Consumers pay for green initiatives

Author says consumers should have to bear the price of green initiatives.

Dear Editor

In reference to Tom Fletcher’s article regarding the Paris Accord and carbon pricing Nov. 19, p. 5). Though the governments of the day state they are reluctant to carbon pricing. Their argument being that the current system of carbon tax, and an alternate system of cap and trade, directly taxes and deters future investment by large carbon producing corporations.

Regardless, it seems they can’t help themselves to another source of taxation to help balance their budgets. Even though these two systems don’t really deter corporations from contributing to climate change. In fact, all these systems do is pass on the extra costs to consumers, with no real incentive to change habit, other than through less consumption, limiting growth in the economy, by taking money out of the pockets of consumers, and putting it into Federal and Provincial Government coffers.

I find it ironic that none of the current Federal or Provincial Governments haven’t caught on to the proposed system of the Federal Green Party’s proposed system of Fee and Dividend.

Under the Fee and Dividend system, all carbon producers would pay, as they do now, for carbon produced. The difference being that this fee (taxation) would be returned right back to the constituents as a refundable tax credit.

So those who use little or no carbon producing product, would be rewarded from those who use or produce the most. Contrary to the other methods of carbon pricing, the stimulus would go right back into the economy, stimulating growth in the non carbon producing sector.

Eventually, the lower carbon producing sectors would out pace the higher producing sectors. This would allow for economic stimulus, and depreciating carbon production at the same time.

Why I find all this ironic is the fact that the three major Party’s have stolen every good idea found in the Green Party’s playbook called, Vision Green. That is every idea, that doesn’t deter from their standardized idea’s of taxing the constituents, but letting their corporate colleges of the hook, for fear of losing their lobbied support.

Art Green

Hope

Ashcroft Cache Creek Journal