Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45
To follow up on what I said above... revenue-neutral, substantial carbon pricing would make beef, wheat and garlic cheaper in Alberta, while making everything else significantly pricier.
"Don't like to be stuck eating only beef as it's the only thing you can afford now that the true environmental costs of moving goods on long distances are now billed to customers? Well, then it's up to you to move away from that barren semi-arid place you live in where the only viable local activity is cattle ranching!" is a bit extreme, no?
Though, I'm libertarian enough that I could live with that. No one is forcing anyone to live in Alberta.
|
Well, except we live in a global economy where it's cheap, efficient and easy to move food around, there's been no need for everybody to live close to the food production for well over a century. It must be pretty hard to get locally grown food for much of the year in Quebec, Ontario or anywhere else in Canada too, it should be noted.
I doubt a carbon price at the levels recommended by economists will have a huge impact on what we see in the grocery stores. It will likely make the most egregiously wasteful items of food noticeably less affordable while the majority of the selection stays the same. Of course, that's the point - let the market find what is wasteful, don't arbitrarily have the government dictate that local = good, imported = bad.