Carbon tax could generate $50B a year: Suzuki

"Millions of Canadians are taking steps each day to conserve energy, whether by taking public transit, changing their light bulbs or turning down their thermostat. These Canadians should be rewarded," David Suzuki said in a news release issued Monday.

"Meanwhile, carbon-intensive industries and activities severely damage our climate at no charge to the polluter." A carbon tax makes the polluter pay, he said.

The report claims that such a tax or carbon trading system could:

Dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions;
Protect the environment; and
Generate revenue of at least $50 billion annually by 2020

Those revenues could be used to cut personal income taxes or invest in green innovations, it said.

"Up to 50 per cent of our income tax could be relieved through these carbon taxes," Suzuki, in Ottawa, told Canada AM.

The report comes on the eve of a federal budget and after B.C. tabled its provincial budget, introducing a ground-breaking carbon tax in the process. Quebec has also moved to tax carbon.

Federal Environment Minister John Baird has said the federal government will not be introducing a carbon tax and will instead rely on a regulatory approach.

Helter-skelter regulation

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also said he would leave it up to the provinces to decide what policies they wish to follow.

Alberta, Canada's carbon energy capital, plans to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 14 per cent below 2005 levels by 2050. British Columbia wants to cut its emissions by 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020.

The feds have set a 20 per cent cut by 2020 -- but using 2006 as a baseline, not the 1990 of the Kyoto Protocol. The 20 per cent by 2020 figure is estimated to be a two per cent cut below 1990 levels. Kyoto set a target of a six per cent cut below 1990 levels by 2012.

Suzuki told Canada AM that the federal approach will lead to a "helter skelter" approach to regulating emissions.

"What you'll find is that the corporate sector will then begin to play the provinces off on each other to try to find the best deal," he said. "I think everyone would agree it's best if we have a level playing field across the country."

Suzuki said a carbon tax would be the most efficient way to cut carbon emissions. "That's the long-term hope, is to get our emissions down. And this is an effective way of doing it," he said.

Norway has had a carbon tax since 1991, and virtually every European Union country has some form of carbon tax, he noted.

"The interesting thing is no country that has instituted a carbon tax has ever gone back and said, 'oh, that was a mistake,'" Suzuki said.

The opposition Conservatives in Britain have vowed to raise the carbon tax there, he said.

Simon Fraser University economist Marc Jaccard helped write the report.

He has been a long-time advocate of a carbon tax and co-authored a 2007 book with Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson entitled "Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge."

Comments are now closed for this story

JBSankar
said

Carbon Tax? No carbon tax? I think that it is just common sense that corporations will pass 100% of their increased operating costs on to the consumer (aka you and me). I can't believe that we are even having this debate since the planet has not warmed at all since 1998! If increased carbon dioxide emissions are really responsible for global warming then why haven't we seen any warming in a decade despite the fact that countries like China and India are producing more C02 then ever before???

Johnny
said

UBC Student:
"What people don't seem to realize is that you don't have to pay a carbon tax as long as you don't use carbon based fuels. Everyone needs to buy groceries, clothes, etc. but not everyone needs to keep their home at 23 degrees in February or drive their personal vehicle to work. It acts as a deterrent, one that is much more effective than stiffer sentences to reduce crime. Also, Suzuki's idea is to institute income tax reductions at the same time as the carbon tax, not after, therefore the government would not have the opportunity to renege on their promises and just keep the money. And for everyone working in the oilpatch thinking this will come out of their pocket, it's only because your greedy individualistic bosses will refuse to take a hit to their own salaries."

UBC Student you say that no one needs to pay if we don't use carbon based fuels.Everyone needs to buy groceries, clothes, etc. Your right but for one small problem here. UBC Student how do you think that groceries, clothes,etc. are delivered to the stores? Don't you think if the transportation cost goes up that it will not effect these products?

UBC Student you also mentioned that we do not need to keep our homes at 23 degrees in February or drive their personal vehicle to work.
Have thought about that not everyone lives in Vancouver? Have you thought about that we do have elderly people and babies that need warmth yes 23 degrees? Have you thought that not everyone lives in cities some do live in small towns where you do need a vehicle to work? And yes also for your groceries too!

So please UBC Student think before making these comment thank you!

Jake
said

Mr. Suzuki, you know little enough about environmental issues; don't stick your nose into economics. Because you don't have a clue. Besides, we already pay enough taxes. My farm's fuel bill exceeds $60,000 a year. More taxes will hurt- a lot. And damage to big business damages the whole economy. It's called economic spin-off. But you wouldn't know what that is, would you Suzuki?

Lart from Above
said

If done in a net-revenue-neutral way, this would be a great way to incent people to use less fuel. You could eliminate income taxes for people making less than $25,000 and reduce everyone else's by 20%.

People natter on about the GST, ignoring the invisible 18% manufacturing tax that used to strangle Canada's exports. The only reason that the GST brought in more revenue than expected is that the elimination of the MST caused Canada's economy to grow faster than expected, resulting in hundreds of thousands of new jobs and new middle-class consumers.

Canada has some of the worst environmental policies in the developed world, and the developing world is only going to follow the worst example among developed countries. Our 2% of global greenhouse gas output may seem small in absolute terms, but the example we set has a huge impact on the global environment and economy. Places like China and India aren't going to step up to the second phase of greenhouse gas reduction if we break our promises in the first phase.

MRM
said

Suzuki is right! A carbon tax on Canadian businesses would generate $50B a year. The problem is it would be for the country that our industries moved to in order to avoid our excessively high taxes, putting a lot of Canadians out of work. For those who keep knocking the feds for reducing corporate taxes remember that we are competing in a global market. It is businesses that employ people and if we are not competitive in attracting and retaining them others will be. If we loose them who will pay the taxes to support all of the programs that we want? We should also remember that while we are struggling to reduce our 1 or 2% of global GHG emissions between now and 2011, the Chinese will build 850 more �dirty� coal fired electrical plants (no environmental controls on them at all) which will produce five times the GHG that the entire world now produces! Oh yeah I forgot they signed Kyoto didn�t they? No wonder, what a sweet deal for them. For all of our efforts GHG will still go up and China will have to build more coal generators to accommodate the businesses that move there from Canada.

wuregan
said

I like this idea "Federal Carbon Tax" - Statute Law and Taxaton are the way to go when there is no volunteer.

Marc Kobayashi
said

AL K wrote:
"David Suzuki is not known for his common sense."

The report was prepared for the David Suzuki Foundation by Mark Jaccard. The same Mark Jaccard that Mr. Baird & Mr. Harper touted as an expert on why Kyoto would not work for Canada.

Anne M
said

I honestly wished Suzuki would dry up and go away. Maybe all those who agree with him,should pay the increased taxes for all of us. Each person, for Suzuki's plan, should pay the carbon tax for every 10000 people. Do you think that would shut them up.

MineItNow
said

No more taxes please.

Please borrow a first year geology text book titled "Historical Geology" to learn what this earth has done and will continue to do. warm up and cool down. Should we try to reduce our impact on earth? Yes but not in the fanatical way preached by the left. It needs to be a personal issue as many have said. he left is using the 'global warming' issue as a means of wealth redistribution. Government can introduce tax incentives for R&D of polution and carbon reduction.

No more taxes please. The middle class (us) will revolt.

Jyslain
said

Hands off my wallet ....we pay enough taxes, besides it's a well known scientific fact that the sun has been getting hotter in the last hundred years or so ..well since we've been studying it , the uv output has increased steadely every year . It's just a way to make more money to form and fund the NORTH AMERICAN UNION !!!! we can't give in ..

Denise
said

Jay says:

"Every commentor here out bashing Mr. Suzuki is obviously just an attempt by the reich-wing freeping brigade to make it look as though public opinion is against this idea. The proof is in they attack Mr. Suzuki personally and don't actually lay out why the carbon tax is bad. Fruit-fly scientist is an example."

Well, Jay...where do I start? How about "reich-wing freeping brigade". Kinda the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? You rant against name calling by calling people names. That's so hypocritical I don't even know where to start! Oh, and by the way, were you aware that David Suzuki is a zoologist and geneticist, not a climatologist? A geneticist who studied fruit flies? Hmmm, that would make him a fruit-fly scientist.

Sina
said

British Columbia already has one of the highest sale taxes in the country and Suzuki wants BC to be further sandwitched by double carbon taxing? I think we British Columbians might begin to push for separatism if more federal tax schemes are placed upon provincial ones.... Great, the world now thinks Canada as tree-hugging, left-wing welfare state(hippie heaven)

JPC
said

No carbon tax without equivalent reductions in other taxes...otherwise politicians will just spend it all on rubbish...

Trudy
said

Though it would be nice to think just big polluting businesses would be taxed, I see it as a step down a slippery slope which would eventually include taxing small businesses and ordinary citizens too. Would the government take those tax dollars and only invest them in eco-friendly energy or would it just go in some big pot for whatever, like a war in Afganistan. Trudy

roz
said

That's why i buy locally and I find my vitamin C fruits and veggies locally too. We have a great green house industry in Ontario. Cuts down on the carbon waste and it supports local producers. Sounds like it's a win win solution Brian

CM
said

I agree with the government that regulation and not taxation is the right approach to cleaning up the environment.

Taxation should not be a form of punishment as socialists want, who the heck do you think pays the taxes that any business racks up? Us the consumers that's who, it's calculated in their costs.

Socialists want to control the flow of money in the free market so they can choose the spending priorities for all of us and not on the stuff we elect them for but everything. This has nothing to do with global warming.

Anyone who feels a carbon tax will do us any good is a fool, it will end up going into general revenue like the Liberals did with CPP funds. Or better yet being funneled into universal daycare as the socialists want, it will not clean up anything or change ANY attitudes.

Richard
said

A revenue neutral carbon tax is only one tool to begin reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Combine it with a federal cap and trade system on large industrial emitters based on absolute, not intensity - based targets, and access to a global carbon trading market, and we will reduce our emissions dramatically by 2020 and beyond. This is what many other industrial nations are doing and it's what Canadians with business interests themselves are recommending - for example the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy and the Conference Board of Canada, among others. We have an opportunity to be at the innovative forefront of the inevitable shift to a global low carbon future. Let's not miss it.

jm
said

I can't believe these ridiculous ignorent comments people post... There is a much bigger picture at play here than our automotive and industrial comfort? I live near the Artic Ocean and our sky is filled with smog - incredible! We either start somewhere or our society will end up crashing and burning: http://www.howtoboilafrog.com/video/peak/IntrotoPO.html

Filipe Br�s Almeida
said

"AL K" said:

�Governments love taxes. Think back to the GST ,a new tax, but did we get any reduction in income taxe or any other taxes. Nope.�

Erm... as a matter of fact we did, eventually, under Liberal governments.

Michael Barkusky
said

I don't understand why people who hate taxes object to a carbon tax balanced by income tax cuts ? What's so great about income tax ? Actually, it is much more inefficient, economically, than commodity taxes. I know how inefficient income tax is, since I am an accountant by occupation (and an economist only in my spare time). I work with the income tax system on a daily basis. The only merit to income tax is fairness; but a carbon tax could easily have its unfair features mitigated by the right kind of cuts to income taxes, so as to offset is regressiveness. Isn't it odd that David Suzuki is championing working through the market, and the Conservatives are now championing command and control regulation ?
In this case, Suzuki's economics is more sophisticated than that of Harper, Flaherty and Baird.

Michael Wynn
said

I can't believe some of the comments here. Especially those that are still questioning Global Warming? I for one don't own a gas lawn mower anymore, all my lightbulbs are compact fluorescent, I work from home, and I'm trying to find a way to stop using plastic bags. David Suzuki is right. This is the right thing to do.

Brian (Again)
said

So Roz, I guess Fruits and Vegetables etc are Archaic Items, eh!! In case you really do live under a rock, EVERYTHING you buy, gets to the place you buy it via transport. Almost all is via Semi-trucks. Has anyone developed a Solar Powered Semi-truck yet?? Until they do, this Carbon Tax will raise the cost of everything you purchase, as everything has to go from Point A to Point B somehow. And yes, I will be forever having to buy FOOD. So how will this tax save me money?

Jeff
said

Make sensible changes to reducing pollution. Why is it not mandatory for every new home built in Canada to have part of its roof covered in solar panels that take some of the load off of traditional sources? Regulations and incentives, not taxes, are the way to go.

Balgonie Bob
said

No matter what Canada does the path will not be changed as a result of our actions in one way or the other because we are such an insignificant contributor. As nations like China and India significantly increase their GHG outputs our net contribution to the perceived problem may go up but our share precentage wise will go down. Perhaps with a little warmer climate and a little more CO2 in the atmosphere Canada will become the new Amazon basin and along with Russia be the worlds greatest fighter of green house gasses just from our increased, although unnatural, fauna. We can then become an exporter of fine Saskachewan mahogany furniture. I doubt that David Suzuki or any other "scientist" has a real good grip on the big picture but have fallen in love with doom and gloom.

63 year old woman of concern
said

There is more to this province than Vancouver and we outside of the Holy City have no choice but to drive our vehicles to work, our kids to school (thanks to the closure of rural schools) and to use carbon fuels to heat our homes in our terribly cold winters. Mr. Campbell et al in your quest for your legacy by bringing the 2010 Olympics to British Columbia, the most vulnerable of citizens are being neglected -examples are the elderly, the children and the low income, etc. This will all end up like the tire/battery & eco fees....these things are still a problem and where have the funds gone....? The fees were suppose to be the justifiable solution for disposing of these for the good of the environment....what a waste of our money. It could have been used to improve the province, roads & medical for the people who live here and be most inviting to those who would like to come live and work in this province. B.C. is just falling apart and going to the birds......thanks alot Mr. Campbell and all the others involved. Our elderly will be dining on dog food again like in the Bennett days

Devon K.
said

Some of this is just nonsense.

1.) Big companies already pay massive taxes and for the most part they pass that onto us as the cost of doing business.

2.) $50 billion is about 5% of our entire economy. If you think that won't have a major impact I'll remind all of you that our annual growth is about 2.2%.

3.) There are around 12,000,000 cars on the road. It is irrelevent if they are hybrid or gas guzzlers in the big picture. The sheer number of them put the blame for climate change squarely on the shoulders of the average Canadian. Stop blaming big business for that.

4.) The Oil Patch in Alberta also exists in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland with refineries all over the place. It's not just an Alberta thing. Talk about narrow minded people. By the way the Alberta Oil Boom began around 1995 under the Liberals and carried on unrestricted with Stephan Dion as the Environment Minister.

5.) There is no such thing as a revenue neutral tax as Suzuki is suggesting here. Why? Because it costs money to collect a tax. Sometimes its up to a quarter of the money received.

6.) A Carbon Tax will ripple through the economy and raise the price of every single thing you buy from food, electricity, clothing, medical care, etc. Why? Because currently most of our energy comes from carbon directly or the goods are transported using carbon as the power source.

7.) Depending on where you live taxes already make up between 40% and 50% of the price at the pump you are paying. Didn't stop you from driving did they?

8.) If we raise our taxes significantly, and yes $50 billion is significant you will have generation after generation of university graduates heading to the USA because why stay in Canada and have not 50% of your income but say 60% of your income taken from you in the form of taxes?

Ross Perot, that crazy Texan, warned in 1992 that NAFTA would lead to a giant sucking sound at the US border. Well millions of US jobs went to Mexico. Millions more are heading to China who has next to nothing for environmental legislation and no Kyoto targets. You put in a Carbon Tax and the next giant sucking sound will be at our border as people bid farewell to high taxes.

GB - Hurray for taxes! (no sarcasm)
said

I'm glad that some provinces have started carbon taxing, and I'm glad David Suzuki is pressuring the federal government to do the same.

The money collected would almost certainly NOT be used to cut our income taxes (as David Suzuki suggested as one possibility for the use of this revenue) but I don't really care. I'm sick and tired of people's actions effecting my quality of life negatively; nobody has the right to do that.

Sean
said

I swear that all ultra right wing conservatives do is write comment after comment in these blogs.
It's hard to believe that the views in these blogs could feasibly be representational of the views of even semi-educated people in our country.
Taxing people who pollute is an incredibly simple and logical approach to a monumental problem. It makes it expensive to pollute.
Would the money generated be well spent? Usual government activities may lead one to say no. But that barely matters. If it leads to a cut in emissions. Then the goal is achieved. Like cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling, negative influences on society are where our tax revenues should be based.

I find it absolutely incredible that after 3 years of windstorms hammering the west coast in a row, that one cold winter would be seen as a disproval of global warming.

I also find it hard to believe that with the rest of the world waking up to the realities of what needs to happen, and even the U.S. moving towards the possibility of a more sane government, that our country would be so easily snowed by just a couple of years of conservative rule.
Here's hoping that somewhere down the line, people realize that what is not needed is a Liberal, Conservative, or a NDP government. What is needed is a government that takes into account the needs of individuals and society as a whole and stops feeding the needs of industry, or special interest groups that will get them elected.

Taxing is not the answer!
said

As as individual with a middle class income, trying to support a family of six, I find it hard enough to get by already - let alone more tax. We do what we can to reduce our carbon footprint -changed our light bulbs, turned down the heat/AC. Unfortunately, due to work and the children's school schedules, we do have to drive. I would love to be able to purchase a hybrid, but it is not affordable.

Maybe I'm naive, but instead of taxing individuals/companies, wouldn't an incentive program work better. We all work better when we receive positive reinforcement. When companies take steps to reduce their carbon footprint - provide them with a tax break. When car companies make hybrid vehicles more affordable -give them extra support. When individuals make steps necessary to reduce their personal footprint - provide them with a tax break.

Now, I can hear many of you saying "Where do you think the money for these tax breaks are going to come from?" By providing incentives, we will attract more business. Also the government is posting surpluses each year, of which a portion could be used.
Just a thought!

roz
said

WoW What a bunch of whiners. yes the tax will be passed onto those who still purchase whatever archaic item or service the customer is buying. My question is: Are you lot dumb enough to not realize other better technologies will come out of this tax, which will not be taxed and therefore less expensive? You will only get taxed if you are not willing to do your part and that is the beauty of this idea.

Sandra Cheung
said

Roz,

Your lungs don't care about a C02 reduction. They care about all the toxic pollution that is not addressed directly when only focusing on C02.

bunny
said

BC means bring cash. The latest tax is so BC will have enough money for the olympics

UBC Student
said

What people don't seem to realize is that you don't have to pay a carbon tax as long as you don't use carbon based fuels. Everyone needs to buy groceries, clothes, etc. but not everyone needs to keep their home at 23 degrees in February or drive their personal vehicle to work. It acts as a deterrent, one that is much more effective than stiffer sentences to reduce crime. Also, Suzuki's idea is to institute income tax reductions at the same time as the carbon tax, not after, therefore the government would not have the opportunity to renege on their promises and just keep the money. And for everyone working in the oilpatch thinking this will come out of their pocket, it's only because your greedy individualistic bosses will refuse to take a hit to their own salaries.

albert
said

Our great grand children will look back at this point in time with disbelief. Money and profits the major concern for a civilization in decline.

UofL alumni in MB
said

50 billion per year works out to over $1600 a year per Canadian...and everytime Canadian lower GHG emissions, China and India bring it back up so that really defeats the purpose.

Tim
said

Jay, you don't get it guy. We live in a global community where money is still exchanged for goods and services. If you tax the corporations to death, they uproot and move to countries that are rapidly educating their populations to handle our jobs at a cheaper wage level. People need jobs to survive since we don't live in an agrarium world any more. A more practical approach is for government to continue to educate the public on being less wasteful and to use public tax funds to provide better transportation systems for commuting, getting truck trailers on rail, etc. If people had easier ways to commute they would. Governments today don't want to invest in that infrastructure but imagine the world we live in minus gross gridlock every day. Follow it up with toll charges to urban cores like London England has for cars and trucks and you get better transportation usage which I believe will help kill off a lot more carbon and GHG than this tax scheme will. This taxation scheme will destroy our last hopes of manufacturing jobs in this country, my taxes are high enough and I cannot afford to support any more people on our already bloated social services system.

PTT
said

More taxes....why not, we are one of the most taxed countries in the world.... Although I truely respect David Suzuki and his work and what he stands for, I believe that the idea of creating more tax is plain wrong.
The only way greenhouse gas emissions/pollution will be reduced is if there is a international effort. Canadians can't be squeezed here and feel guilty about our energy consumption while we have the U.S./ China/India and many more countries not have any plan to signifigantly reduce their emissions. Since Canada is a net exporter of oil to the world, maybe our governments(provincial/federal) should work together to allocate some of these surpluses into funding research/development into alternative energy sources. Maybe these same governments should strengthen our laws on such things as automobile emission standards. Maybe programs should be funded that will help encourage business in Canada to implement more environmentally friendly procedures within their own business environment. Maybe similar programs, better funded, will help promote the consumer to make more environmentally better choices. Maybe Canada should use some of its energy fortunes to be a world leader in environmental conservation and alternative energy research. This, in time, will help create new jobs in new fields. As oil revenues begin to diminish(there is only so much oil afterall), Canada can be a leader in new alternative energy technologies to the world. Canada has the unique oppertunity to do this because we currently have what the rest of the world eagerly wants - oil. We should use that resource to our collective advantage.

AF
said

I'm actually surprised that Suzuki would make this sort of a comment. How does paying more money fix the environment? Surely he (David Suzuki) knows that government will simply spend the money on something else and not the environment. I think Suzuki's reputation may have taken a bit of a hit from this ill-thought out comment.

Realistic
said

All this carbon footprint, greenhouse gas yap gives me the heavin jeebies!

Grain prices are already on the rise because instead of feeding the people its being used as fuel.

Contrary to popular belief methanol does not reduce vehicle emissions....just creates different ones.

If Suzuki and his off-the-wall bozos were to finally shut up just think of all the carbon dioxide which would NOT get into out atmosphere.

Let's be realistic, Governments love taxes and as much as I would love to buy one of those electric cars made in Quebec and be done with $1.19 per litre fossil fuel, the fact remains that as long as there remains fossil fuel in the ground, neither Government, Alberta, OPEC, nor the big oil magnates are going to do squat about mass-producing nor promoting alternative energy sources.

The greatest environmental contribution the Suzuki clan can make would be to stick to making motorcycles and econo-boxes that get 50 MPG or better

Kelly
said

David, David, David
Spoken like a pure research scientist and just like a politician, are you running for office? What corporations/industries on this planet are going to pay 50B more in taxes to the Canadian Government and not past the costs directly down to the consumers. It�s time to come out of the weeds into the real world with the rest of us. The 50B in �new tax revenue� will be required for the incentive programs needed to get new companies to come and set up shop in Canada, all the existing companies will be moved out and we all be, OH let's think "out of work" that will reduce the emissions won't it.
We need to be realistic, more government and taxes aren�t the answer.
Enough already with the sky is falling routine!
Kelly

JD - in Vancovuer
said

WOW !! As I read these comments, it shocks me to realize that there are so many, ignorant and short-sighted people in Canada. First to the guy that needs a grade 1 explanation on why a carbon tax is actually good for all of us, including him: a carbon tax will give corporations a powerful financial incentive to clean up their act and install / operate cleaner technology , as there is no incentive now. Yes, their product costs will go up we will be asked to pay more for their goods, but you as the consumer get the tax to help with that added cost. It will also create consumer demand for cleaner cars, appliances etc., again, because consumers will have a financial incentive to do so. So , if you still don't "get it" , you're beyond help. Maybe you love your giant SUV more than your children but most of us don't. Finally, you missed a very big little word in Suzuki's comments, a national carbon tax tax would give us the single most important component in the fight to reduce the GHG problem - $$ funds $$ with which to research and develop the the needed solutions!!

rosie
said

A lot of the comments on here are about global warming.the IPPC has been around since the early 90's,with projections and computer models predicting temperature rise etc.you can compare their projections wth actual global temperatures for the period 1990-2007.I've done it.i know how much the the globe has heated according to four separate agencies that measure global temps.I've compared them to the IPPC numbers.Everyone interested in the AGW theory should do this for themselves, then form an opinion based on facts and observation.a hint at what I've found...most of the data comes in at the low end of IPPC projections.

John B.
said

If they want to tax us that's fine with me; however, that money 'has' to be used to solve the problem. Money needs to be put into research, like what was found at the UofC this past week, where an inorganic complex is able to capture CO2. It also needs to be put into subsidy's for people who can't afford to go green.

I have a 91 V8 truck, sucks up a lot of gas let me tell you, but I'm a student and I can't afford to put out another $38k on a hybrid, I already owe that in student loans. I take the bus as much as possible but there are things you can't do on a bus. I also rent and have bought a programable thermostat, doesn't mean the windows hold in any heat, and if I request better windows my rent will go up.

These are just a couple of things that need to be thought of when it comes to a carbon tax. Is Mr. Suzuki going to help me out with buying a hybrid or help my landord with installing better window?

MRC
said

Income tax: created for World War II and never eliminated.
G.S.T.: created (for what reason?) and never eliminated. Thankfully, it's reduced after 2 decades!
Carbon tax: potentially to be created for moderate support of a young scientific theory...and I'll bet it'll never be eliminated.

NO MORE TAXES!
Anybody who thinks the long-term solution is taxation hasn't read the history books. We are taxed to death in this country (and don't get the returns like the Europeans do, for example).
Vast changes in technology and dealing with world overpopulation will solve the global-warming "crisis", not giving the government more money.

Michael Homsi
said

So long this Tax money doesn't go to the governments, I am ready to agree with you.
Having funds available to the Federal or Provincal Governments would be a waste, they will spend it as they see fit.
How can this be done, with the money safe for Environmental upgraded and to stop Global Warming ?

JNGardiner
said

Wow what a great idea! Let's tax industry to death so they can either pass along those extra costs to us or pack up shop and move to another country where it is less expensive to do business.
The Federal finance minister is calling for less corporate tax to strengthen our economy and David Suzuki (a geneticist) is calling for a new crushing corporate tax. Real bright!

Andrew
said

Funny how so many top regulators and scientists think that the large companies should pay for their polution with money. These companies in question aren't in business to lose money so obviously the cost of their product will rise to co-incide with the loss of revenue from the taxes, ergo, out of our pockets. It is hard enough to live these days without the added increase in food, hydro (BC hydro is now asking permission to raise rate AGAIN!), and having to drive (ICBC is in the process of raising rates) and fuel our vehicles which are needed just to get to work. If BC only adds 0.06% of the world's polution, why are our politician's so keen to take more of our money when most of us cannot even drum up enough for a downpayment on our first house.

I've travelled the world and know BC to be the most beautiful land I've seen, but the added costs of feeding my family is requiring me to rethink where I live.

Screw Suzuki and his diesel spewing bus which he travels the country in!

rosie
said

Anyone notice this?Suzuki says"what you'll find is that the corporate sector will begin to play the PROVINCES off on each other to try to find the best deal. I think everyone would agree its best if we have a level playing field across the COUNTRY."Now ,substitute PROVINCES with countries and COUNTRY with globe and ,voila you have what Baird was saying at Bali.

Jay
said

Every commentor here out bashing Mr. Suzuki is obviously just an attempt by the reich-wing freeping brigade to make it look as though public opinion is against this idea. The proof is in they attack Mr. Suzuki personally and don't actually lay out why the carbon tax is bad. Fruit-fly scientist is an example. The truth is any carbon tax is offset by a corresponding cut to income tax. It then becomes your choice how you spend. If you buy a dirty product it will cost you more than a green product. You can actually save more money than you do now if you make the right purchase choices. It actually gives you more monetary freedom. I thought you reich-wingers loved freedom?

Johnny
said

Com on is this guy serious? A $50 billion tax on the biggest polluters will not lead to a tax cut.

1) It would certainly cost jobs. This would mean that the government would have to give E.I. to the people who would lose their jobs.

2) All tax to the biggest polluters would automatic be transfered to the public.And to other industry in which they would turn around pass the buck to the public also.

Example just take a look when oil rises everyone from the airlines to the truck drivers all start to complain that they can't make it.

RC
said

What bothers me is he has stated this has helped to reduce emissions in other countries. What I'd like to know is did it reduce carbon because the companies being charged found better ways to reduce emissions OR a more likely scenario did they just move out of that country while the people consumed less because of higher pricing?

JM
said

I have to be honest- I�m a little overwhelmed by some of the hostile reaction (and ignorance) in the comments. I see a lot of people addressing the economic pitfalls of such a tax, and how all it will do is kill off more jobs and hurt the economy. Many of you are right in saying that Suzuki is not an economist... But then again it�s not like he wrote the report by himself. If you READ the article it cites one of the contributing authors as Marc Jaccard- and what do you know�he�s an economist.

My point- maybe stick to constructive rather than destructive bench warming comments. No one wants to give more money away in the form of taxes, but then again I don�t see a lot of alternatives that are truly viable for the near future. I give Suzuki credit for (at the very least) being an extremely active individual in our society, and that�s more than most of us can say. People are resistant to change when it impacts their way of life, we (north America) have been living the good life of consumption for quite awhile now� but the writing is on the wall. It�s about time people �man up� and take responsibility for their foot print.

Bring on the taxes...

David Dunlop
said

David Suzuki a man with a clear agenda willing to do or say anything to push it through. I'll grant him one thing though, that unlike the Liberals agenda it's not hidden.

If you really want to have an impact on global warming, buy Canadian local goods and nothing from China or India, the worlds worst polluters.

cherie
said

Start growing and producing local food and products. You'll keep our local people employed, our money here and reduce carbon footprints by stopping foreign goods being shipped here.

al
said

I find it amusing as Suzuki travels around the country preaching in a big bus, but its okay because he buys carbon credits, could he please tell me how these credits suck up the carbon he is producing, or is it if your rich and you can afford these credits then it is okay to pollute. Also here in Calgary they are going to a blue box system for recycling, maybe Mr Suzuki can tell me how when people don't recycle now why they will start when they have to pay for it. PS Everybody I know all go to the recycling bins and recycle now and most of them are going to say the hell with it and put it in their garbage instead myself included. ****NEW TAXES NEVER ENCOURAGE ANYBODY TO DO ANYTHING THEY DONT DO NOW WHEN WILL HE GET IT ****

Jack Martin
said

Wow - too bad the right wingers didn't have their own planet to burn up. Instead they'll take us all down with them. David Suzuki is a hero and the right wingers are still stuck on whether or not climate change is real or not. They always get hung up on the almighty dollar. Wake up and try to reprogram your little brainwashed minds! Look around and judge for yourself what is happening in the world.

Cor
said

The World will be out of oil in 10-15 years anyway. Problem solved.

Ken
said

Wouldn't putting a nuclear reactor in Northern Alberta drive a reduction of oil sands production GHG emissions? That alone would bring Canada back into Kyoto territory.

Jon
said

Can anyone please tell me if innovation will ever lead to the improvement in the environment? We live in a society driven by consumption. As technology improves and becomes more "green" we are just going to consume more of it leading to no environmental improvement. Think about it.. if I drive a more efficient car it will give me the excuse to drive it more..this will not lead to any reduction in pollution. Innovation is fabulous but it is always used to make our wallets bigger, rather than bettering society as a whole. Historically taxation allowed a collective society to improve, but we all know taxation inhibits market growth. That's the problem! Before we can implement a tax system we need to start caring about the people around us more than the size of our individual wallets. But we all know that caring for others contradicts market growth because that takes time away from producing and consuming. This is the problem with the current state of our economic system whether you want call it neo-liberalism or free market economics. It requires us to be narcissists for it to work. How can we solve environmental issues if we are all narcissists? How can we solve any social issue?

We need some sort of regulation or taxation..but before this can ever happen we have to start caring more about collective improvement. The question is is this possible in a neo-liberal economy?

My two cents
said

I Already drive a car that gets 50 mpg and have parked the Big truck, I don't know how much more of this I can take before it starts taking food off the table.

Raymond
said

I'm sure the Liberal 'government in waiting' are licking their collective lips at the prospect of $50B/year to squander on pointless, aimless, pet projects and friends. If this draconian tax is implemented, kiss Alberta goodbye. This is indeed a money-sucking socialist scheme designed to cut the rapidly expanding western provincial power-bases off at the ankles, and restore political might back to Ontario and Quebec.

Col
said

Why is it that so many people never hear the "lower other taxes to compensate" part? It's right there in the article. Suzuki says we could cut income tax -- in half! What part of the word 'SHIFT' in the phrase 'tax shift' do these people not get? It's like they hear the word 'tax' and lose what remains of their rationality so quickly that the word 'shift', mentioned only milliseconds afterwards, doesn't register. Amazing.

Jake Smith
said

Suzuki assumes that the polluter will absorb the cost of the carbon tax or take it out of their obscene profits. In reality, a carbon tax on domestic production will simply raise the cost of domestically produced products to consumers and result in them buying products from places that don't give a damn about carbon (China).

Wayne
said

I wish people would think with their head instead of reacting based on emotion.

A well-implemented tax is a good way to deal with polution. All it does is assign a cost to that polution (in this case CO2). Economics then takes over. If your products now cost too much because you polute more than your competition, you either figure out how to reduce your polution or you go out of business.

The challenge comes with globalization - we need a level playing field with the other countries so agreements between them need to be made.

As for the climate change issue, if you believe that climate change is a fact, I think that you are arrogant. Climate change is just a theory (currently the best one that scientists can put together based on observations, measurements, etc.) - it's what is expected to happen but not a fact.

But, if you believe that the earth will tolerate whatever we humans do to it, I think that you are ignorant. The earth will have a limit somewhere. Eventually, we may hit it. What happens then? Who knows and I for one would prefer to not be around when that happens.

But one other thing to keep in mind. CO2 is not just a greenhouse gas. It also affects the acidity of the oceans (think of carbonated soda/pop. It's an acid made by adding CO2 to water). The pH of the oceans are currently slightly basic. As more CO2 gets added to the air, more gets absorbed by the oceans and they become more acidic. Eventually, the ocean's water will start eating away at the shells, etc of the creatures in the oceans. These shells can only exist because the water is slightly basic. Will these creatures be able to survive and adapt?

Again, who knows?

Nick
said

Wow, it is clear that most of the comments above me have little to no idea or factual evidence as to what they are talking about. I find the "Global Warming is over because this winter is cold" particularly amusing, since, if you haven't noticed, there is a world outside North American borders and they have been experiencing Global warming while we have had an odd year where we saw temperatures decline. EDUCATE YOURSELVES PEOPLE!!! before you go and splurge your opinion on the general masses. As a young person I am glad this kind of ignorance is at end from the previous generation as we will need progressive thinkers in our future.

Denise
said

But don't you see, Sean, that increasing taxes does very little to encourage positive behavioural changes? Do you have any idea how many smokers there are out there who have been saying "I have to quit!" after every tax increase for the last 25 years? People always manage to find a way to justify NOT changing their habits one little bit. A tax increase eventually becomes so ingrained in the government's budget formula that it becomes a habit they can't kick. Why do you think the Liberals didn't lower EI premiums when they found they were collecting too much? They just rolled the excess into general revenue instead!

Doug
said

I've heard about enough from this guy.I guess if you've got his kind of wealth another tax grab is no big deal.
The solution to every problem cannot be simply more taxes.Frankly I think this is something people who don't have any real ideas are far to prone to suggest.
Lower and middle class people are being squeezed to the max as they watch their incomes and standard of living plummet.All at a time when literally every major government department is clamouring for increases to their respective budgets.
I favour moves to greener,more energy efficient programs.I just wonder if there are any really creative minds in this country.Ones who can see many ways that we can do better without further impoverishing Canadians.
And finally,I suggest he is becoming a bit to political,given the tax free status of his foundation.Talk about the science,Dave.Not the politics.
Fiscal realities and the big picture will always determine what we do,and how fast we do it.

Tom from PEI
said

I LOVE the idea. Don't see anything wrong with it. Reward the people who are doing their part for the environment.

Metro
said

If you don't believe global warming is a fact--despite the evidence and the opinion of literally thousands of actual climate scientists from around the world, then that's fine.

I'm not going to challenge you for putting beans in your ears. If you won't listen to the IPCC and all the others, why would you listen to me?

But why must you justify the continued pollution of the environment you live in?

Is there something you enjoy about that perceptible smell of sulphides and ketones when you step outside in the morning? Do you like knowing that in some cities merely breathing is the equivalent of smoking a pack a day?

Do you get some bizarre satisfaction out of watching the stacks smoke, knowing the effects will last long enough to poison your kids' kids?

This is a proposed consumption tax on the use of the most precious resource we have: our environment. And even the most rabid economic conservatives should get behind it.

Dr. Suzuki is a credible, ethical, scientist, and practices what he preaches. His proposals may possibly somehow do harm to the economy, but the only way to find out is to implement them, which under Stephen "take-two-aspirin-and-call-me-in-fifty-years" Harper, seems unlikely.

If you truly fear that an environmental consumption tax is going to drive Canadian industry offshore, then you haven't been paying attention. The low US dollar has sucked auto plants from Ontario already, with no carbon tax in sight. So let's not pretend that not having one would somehow keep the factories here. Pretty much anything that could be "offshored" has already gone.

As to the uses and possible misuses of this money, well that's really up to us, isn't it? Why not write to your MP and explain that you want the monies collected to be earmarked for employment programs (if you fear economic effects), or for green technology?

If nothing else, Dr. Suzuki has gotten the debate started.

The Bet
said

Well, tax the polluters (large industries) um, let me think...will then those polluters not come after us to pay for their taxes?

JF
said

I know, it stinks... just as oil prices skyrocket - along with profits for provinces like Alberta and NFL who, I must add, have historically struggled economically - global warming comes along and ruins the party. The 15% cut by 2050 by Alberta is really a joke and reveals a refusal to face the reality of climate change. Unfortunately, the reality is that the ecological fate of the planet far outweights the short term economic prosperity of a few provinces, a few oil prodicing countries for that matter, and a stiff national (and even international) carbon tax is the very least that is needed now. I too am very disappointed that the truth has turned out to be so inconvenient for Canada... for the oil producers in general. Very unfortunate but time has already passed to bite the bullet.

george
said

Just like the GST, it will never be used in which it was intended for. It's up to us to be responsible for our enviroment. Quit buying things that effect the enviroment. It's up to everybody to make a honest effort. Hand it to the government and they'll just screw it up.

Paul R
said

Let's start by having the goverment tax these so called charitable groups such as the David Suzuki foundation and the dozens and dozens of other 'Enviromental Groups'.
What is the colour of the sky in their world?

Ryan Palmquist
said

David Suziki IS known for his Common Sense "Al K", he's been a lifelong crusader for the environment regardless of the political climate, is well respected within scientific communities, and you should respect that regardless of whether or not you agree with him or not, not smear him.

And I find it interesting how so many on this board say David Suzuki should mind his own business and not talk about this subject he knows so very much about, while at the same time everyone was supporting the comments of Gen. Hillier when he stuck his nose into politics by suggesting that opposition parties were to blame for dead Canadian soldiers.

Scott
said

So, I just submitted my income tax forms yesterday; and I realize that a carbon tax whould be very effective at reducing polution. This is because after PAYING SO MUCH TAX I cannot afford to buy a car, let alone put gas in it. Thank you, mr. government, for making me so poor.

Bob Ster
said

Canadians are taxed to death as it is. If the gov't needs $50 billion dollars, how about using their current $50 billion EI surplus. Legalized theft.

Andy in Cambridge
said

he's right, it would generate a lot of money for the gov't. But what he doesn't mention, is that they would be stepping on our backs to get it

stephen d
said

There is no value added to the economy by a tax of any kind, revenue neutral is a nonsensical idea, what about administration costs.

Leave this to the free market, high energy prices will be quite adequate to encourage alternative sources.

Rolf
said

Where does David Suzuki think this new money will come from? Big business is just going to pass it on the the consumer/taxpayer, so all that will accomplish is to make it harder for the ordinary working person to get by.

Layton in Moncton
said

Wow what a bunch of closed minded capitalists we have here. Naysayers and the visionless. You see if some folks just stopped and looked at the entire big picture they would realize that: A) It is their own desire for cheap, cheap, cheap that has helped create this problem. Made on one side of the planet and shipped to the other. You see we can carbon tax China and India and so on. We do it when the goods arrive. This provides incentives to buy local. B) Carbon taxing mixed with some common sense will work and not destroy our economy. Reward those who conserve energy and penalize those who do not. Buy E85 and pay way less for it than conventional fuels. Why? Less carbon. Drop the HST/GST on flourescent lights, or hemp products, while increasing taxes on things like bottled water (a huge waste of energy). This drives people to the now cheaper and more ecologically friendly technologies, practices and fuels. Also if it generates consumer demand than it has worked as an incentive program.

Its called Supply and Demand and it can be manipulated by government. But I guess these few truths will be lost on the people who voted in the Conservatives, after all when the world was aghast that the ice caps were melting so quickly; the Conservatives shamed us again...by selling oil drilling leases in the newly exposed waters.

Throw these bums out before they really do some damage.

HG
said

Any carbon tax would be passed on to the consumer. The businesses never pay it David.

roz
said

This isn't just about global warming folks. This has to do with clean water supplies and breathable air. I live in Toronto and one of the weirder and scarier things about emmission laws in this city is that if you pollute under a certain amount you don't need to report ANYTHING. So we have businesses in industrial parks spewing next to each other causing chemical reactions that are not controlled and smog which is a direct result of pollution. This affects the air we breathe the water we drink and eventually the food we eat. Anything that reverses this trend is welcome.

There are rivers and streams in rural areas that due to feild runoff can no longer be used as drinking water. We have a reserve in Ontario surrounded by big polluters where for the first time in human history men are no longer being born in normal numbers and it didn't start happening until the industries set in. This is one of the few places where this is documented to be happening with people but it has been documentsed in the fish and amphibian population surrounding the great lakes. the birth ratioon on this reserve is for every 100 females 50 males are born and that number is in decline.

For more info check this out:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051218/reserve_pollution_051218

Jay
said

Good grief. First he wants politicians who do not engage in "double think" regarding his global warming mantra to be jailed. Now he wants all business to be taxed into oblivion, to support his theories. This man is losing it.

Some have commented that nothing will happen on the environment under Harper. Do not even go there if you are not willing to acknowledge that the Liberals, who had unfettered power in the 90s and early 2000s, did NOTHING on this portfolio. They had all the power in the world to enact Kyoto, but chose not to.

This global warming hysteria is reaching manic proportions, and needs to be reigned in.

Jack W
said

Suzuki, like most left-wing enviro-kooks, mean well, however they have no idea about living in the real world. We live in a Northern clime. Does he think we have a choice but to burn oil-based products ? 50B will destroy Canada, and living next to the US, will not make one iota of a difference in emissions. Perhaps governments could reduce the sales taxes to nil on hybrid and high efficiency vehicles? That "might" make a difference in our way of doing things. Until the big polluters, US, India, China & Russia make changes, we are just flushing our money down the toilet, and making our products more expensive for export. If this folly should come to pass, I would estimate it will cause 1 million job losses in Canada. Are you okay with that Suzuki (I refuse to call him doctor)?

Sean
said

To all those of you that portray the carbon tax as a left-wing conspiracy, please note that most economists across the political spectrum support it. Former George W. Bush chief economic advisor Greg Mankiw is a huge proponent of a carbon tax (see his blog at gregmankiw.blogspot.com). I suppose he's a crazy lefty, even though he defends time and again the Bush tax cuts?

Regulations to cut carbon emissions would also generate costs that are passed on to consumers; they would just be hidden. In fact, basic economics tells you that for any given reduction in CO2, a carbon tax is the least-cost measure.

AH
said

Governments love to have an excuse to raise taxes. This would be a waste of time and cuase nothing more than frust one more thing everyone seems to have forgotten, this planet has been varying its temperature over millions of years before we were around to have cars. I'm not saying don't clean up our act, but lets tone down the panic and get real.

Murray R
said

Many antiquated thoughts based on bad references.

Suzuki's plan is based on sound thinking. Why tax income (good) when you can tax inefficiency and waste (bad). You don't even need to believe in HI global warming to see that this move encourages moves towards efficiency (both energy and resources) and encourages innovation. And those of you who disagree, you say you prefer the current "new government" approach of letting the "market" and the provinces decide what to do? Well, don't forget that in the free market those companies that emerge more efficient and DON'T pass on the costs will get my business over those that don't.
Also, as a footnote, "coldest windet in decades"? Post a reference. Clearly demonstrates a primitive understanding of the issue and data (and I'm NOT convinced of HI global warming, but I do see much more bad data and out-of-context anecdotes on the sceptics side...).

The old lady
said

When I hear of this guy Suzuki walking every where and not riding around in planes, maybe and a big maybe we could consider what he is advocating. Has he considered the raise in cost of everyting we buy if businesses are hit with a carbon tax? We living on pensions barely get by now. His ideas just won't work.

DW
said

Suzuki has no idea the government will just take the extra money they make and give them selves a raise or waist it some other way. He should also get his own provincial government to get a good public transit system going not the token one they have now. BC has the largest amount of people that are wanting to do something about the environment yet they do not make their own government to do something about the LRT, Sky Train or other means of public transport. SO GET ON IT Mr SUZUKI START AT HOME

Concerned Engineer
said

I felt obligated as an engineer to at least shed some light on global warming. Carbon Dioxide is a so-called "greenhouse gas," which is simply a gas in the atmosphere that absorbs radiant energy from the sun and helps to warm the Earth. Carbon Dioxide is a byproduct of combustion so it goes without saying that vehicles and energy plants are raising the CO2 levels at an exponential rate. So people really need to understand that global warming is very real, it is only it's severity that is unproven. Personally, even if it's not as severe as Al Gore says, should we really be upset that we're keeping our planet healthy?

Chad in London
said

Let's not take what David Suzuki says as gospel. He is nothing more than a left-leaning scientist who is trying to further his own agenda like everyone else. We certainly need to protect the environment, but the media and "chicken-little screamers" like Al Gore and Suzuki have no proof what the world looked like thousands of years ago, so stop your "sky is falling" sermons..we are tired of them. And Roger...from your previous post....Income Tax in Canada came in to help for the bill for WWI not WWII. Get your facts straight please.

J-F (Ottawa)
said

David Suzuki should stick to Profiles of Nature...It seems his profiles of economic understandings are inadequate!

Good idea in theory, but it would never work.

The reward for Canadians making such efforts (lightbulbs, buses etc..) is a better environment in the future. That should be enough.

Sean
said

AL K, I think it's you who isn't getting it.

The point of a carbon tax is to reduce emissions, not to raise taxes that governments may or may not spend wisely.

In other words, the point is to provide the incentive for people to use less.

Rob
said

I remember watching an interview to him asking him whether he knows how much would it cost to Canada's economy the implementation of Kyoto. Well the guy did not know...... enough said!

End of oil
said

Say what you like about Suzuki but the premise remains: one day oil will run out and then where will we be?
Burning fuel harms our health and thus creates a strain on our health care system which is fractured enough (not to mention the legions of people in this country who are getting old fast).
I say raise fuel taxes and on single use items (eg. coffee cups, styrofoam) that clog our dumps and put it into green mobility, the days of everyone having their own personal vehicle are numbered...

Ed
said

Why some people can only think tax is the only way I will never understand.Carbon tax will cause prices to rise which will cause inflation to rise. This will swallow those PHONY TAX REFUNDS!

Take a look at what Germany has done by using tax INCENTIVES. Go on Google and see the amazing proof.

A Realist
said

Though I like the idea of improving the environmental accountability of large corporations, it needs to be done through regulation and inspection not by adding additional taxes. If you add taxes the companies will re-locate as the taxes in this country are high enough that if you add more they will either pass it on to the Canadian consumers, or leave the country. Either way this is not dealing with the issues just giving it to someone else to deal with.

Colin
said

How much energy has been wasted with Suzuki's press conference, not to mention the vehicles for the media to get to it. What about all the power used to read the article or see it on TV? If Suzuki really cared about the environment, he would shut up and stop creating Greenhouse gases by talking too much. Oh and I agree with Roger, but Income tax was created to pay for WW1 not 2 and were supposed to be discontinued at the end of WW1 - yes 90 years ago!!

roz
said

There might not be a reduction in income tax but there would be an increase in green industry and a decrease in pollutants.

I'm okay with this and my lungs will love it.

Taxman!
said

No more tax!

We pay (in ont):
- Income tax
- Pension Fund
- OHIP Fees
- UI
- GST
- PST
- Liqour
- Municpal Taxes
- and a few I'm sure I left out.

I figured out the other day that if you earn about $30 an hour, your take home is acutally around $18-$19/hr.

So your telling me that a carbon tax is going to make life easier? What a load of crap. I totally agree that we need to reduce emissions, and conserve - which many of us are doing. But to give us an additional tax, on top of all the others, to save the planet, is a load of bunk! Green party wanted something like this in there election platform, and it's why I would never vote for them.

You want to reduce emissions, give people more of their hard earned money back for doing things like:
- Buying energy efficient appliances
- Carpooling
- Energy efficient home upgrades
- Creating their own clean electricity - solar or wind...

There are alot of good ways to do good things, but traditionally once the government takes money for one purpose, it never goes away. Don't believe me? Income tax was brought in as a temporary measure to pay for WWI. Now I could be wrong, but I believe the war has been over for a little while....

Rick
said

Attention, Attention all environmentalists. I am so tired of the arrogance and shortsightedness shown by so many in this new religion. Consensus among environmental scientists is not proof of man made climate change. Computer models designed by environmental scientists are not proof of man made climate change.

Climate change has been going on ever since the world began. Any of the true scientific studies that I have seen, indicate that man�s influence on climate change is miniscule at best. I do not understand why these environmentalists are trying to stop something that has been naturally occurring for millions of years and will undoubtedly continue, regardless of what actions �man� takes. I am very concerned that these attempts to stop this natural process may have very dire consequences for our planet.

Instead of trying to stop something that we should not and can not, we should be putting our recourses into reacting to climate change. In this regard environmentalists are completely misguided. I to am concerned about the environment, but I�d rather see us cleaning up polluted air, land, rivers and lakes rather than throwing all theses resources at a useless endeavour.

I do understand the most hard line environmentalists are of a younger age set and as such, are very idealistic and easily influenced. A great man once said; �if you�re young and not a liberal you have no heart � if you�re old(er) and not a conservative you have no brain.� HOW TRUE!

PBW
said

Suzuki says that "Millions of Canadians are taking steps each day to conserve energy, whether by taking public transit, changing their light bulbs or turning down their thermostat". He should also remember that those same people are also consuming goods from "carbon-intensive industries and activities [that]severely damage our climate". They also work for those industries, producing the wealth that Suzuki wants to throw away. He is full of ideas about how to tax but conspicuously short on what to do with those taxes.

For example, he suggests using that tax money to "cut personal income taxes". So: tax people just to reduce their taxes - nice logic. No doubt he would also favor shipping that tax money abroad to "buy" carbon credits: money spent on nothing more than the Emperor's New Clothes.

I think that Suzuki should just re-read what he said: "Millions of Canadians are taking steps each day to conserve energy, whether by taking public transit, changing their light bulbs or turning down their thermostat" and concentrate on getting more to do the same. He should stick to what he knows - he obviously has no grasp of public finance.

Doug
said

It is good to see some leadership on this issue. Ideas should not be feared. The Harper approach (shutting down debate and firing those that disagree) will not move this debate forward. Attack the idea with sound debate but the personal insults will not move us forward.

Eric
said

People are paying upwards of 50% more for gasoline/diesel now than they were 5-6 years ago. However, as a society we still drive just as much. When are these people going to realize that people drive largely because we *need* to, not want to. Higher costs aren't a deterrent to driving but it certainly does hurt those that can least afford it and takes money out of our economy.

Jimmy
said

People just don't get it lately... what is with you? The government is doing the right thing when it makes it cheaper for the big corperations to build and operate in Canada. This stimulates economic growth and provides new job opportunaties for our population, by attracting businesses. Layton and his supporters object to this, but even the Liberals have enough common sense to see it! The NDP wish to play Robin Hood - steal from the rich and give to the poor... unfortuantely this is the real world which we live in - and if we raise operating costs (Taxes/Carbon Taxes) these industries will simply leave and go to the states or overseas. Then we have a bunch of people with lower taxes, but what's the point when there are no jobs?? Then the same people complaining here now about Harper ruining us - will be complaining that our economy is falling, and blaming that on him as well.

The environment is improving, or at least we as a population are - here in Canada, even though we didn't cut our own heads off with the Kyoto Accord. As our technology improves year by year, we'll do better and better.

David Suzuki should stick to his specialty - the Environment - and leave the real experts to take care of the finances - the ECONOMISTS!!! There are plenty of trees out there which look lonely. Perhaps they need a hug. Suzuki supporters complaining about our carbon levels should turn off their computers and save the environment - and our time in reading about it.

I AM SICK OF TAXES
said

We already pay hefty income tax, tax on our property, tax for school, tax on everything we purchase.
If this tax is just for business and government offices who leave their lights on 24 hours a day I say go for it.

If you are planning on taxing my gas or my house then Mr Suzuki come and pay my bills so I can afford your taxes.

Sounds to me like he is going to have every poor person who lives in low income and poorly insulated homes freezing to death. Those people unfortunately have to keep their heat on higher just to maintain a nominal amount of warmth in their house. I know, I grew up in those houses.

It is always easy to just add tax to our overtaxed wallets. How about the powers in Ottawa actually find a way to rearrange the spending so that we can keep what few dollars we have left in our own wallets.

RMc
said

LOVE the idea!. we have to do something wile we still have a planet to act people.

AJ
said

im a conservative and i think this is a great idea. penalize those who pollute.

Jay-mo
said

Suzuki is a fruit-fly scientist who publicly advocates for politicians who disagree with him to imprisoned.
More taxes? The government could start by taxing Suzuki's so-called charitable organization. That seems to be more of a front for political lobbying then charitable causes.

Land of living skies
said

This is a true left leaning idea, which will only slow down the economy and acomplish nothing.
Let us watch the BC model for a few years while the sun starts its process of cooling.

Soon the climate will moderate and we will all quit talking about the enviroment. At that point we will start looking to wear beaver hats again, because it is will be so damn cold in the winters.

kw
said

Would someone explain to me how a carbon tax physically reduces greenhouse gases?

Colin in Kitchener
said

Excatly who elected David Suzuki anyway? That's right no one.If global warming does exist it isn't going to be solved by taxation and wearing green shoes to deliver your budget. Tax big business they will go elsewhere to do business. But hey who cares if you have a job when the lefties can sleep good at night.

reid
said

Suzuki's credibility is zero.After his goofy'put politicians in jail'comment,instead of finding him a hypocrite,most people are just ignoring him.

Robert B.
said

Carbon Tax??

Let me see now if I've got this straight
# 1. You create a tax , # 2 You alledgedly give it back to those who paid it.
# 3. This is all done with no cost to anyone???

Only Suzuki and his group of millionaires could come up with a hairbrain scheme like this.

Martin
said

How come some really smart people are so dumb? Does this fruit fly scientist not realize that if corporations are charged billions in taxes that they will just pass that favour on to all of us poor consumers.

Reduce income tax? Yeah sure, at the cost of vastly increased prices for , well everything!!!

D in Calgary
said

I would be interested to see that math. Collecting tax is dependant on there being money to collect. I'm no economist, but if it costs more to do business, won't less business be done? And if less business is done, wouldn't there be less money? Besides, NDP and Liberal parties (any govt for that matter) have poor track records for giving back tax money.

Milos, Montreal
said

I hold D. Suzuki in a great respect for his common sense. As others indicated, even if we agree to pay the carbon tax, where will this money be spent ? You know, politicians preach water while drinking wine! I bet the money will go against economy, education and healthcare system. Every time we go to the doctor we'll have to pay extra for visits, drugs, etc. 50 billion$ will go to sponsoring big businesses not to Canadians that need more money in their pockets! Our pensions are tragic, we cannot live with 1000$/month.

Neil
said

Again "we the people" pay more as well as take the blame for pollution and global warming, while the fat cats Voted in give Industrial Polluters and refineries tax breaks and incentives to Increase their production to pump more toxins into the air and water we use and we are the ones to pay.

Mark Voltman
said

Doesn't sound like the Suzuki foundation has thought this one through too much. Why even bother qualifying his new super tax with the word 'carbon'. Why not just recommend a $6 tax on every banana sold in Canada and extol the virtues of our new annual $50 billion green fund. And what $50 billion widget would Mr. Suzuki recommend we purchase to fix our pollution problems. Pollution sources are not a mystery in Canada. Why doesn't Mr. Suzuki recommend which communities get a) their hydro shut off b) their places of employment shutdown, and c) their car keys taken away from them to solve his carbon problem.
A *new* government tax to fix our woes, what a unique concept. Not overly surprising. I hope we tax payers didn't spend too much for this 'report'.

mark
said

Of course Dr. Suzuki will propose more taxes. Sadly, this former geneticist, now left-wing activist has bought-in to the Marxist ideology that taxation solves all ills. Perhaps Dr. Suzuki might be best to take his agenda some economically viable socialist state that is a leader in growth and development across the world.

Oh...but wait a sec. There really aren't any are there? Maybe he should go talk to Hugo Chavez, Raoul Castro or Vladimir Putin-maybe he will find his socialist buddies more receptive to his 'make the rich pay' agenda.

It's like this David: Taxation discourages investment. Create market incentives and the market will take care of itself. David Suzuki and the comments of 'ET' are typical of the leftist anti-business agenda that has become so..."Canadian".

James P
said

So when this new tax comes in, what do you think big business is gonna do??? They are not going to absorb this tax, they are going to pass it on to the consumer. So really, who is gonna pay for it in the end? US!!....and i don't mean the United States.

Keep dreaming David, cause big business runs the world.

bob ward
said

"Those revenues could be used to cut personal income taxes or invest in green innovations, it said"

Yeah right, imagine the outrage Suzuki would feign, if a future government used the money for tax cuts instead of "green" technology.

BTW with the coldest winter in decades...it looks like this global WARMING goose is just about cooked

Shan
said

The David Suzuki Foundation may be very knowledgable about environmental issues, but it is painfully obvious that they know nothing about economics. They speak as though this will generate 50 Billion in new revenue. All that will happen is that those additional costs will be passed on to the industries and again on to consumers, fueling serious inflation, economic recession, and the loss of many jobs. I would favor a more thought-out plan for reducing our impact on the environment by funding and encouraging the research, development, and implementation of new technologies that can make such reductions as well as for initiatives that help us to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

Anthony
said

The additional tax on gasoline, wrapped up in an "environmental excuse" is amazing.
As if there were not enough taxes on a liter of gas already.
So while we will be paying more and more tax on the other side of the globe another 100,000,000 Chinese - 3 times population of Canada -- will want to drive
their new cars and I doubt they will give "a flying canadian goose" about the fact that we will have to pay more tax in BC...
If our politicans wanted to help " environment" they should have been against the price hikes we now have to pay for public transportation. It now cost $3.75 one way from West End to North Vancouver. For $ 7.50 I may as well drive over there.
Where is the logic, tell me .... aaah it is now that magic word - save the environment

johnn
said

Wish David Suzuki would mind his own flippin' business.

My theory is that the current "global warming" (if in fact such a thing exists) is part of a (10,000, 100,000 or 25,000 year) cycle. Nothing we as humans do will change that. Long ago, this part of the world (Northern USA & Canada) were covered with ice.
It melted (retreated?) without the "help" of humans. The New York Finger lakes are there as a reminder.

Go find a different pulpit, David (or better: a different message)!

Roger T
said

Politics is no place for Suzuki, his comments only means that more money will be flowing into his pocket and all the other pro-claim scientists. We do not need another tax, what we need is having the media and all the pro-claim scientist,enviromental groups stop all the whining and start living their lives normally. They keep whining yet I don't see them doing much. They're still doing what life requires them to do, live, which means drive a car,watch TV, use a PC....have they given up on that? If not than it's all irrelavant to what they preach.

Roger - no new taxes
said

Thanks but No Thanks. Income taxes were an invention to help pay for WWII. they were so good the governments of the day and since never got around to cancelling them. I don't believe for a second that a NEW tax on me now will be followed with an equivalent income tax cut. It will be nothing but a new tax grab. Enough is enough - hands off my wallet.

ET
said

Well, it's about time someone thought of a good way to penalize big business, and reward the people, for all the damage the businesses are doing. More and more people I meet are doing their part, while business is sorely lagging behind. Businesses should be all over it by now. And people like the Conservatives are largely responsible for causing the doubts people and businesses have had for so long. The people should be compensated for business' lack of responsibility and actions. When places like Oilberta get let off the tax (not to mention environmental) hook for 15 years, and make billions in profit every year, something isn't right. The general population and environment are the ones paying the price, and it's time that direction was reversed! Put those burdens back on the companies.

Vic
said

Suzuki is right. Canada needs to shift to an off oil economy with a new tax structure that penalizes oil consumption and encourages energy efficiency. Unfortunately, we won't get that with the Harperites in power!!

Peter
said

Yes Suzuki !
Say it louder and ask government to spell out the reasons for resisting it!

Timy Tim
said

Noooo, no more taxes... please...

Bill
said

Wow take $50 billion dollars out of the economy, that would reduce pollution because people would not have jobs, so they would not have cars to pollute, they would not be able to afford home heating/cooling so that would save the enviroment and oh yeah get rid of those nasty cows because people wouldn't be able to afford food. What world do you live in Mr. Suzuki?

AL K
said

David Suzuki is not known for his common sense.

He just doesn't get it. If the governments collect any new tax, they find new ways to waste that money. There would not be any reduction in income taxes.

Governments love taxes. Think back to the GST ,a new tax, but did we get any reduction in income taxe or any other taxes. Nope.

Suzuki should keep his good ideas to himself. I am getting really tired of him.

Related Websites

David Suzuki Foundation report

Most Viewed News Stories

View More News Stories

Most Talked about Stories

It is about time - as a grandparent I have watched our kids (who were allowed to fail although I do remember some nagging on our part) learn, I have watched our children now micro-manage their children. A big part of it is the fact that there are predators out there and an extreme reluctance on the parents part to alllow freedom that might result in the children becoming victims.

Harvey

Parents must learn to stop meddling, author urges

Got something to say? Share on CTV News

Pick your location

Top Stories -

News Sections

News Programs

Features

Browse: