Cap & Dividend - salable strategy for appropriate energy pricing in Canada?

I like our current policy of using carbon (and other pollution) taxes to cut payroll taxes first, then income taxes. 

To sell a new tax you have to show the voters how it would benefit them in the short & long run.  Long run is the improved environment.  Short run would be the cash they'd keep on every paycheque (especially for those earning under $50k per year as it maxes out at that income level).  Also it would encourage companies to hire as it (if it replaced EI/CPP/etc) could cut red tape and would certainly cut the cost of having employees.

The cheques to each household would increase initial buy in and make it obvious to each taxpayer but the administration cost would be significant and anyone who fails to file a tax return would not get the cheque (that is the traditional way of doing these things) plus it would do nothing directly to encourage companies to hire more people.

I think one of the sanest voices in the debate over how to tackle Global Warming is that of James Hanson, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the world's leading climatologists.

He is also the author of "Storms of my Grandchildren - The truth about the coming climate catastophe and our last chance to save humanity."

Dr Hanson minces no words when he calls Cap and Trade schemes nothing more than an opportunity for Wall street and the banks to fleece the public all over again.

And the Cap and Dividend scheme isn't much better - being more vulnerable to jerry rigging by special interests.

Furthermore any Cap scheme will cause wild fluctuations in energy prices, with the resulting uncertainties hindering businesses and individuals from investing in green technology.

And finally developing countries like China and India are not ready and willing to accept caps. They are much more likely to buy into a greenhouse gas tax dividend scheme.

Dr Hanson advocates a 100% carbon tax dividend scheme. I have tried to frame this proposal into a policy resolution for our upcoming convention. I urge any and all party members to check it out on the Policy resolution discussion forum. I need 20 sponsors to bring the resolution to the convention. Please make a difference.

Hi Steve

All the revenue genenerated goes back to the residents in equal monthly amounts, as opposed to some of it goes to this and that government program, and this and that government tax cut, each benefiting different people to differing degrees.

Meanwhile the gradually rising tax on resources that generate greenhouse gases will send the market signals in terms of higher prices that trigger consumers to invest in conservation and greener technologies

To get to the policy forum, click the Convention 2010 Toronto picture, then Resolutions, then Policy Lab.  It's kind of hidden away there, so I'll copy it out here as per your request :

It seems to me the threat of Global warming ought to be the number one concern of everyone on this planet, so it is certainly disheartening to see how the powers that be (ie oil,gas,coal interests and their political allies) seem to have blocked any solution to the crisis.

To my way of thinking, and many others, a carbon tax is the best strategy - the trick is to make it politically palitable. I also think Jim Hanson's proposal for a 100% carbon tax dividend is probably the best solution as it divorces itself from any consideration of income tax effects - and the uncertainty of who wins and who loses, and the distrust over how the goverment spends the tax revenue.

It is straightforward, simple and doesn't need a large bureaucary. Anyone who consumes less than the average amount of greenhouse gas emitting products and services will benifit directly, and those consuming above the average will pay more. And everyone will have an incentive to reduce their use of greenhouse gas emitting products and services, and will be rewarded evenly and appropiately for their efforts.

Two senior Green party members have looked at the resolution and basically support the thrust of it. One however had reservations about provincial distribution. While the tax/dividend would be administered nationally and the tax would be national, I am suggesting any attempt to distribute the dividend accoss provincial boundaries, judging by past experience would no doubt cause unending conflict. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland would simply not agree that funds raised in taxing gas and oil resourses should be distributed to Ontario and Quebec. That is why I worded it as I did.

Greenhouse Gas Tax Dividend Resolution
------------------------------------------------------------

Whereas Global Warming is the most serious threat to life on our planet,

and whereas a Greenhouse gas tax is the most effective and efficient way to remedy Global Warming,

and whereas the Carbon tax proposals of the federal Green and Liberal parties did not find favour with the majority of voters in the last election due in part to the unclear costs and benefits associated with these tax schemes,

be it resolved that

1. The Green party of Canada commit to a 100% Greenhouse gas tax dividend scheme.

And whereas Canada is a confederation of provinces and territories, with varied greenhouse gas emitting resources from which they derive revenue,

be it resolved that

2. The total greenhouse tax collected within any province or territory be distributed equally among the residents of that province or territory.

And whereas such a tax dividend scheme would not be fair to domestic industries when importing or exporting goods and services,

be it resolved that

3. All companies or indivduals exporting goods be credited the difference between the Canadian greenhouse gas tax and the export country's greenhouse gas tax, and all imported goods be taxed the difference between the Canadian greenhouse gas tax and the import country's greenhouse gas tax.

Hope this sounds reasonable.