Canada 2020
June 16, 2015 10:12 PM Subscribe
Canada 2020, a progressive think tank, released a blueprint for policy change today: Setting the New Progressive Agenda [PDF].
Google, CN and Telus are listed as well.
Anyway kind of weird to see actual ideas about how to improve Canada after 10 years of Harper.
posted by Nevin at 11:52 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Anyway kind of weird to see actual ideas about how to improve Canada after 10 years of Harper.
posted by Nevin at 11:52 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
There is a lot of red in that blueprint and it's pretty clear that the proposal to pay for all of these goodies via a carbon tax means that developing Canada's energy resources is a fundamental part of the agenda of the progressive left. At least it's a proposal for how to pay for all of this fairness, but it's a really bad idea.
First, the idea of a carbon tax isn't to create a new source of funding for progressive dreams, it's supposed to discourage the use of carbon. Using it as a revenue source - particularly as a source of revenue for a "progressive" agenda - will make it all the more likely (and imperative) that more of the stuff is exported.
Secondly, any carbon tax paid by a first world country like Canada should go to third world countries which are suffering from the climate change brought on by Canada's past industrial development and exports of coal and oil. So most if not all of the revenue collected by a Canadian carbon tax - if it's a real carbon tax - won't be spent in Canada, but rather will be diverted away from Canada.
Of course if what the progressive left really means by "carbon tax" is just higher taxes on everyone they should come out and make that part of their agenda and not give the illusion that someone else will pay.
posted by three blind mice at 2:53 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
First, the idea of a carbon tax isn't to create a new source of funding for progressive dreams, it's supposed to discourage the use of carbon. Using it as a revenue source - particularly as a source of revenue for a "progressive" agenda - will make it all the more likely (and imperative) that more of the stuff is exported.
Secondly, any carbon tax paid by a first world country like Canada should go to third world countries which are suffering from the climate change brought on by Canada's past industrial development and exports of coal and oil. So most if not all of the revenue collected by a Canadian carbon tax - if it's a real carbon tax - won't be spent in Canada, but rather will be diverted away from Canada.
Of course if what the progressive left really means by "carbon tax" is just higher taxes on everyone they should come out and make that part of their agenda and not give the illusion that someone else will pay.
posted by three blind mice at 2:53 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
particularly as a source of revenue for a "progressive" agenda
Rosa Luxemburg was as right a hundred years ago a she is today.
posted by clarknova at 3:08 AM on June 17, 2015
Rosa Luxemburg was as right a hundred years ago a she is today.
posted by clarknova at 3:08 AM on June 17, 2015
Rosa Luxemburg was as right a hundred years ago a she is today.
She proposed a carbon tax 100 years ago to discourage the use of fossil fuels as a source of energy?
Don't get me wrong. I am all for a carbon tax, but not as a replacement for or augmentation to other taxes. A carbon tax has to bite hard enough that it should discourage the use of fossil fuels and if it does that the amount of tax collected from it should decrease - ideally to zero. Since most social spending tends to grow with time, a carbon tax which effectively discourages people from using carbon could not provide a stable long term source of financing for social spending.
So what happens is what you see in most every city that has introduced a congestion tax where the "it's good for the environment" money goes into the general fund. The charge gets set to maximize revenue which means as high as possible, but not so high as to actually discourage anyone from driving and in the end it has to be manipulated to encourage enough people to drive into the zones it so that revenue targets can be met. It's not a carbon tax at all, it's a tax that has the perverse effect of not really discouraging the use of fossil fuels and not only that is utterly dependent upon their continued, increasing use.
posted by three blind mice at 4:22 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
She proposed a carbon tax 100 years ago to discourage the use of fossil fuels as a source of energy?
Don't get me wrong. I am all for a carbon tax, but not as a replacement for or augmentation to other taxes. A carbon tax has to bite hard enough that it should discourage the use of fossil fuels and if it does that the amount of tax collected from it should decrease - ideally to zero. Since most social spending tends to grow with time, a carbon tax which effectively discourages people from using carbon could not provide a stable long term source of financing for social spending.
So what happens is what you see in most every city that has introduced a congestion tax where the "it's good for the environment" money goes into the general fund. The charge gets set to maximize revenue which means as high as possible, but not so high as to actually discourage anyone from driving and in the end it has to be manipulated to encourage enough people to drive into the zones it so that revenue targets can be met. It's not a carbon tax at all, it's a tax that has the perverse effect of not really discouraging the use of fossil fuels and not only that is utterly dependent upon their continued, increasing use.
posted by three blind mice at 4:22 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Fuck Harper.*
*Just getting this requisite comment out of the way.
posted by Fizz at 5:09 AM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
*Just getting this requisite comment out of the way.
posted by Fizz at 5:09 AM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
3BM, you're missing the first two comments. I don't think you can call the organization responsible for this report "the progressive left" with a straight face. "Big business" would be a more appropriate catch-all.
posted by sneebler at 6:44 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by sneebler at 6:44 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
How are we supposed to tell the "Progressive and non-partisan" think tanks run by large corporations from "independent Canadian public policy research and educational organizations" run by US Libertarians who claim they're not? What about an "innovative research and education charity" with a history of promoting right-wing crankery and abject climate change denial? No wait, an "independent economic and social policy think tank" that espouses the same line on market freedom and Conservative economic policy as the rest of the "independents"? What about this "independent, non-partisan, not-for-profit research and educational organization", surely they're not just another free-market think tank clone claiming to offer independent analysis, are they*?
This is Canada's problem: We're awash in independent, non-partisan analysis!
*(Sorry, I've left out a bunch of other "independent, non-partisan" organizations run by Conservative/Free-market promoters because I've run out of time.)
posted by sneebler at 8:19 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
This is Canada's problem: We're awash in independent, non-partisan analysis!
*(Sorry, I've left out a bunch of other "independent, non-partisan" organizations run by Conservative/Free-market promoters because I've run out of time.)
posted by sneebler at 8:19 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Let's call a spade a spade: Canada2020 is a Liberal think tank. They don't represent Canadian progressives in any kind of broad way. They aren't even trying to hide it with their red colour scheme. This is plain old electioneering.
And, TBM, if you actually read this, it is mostly about a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
The suggestion seems to be for a $40/t carbon tax, which will do very little. That's $0.09 per litre of gasoline. We already have a $30/t carbon tax in BC and it certainly isn't doing much. An effective carbon tax would have to be much higher, likely an order of magnitude higher.
There has been a real shift in the business sector in Canada from opposition to all carbon taxes to many businesses supporting a small and ineffective carbon tax. Unfortunately, that's more about image and the all-important social license and doesn't have much to do with the real change that we desperately need.
posted by ssg at 8:40 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
And, TBM, if you actually read this, it is mostly about a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
The suggestion seems to be for a $40/t carbon tax, which will do very little. That's $0.09 per litre of gasoline. We already have a $30/t carbon tax in BC and it certainly isn't doing much. An effective carbon tax would have to be much higher, likely an order of magnitude higher.
There has been a real shift in the business sector in Canada from opposition to all carbon taxes to many businesses supporting a small and ineffective carbon tax. Unfortunately, that's more about image and the all-important social license and doesn't have much to do with the real change that we desperately need.
posted by ssg at 8:40 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
She proposed a carbon tax 100 years ago to discourage the use of fossil fuels as a source of energy?
She was right in that all attempts at mere reform are eventually co-opted by powers who stood to lose something with thier implementation.
In reading your comment I see you agree.
posted by clarknova at 10:25 AM on June 17, 2015
She was right in that all attempts at mere reform are eventually co-opted by powers who stood to lose something with thier implementation.
In reading your comment I see you agree.
posted by clarknova at 10:25 AM on June 17, 2015
Canada, Tomorrow's Superpower :P
for progressive policies,* look to the UK green party! (and scandinavian social democracy ;)
---
*like let's hear more about money financed fiscal stimulus as much as electronic money!
posted by kliuless at 11:00 AM on June 17, 2015
for progressive policies,* look to the UK green party! (and scandinavian social democracy ;)
---
*like let's hear more about money financed fiscal stimulus as much as electronic money!
posted by kliuless at 11:00 AM on June 17, 2015
developing Canada's energy resources is a fundamental part of the agenda of the progressive left
This seems, well, wrong. Canadians emit massive amounts of carbon for transportation and heating, and an effective carbon tax would apply to that whether or not the oil comes from Canadian sources. I agree with your point about it being an unstable revenue source though.
I'd also note that there are a lot of very legitimate researchers in that document, regardless of where the think tank's funding comes from. Nic Rivers, Michael Geist, Kevin Milligan and Mark Savile are the ones I recognize.
posted by ripley_ at 11:21 AM on June 17, 2015
This seems, well, wrong. Canadians emit massive amounts of carbon for transportation and heating, and an effective carbon tax would apply to that whether or not the oil comes from Canadian sources. I agree with your point about it being an unstable revenue source though.
I'd also note that there are a lot of very legitimate researchers in that document, regardless of where the think tank's funding comes from. Nic Rivers, Michael Geist, Kevin Milligan and Mark Savile are the ones I recognize.
posted by ripley_ at 11:21 AM on June 17, 2015
Basically, the political choice for the next ten years in all the Western Countries is between (1) making everybody significantly poorer (via truly progressive policies nobody will vote for) or (2) making everybody except the 'top 1% of the top 1%' even poorer than that (via conservative/libertarian policies already winning most of the elections). I know what I'm expecting.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:45 PM on June 17, 2015
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:45 PM on June 17, 2015
sponsored by CAPP, Rio Tinto, Enbridge
I looked in the document, and even saw:
Facebook Canada,
TELUS, and
Hill+Knowlton Strategies
listed*, but not Enbridge or Rio Tinto. Where did you find those?
*(thereby leaving no doubt that evil is involved in this production).
posted by not_that_epiphanius at 5:13 PM on June 17, 2015
I looked in the document, and even saw:
Facebook Canada,
TELUS, and
Hill+Knowlton Strategies
listed*, but not Enbridge or Rio Tinto. Where did you find those?
*(thereby leaving no doubt that evil is involved in this production).
posted by not_that_epiphanius at 5:13 PM on June 17, 2015
Let's call a spade a spade: Canada2020 is a Liberal think tank.
That's what I thought. It even has Liberal branding. And that nitwit Trudeau shows up on the home page. As a former card-carrying (federal) Liberal it will be so, so sweet to see Trudeau go down the drain later this year.
posted by Nevin at 5:20 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
That's what I thought. It even has Liberal branding. And that nitwit Trudeau shows up on the home page. As a former card-carrying (federal) Liberal it will be so, so sweet to see Trudeau go down the drain later this year.
posted by Nevin at 5:20 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
not_that_epiphanius, scroll down a lot on the web page. I only called out the three most obvious.
posted by Tad Naff at 12:35 AM on June 18, 2015
posted by Tad Naff at 12:35 AM on June 18, 2015
« Older You had Cersei at Pinot Noir | short video: Avalanche! Run rabbit, run! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Tad Naff at 11:39 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]