how about this, guys?

it doesn't make any difference at all. it's just politics. the government is pretending it's doing something about the problem, while the opposition is pretending that it's going to be a catastrophe.

if you have a lot of wealth and use a lot of energy then your taxes will go up (you're supposed to use less energy, not complain about your taxes). if you're poor and use minimal energy then you'll get a rebate. if you're in the middle, it will truly be revenue neutral. the right answer is that lisa's friends will probably get a check at the end of the month at the expense of trudeau's family, which will get a tax increase.

the media has a responsibility to explain this. but, they'll sell far more papers scare-mongering about tax increases. which is why it's essential that the government implements the policy immediately so the checks are already out by the next writ drop. which, of course, they're not doing.

so, that's the money question: as wealth is strongly correlated with energy use, the policy will redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom through the intermediary of taxation. those that are legitimately concerned about the poor should look at the policy more carefully and understand that it is in their benefit. beware of demagogues that try and take advantage of the ignorant and uneducated in order to scare them.

but, what about emissions? will it reduce them?

the answer is that this doesn't work as an emissions reduction plan. the rich eat the costs because they can afford it, anyways. again: it's going to offset with the middle classes. and, the poor (who don't use much energy...) will get checks in the mail from it.

i'm poor. i don't have a car. most of the food here is imported. i couldn't do much more to reduce emissions if i wanted to. but, i'm likely to get a nice check in the mail. to me, this is just money from the sky. it's not going to change my behaviour...

if i was in the middle class, it would balance out. i need to be clear: i don't expect this to drive inflation and nobody else does, either. you won't find a working economist that thinks prices are going up. it's just scare mongering, really. but, they'll spend a little more on energy and then get it back through tax cuts. how does that change behaviour if it comes out in the wash?

if i was rich, i'd spend a lot of money on energy and i wouldn't care if taxes go up because i have a lot of money, anyways. they don't change behaviour, either, then.

so, if nobody has a meaningful incentive to reduce their use, how do emissions reduce?

here's the thing, then - do you want some wealth redistribution? are you down with that? do you think it's a good idea to tax the rich a little more and give it to the poor? well, this is a good way to do that. it *will* work in accomplishing *this* task.

but, do you really want emissions to come down, too? are you concerned that we're not meeting our international obligations? well, you might want to push for a different policy, like direct investment in converting infrastructure.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-climate-change-trudeau-raitt-1.3792865