yourself and decide. Don't buy into political smear campaigns.



  13. bill williams from Canada writes: -

    BH

    Your reading of 'revenue neutral' is narrow. That's OK, most politicians--including Dion--are afraid of how broadly the term might be interpreted. But sometimes an extreme example can be illustrative: (I know that it's not realistic; I'm just showing the principle) Let's say that there are 15,000,000 drivers in Canada. Let's say that they each drive 10,000 km/yr. (note I'm not mentioning trucks, farm equipment etc) That's 150,000,000,000 km. Let's say that they burn about 10L 100 km, that's 15,000,000,000L. Let's say that we imposed a $1.00/L tax on gasoline/diesel burned by cars (tax everyone and reimburse farmers ... whatever). That's $15B in revenue. Let's say that we spend $2.5B in reducing all taxes associated with spending on short and medium range mass transit. Let's say that we spend $5B on direct investment in s/mr mass transit. Let's say that we spend $7.5B in personal income tax cuts tied to use of s/mr mass transit. That's about $5,000 per adult. That's about $100/wk in available incentives for using urban mass transit, local trains, inter-city trains etc. And I'd be buying fares on systems that were undergoing constant well-funded improvement. Would I keep driving 10,000km/yr? No. As the revenue falls because behaviour is changing we reduce subsidies ... evolving equilibrium weighted toward lower greenhouse gasses.

    Make up your own example that's more realistic ... you get the idea.

    -

    -
  14. pierre lefebvre from Brossard, Canada writes: Tom Kent makes sense but Lester B. Pearson was a consumed sensitive leader capable of great achievements. Here we face Dion Quixote with a limited sense of a mission for Canada. To develop energy alternatives would mean wearing your thinking hat. Dion does not reach this level of comprehension. He is on raising taxes for a change and a Liberal tradition. Lastly you need a messenger to lead an army and Dion is a loner without a regiment. Sorry Tom the message is right but messenger is a total loss.
  15. Alastair james Berry from Nanaimo BC, Canada writes:
    If the human race is in grave danger from Carbon Dioxide asphyxiation we need every instrument in the ORCHESTRA in tune.

    Certainly fixing up the GRID is one necessary step BUT IT IS ONLY ONE!

    We must do away with wasteful energy use, like AIRCRAFT or Private cars.......bringing in a CARBON tax of $60/ton will help to cut down these two sources of CO2 to a very considerable degree.

    And we must focus on ECONOMIC sources of CLEAN POWER. Wind mills and Tide mills where feasible ,can be economic too.

    Lastly Canada needs to institute a POPULATION POLICY whereby the population of CANADA is reduced to perhaps one quarter of what it is today...... It is, after all, PEOPLE who both produce the Carbon Dioxide and are being ASPHYXIATED by it........Logic states fewer people in Canada and less CO2 will be produced almost in direct proportion.

    The Harper Government and the Provinces should get with it straight away because tomorrow will be too late and we may all perish before remedial steps are taken.

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