HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Politics

View Poll Results: Do you support the carbon tax?
Yes 41 67.21%
No 20 32.79%
Voters: 61. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted: Jun 18, 2008, 9:29 PM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,765
Most oppose carbon tax

Most oppose carbon tax
Anti-tax sentiment a potential threat to Liberals ahead of election, pollster says

Jonathan Fowlie, Vancouver Sun
Published: Wednesday, June 18, 2008

VICTORIA -- A majority of British Columbians oppose the B.C. Liberal government's carbon tax, a new poll reveals.

Ipsos Reid has found that 59 per cent of those polled are against the new tax -- set to begin July 1 with a 2.4-cent-per-litre increase in the price of gasoline -- with just under half of the respondents saying they oppose it "strongly."

Opposition to the tax is greatest in the Interior, followed by the Lower Mainland and then the rest of mainland B.C.

The poll comes as gas prices approach $1.50 a litre, and just as New Democratic Party leader Carole James kicked off her "axe the tax" campaign in Kelowna Tuesday.

She argued that Premier Gordon Campbell's carbon tax places too much pressure on B.C. consumers.

On Tuesday, Ipsos Reid vice-president Kyle Braid said the almost 60-per-cent opposition shows the carbon tax is a potentially dangerous issue for the Liberals, who hope to retain majority support heading into next spring's election.

"I think the danger here is this is the first issue where the door has been opened for Carole James to talk to Liberal voters about an issue on which she actually aligns with their views," he said, adding 56 per cent of Liberal supporters in the poll said they were against the carbon tax.

"It doesn't mean, necessarily, she will be able to communicate it in a way that convinces people she has a better idea," he said, "but at least it's an opportunity that she hasn't had up until now."

The poll, which saw 800 adults questioned June 5-10, shows that public unhappiness with the tax hasn't meant more support for the NDP.

Though opposition to the tax has grown -- a similar poll taken by Ipsos Reid when the tax was announced in February pegged opposition at only 52 per cent -- people have not turned against the premier or the government that introduced the idea.

The poll shows the Liberals have the support of 47 per cent of decided voters, a number slightly above what they've held throughout the past year.

The NDP has 33-per-cent support, down three points from this time last year.

The seatless Green Party remained steady at 16-per-cent support, a level it has essentially held for the past year as well.

"I think the most important number is that at this point the vote hasn't changed one iota, despite the fact a lot of people knew this [the carbon tax] was coming," said Braid.

"It's been discussed since February and it hasn't had any impact whatsoever."

Braid said any new tax is bound to be unpopular, so it is difficult to determine what the current opposition will actually mean for any party's political fortunes.

"You shouldn't read too much into the opposition here," he said.

"You could insert any kind of tax and you'd probably see a 40/60 split, maybe even worse."

The poll numbers are considered accurate to within plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Matt Horne of the Pembina Institute, a national environmental advocacy group, said he was surprised by the poll results, especially given another recent poll commissioned by his group showed 64 per cent support for the tax in B.C.

Horne said the change in opinion might have to do with recent publicity around the tax.

"There has been fairly strong, and in a number of cases inaccurate, opposition to the carbon tax, which I think could be skewing people's perceptions," he said.

"I've seen some language around the idea of giving industry a free ride and although not all industrial emissions are covered, about two-thirds are," he said.

Horne said people might also have some concerns about whether the tax is the right way to achieve a proper reduction to carbon emissions.

Campbell could not be reached for comment on Tuesday.

Speaking earlier in the week, he strongly defended the tax, saying it will be fair for all people in B.C.

"This is the first tax in the history of the country that I'm aware of where all of the revenue is being used to reduce other taxes," Campbell said in an interview on Monday.

"Every family in British Columbia is going to be ahead of the game at the end of this year in terms of tax."

On Tuesday, James said the Ipsos Reid poll numbers show Campbell is "out of touch."

"The premier is arrogant about this issue in saying to people: 'just get used to it,' or, 'we all have to do our part.' It shows he doesn't get the difficulties they are facing," she said.

"The carbon tax numbers show me people are starting to pay attention."

James said she feels party support numbers will soon follow.

"I think there's always a gap between when something takes effect and the general polling numbers," she said, adding people are starting to pay more attention now that the tax is weeks away from hitting the pumps.

"You didn't see this kind of anger a couple of months ago. In fact, we've had a few polls that show there is support out there for the carbon tax," she said.

"People are angry. They are really angry."

Campbell's personal approval ratings have held steady at 49 per cent, a level he has held since last year.

James, whose approval rating was 50 per cent in March 2008, has seen it climb to 55 per cent, the same level it was at in December after last fall's sitting of the legislature.

The poll also shows James has some appeal among B.C. Liberals, with 46 per cent of Liberal voters saying they approve of the way she's performed as leader of the opposition. Campbell does not enjoy the same crossover appeal -- only 16 per cent of NDP voters approve of his performance.

Meanwhile, a separate Ipsos Reid poll conducted for Global BC found that 71 per cent of British Columbians expect to pay more on the carbon tax than they will get back from the government through income tax cuts and the climate action dividend.

"There's pretty clear evidence people don't think this carbon tax is going to be revenue neutral for them," said Braid.

"The government has not yet communicated to people where some of the savings will be."

Fifteen per cent of those polled said they didn't know if they would be paying more or less once the "revenue-neutral" tax was in place.

The poll for Global BC also found that only five per cent of people are planning to use their $100 climate action dividend to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Sixty-four per cent said they would spend, save or invest it "like I would any other income." Eight per cent plan to treat themselves to something they would not have otherwise purchased.

The Global BC poll, conducted June 11-16, involved 700 adults, and is considered accurate to within plus or minus 3.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

jfowlie@png.canwest.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted: Jun 18, 2008, 10:09 PM
urbanfan89's Avatar
urbanfan89 urbanfan89 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 486
You could never dream of the NDP campaigning under "Axe the Tax".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted: Jun 18, 2008, 10:15 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,214
haha more like "max the tax"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted: Jun 18, 2008, 11:20 PM
flight_from_kamakura's Avatar
flight_from_kamakura flight_from_kamakura is offline
testify
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: san francisco and montreal
Posts: 1,319
this is annoying. the tax isn't being well executed, but it's a good idea. carole james is just being really unconstructive on this one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted: Jun 18, 2008, 11:36 PM
Smooth's Avatar
Smooth Smooth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 784
I thought the whole point of the tax is that no-one is supposed to like it and therefore it will motivate people to change their driving habits to conserve fuel?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted: Jun 19, 2008, 12:27 AM
MalcolmTucker's Avatar
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonchuck
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura View Post
this is annoying. the tax isn't being well executed, but it's a good idea. carole james is just being really unconstructive on this one.
What is wrong with the implementation? Its universally applied, and there is a tax shift to make sure it doesn't unduly harm people. After the shift, people that pollute less in essence reduce their tax bill.

If this implementation is wrong, what would a good implementation look like?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted: Jun 19, 2008, 2:22 AM
ravman ravman is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 560
Bill Tieleman’s 24 Hours Column
Tuesday May 6, 2008

Tax just hot air

By BILL TIELEMAN

The worst of all would be a tax that did little or nothing to reduce carbon emissions, but imposed a disproportionate tax burden on low-income people.

- Professor Marjorie Griffin Cohen

Forget the hype - B.C.'s new carbon tax will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gases while punishing lower- income earners to give huge tax breaks to big business.

Forget the environmental groups - who are so desperate to curry favour with the B.C. Liberals that they are acting more like government spin doctors than critical, independent information sources.

Forget the commentators praising B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell for his "vision" - without doing their homework or disclosing their conflicts.

Just look at the results elsewhere, analyze B.C.'s tax, and make up your own mind.

Start with Norway, which has had the highest gas tax in the world since 1991.

A Statistics Norway study shows that: "Despite politically ambitious carbon taxes, this policy measure has had only a modest influence on greenhouse gas emissions."

Modest indeed - it accounted for only two per cent of CO2 emission reductions.

Now consider that Norway's gasoline tax was $51 per ton of CO2 in 1999, while B.C.'s tax starts at $10 per ton, or 2.4 cents per litre, and rises by 2012 to $30 per ton or 7.2 cents per litre.

With a carbon tax almost half that of Norway's, can anyone expect a dramatic reduction in emissions? B.C. sure doesn't - it actually projects increased demand for gas despite the tax.

As my fellow CKNW commentator Norman Spector says: "The government's own figures show that this is not going to do a warm bucket of spit for climate change."

Next, look at the B.C. Liberals' bogus claim that the gas tax is "revenue neutral." Half of the $1.8 billion in new gas tax money raised over three years goes to business tax cuts - most to big corporations and banks.

Then consider who is hurt most by this regressive consumption tax - lower income earners, especially those with no options to reduce use of gas, heating fuels and other carbon-taxed products.

As Simon Fraser University's Cohen points out: "Those least able to afford a tax increase will be disproportionately affected."

Amazingly, 16 environmental groups, including the David Suzuki Foundation, Sierra Club and Wilderness Committee, travelled to Victoria to support an ineffective carbon tax from a government that has obliterated environmental protection.

And Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson lauded Campbell's policies as "the most progressive in North America" while attacking the B.C. New Democrats, but without disclosing he co-authored a book on climate change with Campbell's special adviser on the topic, Mark Jaccard.

That book's title, Hot Air, pretty much sums up the B.C. Liberals' expensive and unfair carbon tax.

Bill Tieleman’s 24 Hours Column
Tuesday February 26, 2008

Carbon tax a money grab in green clothing

BY BILL TIELEMAN

To tax the community for the advantage of a class is not protection: It is plunder.

- former British PM Benjamin Disraeli

With the B.C. government's introduction last week of a "carbon tax" on gasoline, you have two dramatically different choices on what to believe:

1. The gasoline tax starting at 2.4 cents a litre in July and rising to 7.2 cents in 2012 is revenue neutral and will help reduce consumption, leading to a reduction in the greenhouse gases that create climate change while funding other worthwhile initiatives to save our environment.

And the one-time $100 "Climate Action Dividend" cheque that you will get in June with Premier Gordon Campbell's signature on it more than covers your additional gas costs for the next year.

Or 2. The gasoline tax is an expensive publicity stunt that will cost you not only at the pumps but on B.C. Ferries, with air travel and transportation shipping fees, and will have a multitude of other extra expenses - without reducing consumption at all.

The $100 cheque is simply a bribe to make you forget you are being hosed as the government adds $1.8 billion in revenue to its coffers while it gives huge tax breaks to banks and businesses. And don't forget it is creating expensive new bureaucracies that won't likely save a single polar bear from global warming.

Put me down squarely for the second explanation.

Here's why: When you take the $1.8 billion to be generated over three years from the allegedly neutral carbon tax and follow the money trail, it pays for tax breaks that go to the B.C. Liberals' business supporters.

A full $415 million goes to cutting the corporate income tax rate from 12 per cent to 10 per cent by 2011.

Another $255 million is the cost of reducing the small business tax from 4.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent in 2011.

And then banks and financial institutions get a $220-million tax break because the corporate capital tax will be eliminated.

These business tax cuts more than dwarf the $440 million cost of the "Climate Action Dividend" every British Columbian will receive just once. And they go on indefinitely.

What's more, if the idea is to reduce gas consumption, how does subsidizing the full cost of more expensive gas lead to less driving?

And how does it possibly cut greenhouse gases for the vast majority of people who simply cannot reduce their driving to and from work, or who drive vehicles to make a living?

After all, gas prices have gone up 40 cents a litre in the past four years in B.C. - has that cut down driving and pollution? No.

So when you head to the pumps remember whose hand is in your pocket.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted: Jun 19, 2008, 2:46 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,297
God that's why I hate the 24 hours. Anyway, why are so many European cities so livable? Why are there so many people using transit? Why is the Netherlands the country with the most bikers in Europe? Because there are so taxes that drive gas prices way up. In the short run, yes it's going to hurt a little bit. In the long run, this would be a good thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted: Jun 19, 2008, 2:51 AM
hollywoodnorth's Avatar
hollywoodnorth hollywoodnorth is offline
Blazed Member - Citygater
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Downtown Vancouver
Posts: 4,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura View Post
carole james is just being really unconstructive on this one.

ya think? she is pretty whacked

But I think Gordo is on cruise control and will lock next year down


GO GORDO GO!
__________________
http://www.votesmartbc.com
http://www.riskydix.ca
http://www.dixshiddenplan.ca

Quote of the Decade on SSP: "what happens would it be?" - argon007
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted: Jun 19, 2008, 2:52 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,765
I can't find the link but in a similar way, Stockholm citizens were very opposed to the plan for region wide tolling. Then the city called for a plan to have "trial tolling", which would be 8-months of road tolling and afterwards the public would decide whether the tolling system should stay by referendum.

8-months later, the public was all for tolling. The referendum was a landslide YES. 8-months after tolling started, car traffic was down by 20%+ while transit use jumped by nearly 20% (forgot the exact figures).


I would be all for the carbon tax if the revenues from the Lower Mainland went back towards green initiatives, capital costs/plans for transit, and subsidizing transit fares.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted: Jun 19, 2008, 2:58 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,297
Good to see that Stockholm likes it. The government needs a way to pay off the $14 billion transit plan too right? I mean since the feds aren't really in the same boat, we are on our own to cough up money. Excellent way to get more revenue and be green at the same time =) The media's been doing an excellent job in "covering the facts": 24 Hours, The Vancouver Sun, The Province, CTV News, and Global has been only talking about the negatives of the tax. Yes it's extremely controversial, but we'll see the benefits in the long run.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted: Jun 19, 2008, 3:18 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 1,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravman View Post
Bill Tieleman’s 24 Hours Column
Ya mean the same Bill Tieleman, former Glen Clark NDP election strategist, who apparently strategized with Glen Clark in fooling the public during the 1996 provincial election claiming that the "budget was balanced", when in fact that led to the subsequent "Fudgit Budget" fiasco????

Ya mean the same Bill Tieleman who is now suggesting that the NDP should fool the public again by suggesting that the NDP also blame the Liberals for the overall market increase in the price of gasoline??????

Bill Tieleman from the Tyee:

Quote:
"You have to drive it and drive it mercilessly," [Bill Tieleman] said. "[The NDP] have the opportunity to make Campbell wear not just the carbon tax, but the market increase as well."
As one subsequent poster on that website stated therein:

Quote:
Tieleman wants NDP to lie about market price of gas?

So Tieleman is suggesting that the NDP should lie to the public and claim that the Premier of B.C. has the power to force Alberta to sell oil to us at below market value?
http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/06/05/CarbonCampaign/


Meh... from that old classic *Who* tune... I "Won't Get Fooled Again"!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted: Jun 19, 2008, 3:36 AM
quobobo quobobo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 829
I love nutjobs like that 24 Hours columnist who can't see any benefit to individuals from lower taxes on business.

I also love how he has two contradictory opinions:

"The carbon tax is too low to have a significant effect!"
"The carbon tax is so high it will be hugely regressive!"

Pick one, people... I'm leaning towards the first being true. Can't blame them too much though, can you imagine the backlash if the carbon tax was large enough to significantly reduce emissions? People are pissed about a tiny 2.5 cents per litre.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted: Jun 19, 2008, 3:39 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is online now
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,749
No it's a completely different Bill Tieleman.
If I were an NDPer I'd hate the carbon tax too. We need more carbon in the atmosphere so the trees can grow, trees gives us wood, wood that be made into a deck for my cottage courtesy of my nice neighbour.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted: Jun 19, 2008, 3:48 AM
quobobo quobobo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 829
Quote:
What's more, if the idea is to reduce gas consumption, how does subsidizing the full cost of more expensive gas lead to less driving?
What is he even talking about here?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted: Jun 19, 2008, 3:52 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 25,341
when do we get our $100? i need some shoes
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted: Jun 19, 2008, 3:54 AM
quobobo quobobo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 829
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted: Jun 19, 2008, 4:46 AM
Hong Kongese's Avatar
Hong Kongese Hong Kongese is offline
Yellow Fever
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravman View Post

The worst of all would be a tax that did little or nothing to reduce carbon emissions, but imposed a disproportionate tax burden on low-income people.


Carbon tax a money grab in green clothing


Thiis is the only second time I agreed with you totally. I think I start to like you now!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted: Jun 19, 2008, 5:05 AM
mezzanine's Avatar
mezzanine mezzanine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,392
I think certainly, this tax does make people think about their energy/carbon use before they fill-up. That in itself makes it a success.

Rich or poor, it should be simple - the less carbon you use, the more benefit you get. There are other ways to help lower income brackets - among the provinces, B.C. owns the lowest tax rate charging 5.2 per cent in its first tax bracket, much more progressive than Alberta's 10% flat income tax.

My biggest fear is that the libs will get cold feet and back off, or suffer in the polls and cause other parties in North America to shy away from a carbon tax...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted: Jun 19, 2008, 6:02 AM
hollywoodnorth's Avatar
hollywoodnorth hollywoodnorth is offline
Blazed Member - Citygater
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Downtown Vancouver
Posts: 4,875
boy I don't see Ravman posting now? LOL
__________________
http://www.votesmartbc.com
http://www.riskydix.ca
http://www.dixshiddenplan.ca

Quote of the Decade on SSP: "what happens would it be?" - argon007
Reply With Quote
     
     
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Politics
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:35 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.