The issue for conservatives isn't really one of science or if we need to do something about climate change.

conservatives are really only the wealthy elites. That they have convinced so many to follow them blindly and vote against their own interests is shocking.

conservativism is based on one premise - greed. It's the wealthy elites that refuse to give up any of their privilege or wealth. They oppose a carbon tax because they disagree with any form of taxation, and they disagree with any concept of government that includes taxation. So they go off the entire concept that taxes are bad, and since a carbon tax is a tax, it must be bad.

Now, I'm also of the opinion that there should never be rebates, but rather the income from the CT should be used to develop and support green infrastructure ( e.g. nationwide EV charging grid, high speed maglev trains, etc)

I agree...greed, and control. When I think of modern conservatives I think about a scene from the movie Key Largo (you'll have to do the voices yourselves).

Lionel Barrymore was asking gangster Edward G. Robinson what he wanted by returning to the States at Key Largo after having been deported. Humphrey Bogart pipes up and answers "I'll tell you what he wants.....he wants more.". Robinson happily agrees, saying "Yeah....that's it....i want more!"

To me this perfectly explains modern conservatism and the people they work for. They want "more", and nothing will ever satisfy them.

Whether or not you believe that implementing a carbon tax at this time is good public policy for Canada, I don't think there's anyone who can reasonably conclude that a carbon tax will be effective, it will have ZERO effect on lowering global CO2 emissions. Many argue that implementation of carbon taxes in relatively efficient western nations will increase global emissions as production shifts to locations where a carbon tax is not imposed.

Increase in total fossil CO2 emissions 1990-2017:

Top four western economies

United States 0.4%
Japan 15.0%
Germany -21.8%
United Kingdom -35.7%

Canada (7th) 35.0%

China 353.7%
India 305.1%

At the moment people are simply moaning as the sting is yet to be felt. The top roughly 20% will virtue signal as the tax will not be a significant impediment to that demographic's living standards, they will simply direct their consumption habits to increased efficiencies. The bottom 20%, those who are generally renters and do not own private transport will likely not be affected to any great degree and may come out slightly ahead due to the rebates. These are the people on this forum who insist, despite much evidence to the contrary, that the tax is completely revenue neutral. They have "drunk the kool-aid". It is the middle 60%, the working class and the broad middle class who will feel a palpable decline in living standards, as many are already struggling to make ends meet and are unable to afford the expenditures necessary for increased efficiency in the home and for transportation. Also, many in this group are also likely to suffer negative financial consequences from real estate asset depreciation that is occurring and expected to continue in several major Canadian markets in the near future. The carbon tax will also be very detrimental to rural and small town economies, particularly outside of the southern Ontario/southwestern Quebec heartland.

By 2022 the carbon tax is planned to rise to $50 per tonne from the current $20 per tonne, a 150% in just three years. Unless there are significant increases in wages, and that is very unlikely given expected economic performance (Canada is in a per capita recession...but you won't hear that on the sycophantic CBC) the decline in living standards felt by the majority will result in incredible political pressure either to alleviate the burden on the majority (increased rebates and sector subsidization) or to scrap the tax altogether as was done in Australia. Canadians are very sensitive to the country's economic performance, currency value, standard of living and prices vis-a-vis the U.S.

Canada can reduce carbon emissions and maintain economic growth by encouraging increased efficiencies in transportation, agriculture, residential usage and industry over the long term and by following a sensible population strategy, one that reflects the needs of the Canadian economy. An investment rather than a punitive focus.

I never quite understood this notion of someone being "conservative" and automatically agreeing with every policy that's put out politically by the conservative party or being "liberal" and agreeing with everything there.

Aren't the majority of people somewhat mixed and have to decide who to vote on based on what subjects are most important to them?

Anyway, some of the discussion above was in relation to why would people change their behaviour if they're getting the money back. Everyone gets the same amount back, regardless of how much they are spending on carbon tax. You will still be saving money by reducing your carbon consumption. Its revenue neutral in a sense, but the revenue is being unevenly redistributed to a higher proportion to those who are spending less on carbon.

On a single-axis political spectrum, Canada's three major political parties range from very slightly left of centre to very slightly right of centre. All are globalist in orientation.

Stop framing the carbon tax debate in left/right terms.

What an over exaggeration and broad generalization.

True, but also such an incredible cop-out.

Should we base all our policies and laws in Canada on what the total global effect is?

Should we repeal our laws against murder and crime because they simply won't affect global numbers? Of course not. We (and any other country that has) implement a carbon tax because it's the right thing to do and it will lower emissions in our country.

That may have been true 20+ years ago. But the downfall of the PCs federally dragged the remnants of that party significantly to the right.

And how can we ask other countries to do something when we aren't doing it ourselves? A lot of people forgot what it takes to be a leader in the world. Besides, its not a very good look to be using 1.6% of the world's emissions with 0.5% of the world's population. We can do better than playing to the lowest common denominator like today's right wants to do. What a sad and dishonourable way to live.

No, Canada should do what is in Canada's interests while investing as heavily as is possible in achieving greater efficiencies (in that respect we are way behind the other developed countries, and while that is partially due to our climate and pattern of population, it is also because Canada has in recent decades lagged behind other countries in green innovation), while working towards global emission reductions and population stabilization, esp. in sub-Saharan Africa.

Your second point is a false analogy.

Incidentally, if you really want to reduce your carbon emissions, do not keep a dog. One dog has a yearly carbon footprint of a SUV with an annual mileage of 20,000 km. A dog consumes about 30% of the meat based proteins as a typical person and meat production from beginning to end is one of the most carbon heavy (and water heavy) industries. Cutting the number of domestic pets in Canada by half would reduce CO2 emissions by the equivalent of nearly one million cars. Also, it might allow your neighbours to enjoy a little bit more peace and quiet.

Now assaulting dogs. When will it end.

Stop life!! Then we'll be good.

I notice on the main Canada board some forum members frequently post studies/stats that appear to contradict global warming and its consequences. One example that comes to mind is a graph with statistics of forest fires in North America - more acreage burned in the early 20th Century then the present - which appears to contradict evidence that forest fires are increasing in intensity and are the worst we have ever experienced in recorded history.

Alternative facts became a popular phrase a few years ago. Maybe certain parties will start touting alternative science.;)

They are all on the take! Funded by George Soros!

Haha just kidding of course. It is worth noting conspiracy theorists tend to lean to the hard right.

We might only have 0.5% of the worlds population, but what percentage of the worlds population benefits from our exports. Our wood is building homes all over the world. Our oil and gas, our grain, our pork, all this stuff isn’t just produced for Canada. Maybe those other countries buying our stuff can pay the carbon tax instead of hardworking Canadians. And again our climate. This isn’t Alabama or Mexico or Spain. We get rotten weather and it is not fair to penalize us for heating our homes. Many Canadians are already suffering the effects of utility poverty. I do not think the rebates will come close to covering what the actual costs are.

The suggestion that consideration be given to the carbon impacts of owning a dog is no more or no less legitimate than are reducing auto use and increasing travel by transit or cycling or buying a hybrid or electric over a Dodge Ram Hemi.

The carbon tax is charged at the source, so they are paying. This is the most efficient way of pricing carbon as it avoids the overhead that would come with targeted regulations. Most people will get more back from their rebate than what they will pay extra in home heating costs (in SK, MB, ON and NB).

For just home heating costs true, but factor in the extra costs for gasoline and food, no.

Sask. will be the most negatively affected of all provinces. Manitoba is in a better position due to a higher share of its energy demands met by renewables and its more urban and concentrated population.

My household got an over $600 rebate. That will more than make up for our extra costs for this year. Remember, the feds are returning 90% of the carbon taxes they collect directly to taxpayers. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand most people will get back more than they pay.

Actually. It would make sense. The world is becoming overpopulated. Less people, less need for consumption

What really pisses me off is these mofos who want public resources expended on dog parks when the existing parks are not being maintained to an adequate standard.