An honest carbon tax

The carbon prices governments like Ontario and Alberta are imposing starting next year — between $17 and $30 per tonne of industrial carbon dioxide emissions — are too low to be effective.

That makes them cash grabs by governments desperate for money, not environmental taxes to reduce emissions.

  • ontario john

    But she looks after the unions really well. The Globe and Mail reports that her sick leave policy for teachers will cost one billion dollars a year.

  • Ron MacDonald

    The Star wrote today she the most unpopular premier with a 20% approval rate, it’s probably more like 5% approval rate.

    • David Smith

      and if there was another election?

      • Kaye92

        The Liberals would win, of course. I’ve given up on Ontario, personally. Enough of the electorate is bought and paid for by Big Government, one way or another, that things will not change: no Trump in Ontario’s future.

        • Alain

          Not only that but there is no real alternative. The so-called PCs keep trying to outdo the Liberals with Liberal policies.

  • Ho Hum

    So much for being a “conservative” newspaper. The the SUN is advocating for carbon taxes?

    • simus1

      A tax which the stupid voters don’t really understand slits their throats and accomplishes exactly nothing else attracts all crooked politicians.

    • moraywatson

      Goldstein has jumped the shark. And Patrick Brown is advocating for carbon taxes too. Ontariowe is going down the tubes.

      • Alain

        Goldstein jumped the shark long ago when SNN still existed.

  • ontario john

    Ah, come on! Someone has to pay for the millions of dollars she is giving whiny indians to fight global warming.

  • B__2

    As the Australians found out, the Carbon Tax is just another way to further tax everyone but particularly affecting the middle class:
    1) The government announces a Carbon Tax to dissuade activities that produce carbon dioxide.
    2) They say the Carbon Tax must be high enough to dissuade such activities, otherwise it will have little effect. The government might also make use of a percentage usage of energy sourced from ‘renewable energy’ mandatory, despite its vastly non-competitive cost.
    3) The government looks at the political risks of vastly increasing the living costs for the poor lower classes and possibly losing the next election by angering these people.
    4) They announce government subsidies or grants for the poor to mitigate the effects of the Carbon Tax. The middle class thereby bear the brunt of the Carbon Tax.
    5) Almost every industry is affected by the Carbon Tax and passes on these tax costs in the pricing of its products – or goes out of business.
    6) The subsidies or grants to the poor might cover direct increases for electricity bills but probably won’t cover the increased indirect costs.

    Results:
    * The government receives the increased tax revenue for themselves, allowing them to spend more money
    * The government can send money to their favourite ‘renewable energy’ companies or industries to make them appear financially viable.
    * The government makes a class of people even more dependent on government handouts or tax mitigation to counter the increased living costs, thus securing their support of these people
    * The government controls every human activity and every industry since they all use energy derived in part or whole from carbon dioxide.
    * The government can issue tax waivers for favoured companies so they can avoid Carbon Taxes on some of their carbon dioxide emissions, making such companies bend to the will of the government to get these waivers.

    • mauser 98

      great piece.. will copy and forward