|
 |
|
| Last updated at 1:18 PM on 04/07/08 |
Wood-burners escape carbon tax 
BRIAN JONES 
The Telegram
Further proof that Canada is an urban and urbane country: none of the carbon taxes proposed or implemented, so far, tax firewood.
This is fortunate for many Newfoundlanders' finances, but unfortunate in the larger scheme of things, because a carbon tax on firewood could help chip away at the deceptive practises of politicians and activists who depict themselves as environmental saviours.
Nobody talks about a carbon tax on firewood because, obviously, not enough Canadians use it as a source of heat.
Imagine, for a moment, that there is a carbon tax on firewood.
It's a cold, wet, windy day in February. But you are prepared. There's a stack of dry splits and logs beside your woodstove. A fire is blazing. Inside your house, the seasonal cold and damp has been defeated.
You reach for a stick to feed the fire. But as you open the woodstove's door, you hear the stern voices of Stéphane Dion, David Suzuki and Gordon Campbell, chastising you for contributing to global warming.
Do you: A) put another log on the fire, and keep your family warm; or B) close the door, realizing that the carbon tax has made that log just a little bit more expensive, and help save the world from ecological Armageddon?
Manipulating the public
The offensive thing about today's environmental debate - of which the carbon tax is only one aspect - is that it ignores people's everyday needs. There are common, simple requirements that people have in order to live ordinary, comfortable lives. You have to keep your house warm. You have to get to work. You have to eat.
This is utterly obvious. But it has apparently escaped the notice of too many environmental crusaders.
It is one thing to be concerned about pollution and to live responsibly so you don't add to it unnecessarily. It is another thing altogether to tell people - as many environmentalists and politicians habitually do - that their selfish, greedy and profligate lifestyle is causing global warming.
Hence, the carbon tax. Hit them in their beloved wallets, the thinking goes, and they'll stop being so irresponsible.
But those who espouse a carbon tax are caught in their own illogic. They are modern-day snake-oil salesmen, who give a smooth pitch, but whose goods are bogus.
Proponents of a carbon tax always point out it is "revenue neutral" - that is, it will be accompanied by tax cuts in other areas, such as income. In B.C., the provincial government even preceded its implementation of a carbon tax by giving $100 to every resident.
This makes no sense. It is a clever method of persuasion, but it makes no sense. It is sophisticated spin, but it makes no sense.
A "sin tax" is meant to change people's habits. By taxing carbon, you hope to influence people to, say, buy less gas, oil or, someday, firewood. Except that - and here's the illogic of it - people don't have alternatives. Car dealers aren't exactly stocked with solar-powered vehicles.
You could switch to electric heat, and stop using oil, natural gas or firewood, but then you'd have to live with the personal guilt of flooding forests, destroying habitat and contributing to greenhouse-gas emissions as submerged trees rot and release - you guessed it - carbon dioxide.
If people had viable alternatives, there would be no need to give them $100 or an income tax cut. Just slap on a carbon tax, and let them adjust their evil ways.
Unfortunately, the problem of global warming is far larger than your selfish desire to stay warm, eat fresh fruit or drive to work. But, if it placates your sense of guilt and makes you feel morally superior, go ahead and support a carbon tax.
Brian Jones is the editor of The Sunday Telegram. He can be reached by e-mail at bjones@thetelegram.com.
|
04/07/08
|
Comments: |
|
This Conversation is Moderated. What is moderation?
|
| What does moderation mean? |
 |
The Telegram is committed to encouraging intelligent discourse among our readers and to creating a forum where diverse views and opinions on a wide range of topics can be aired. The forum you are in now is a result of our continuing efforts to facilitate a dynamic online conversation among our readers.
This is a moderated conversation. Once a reader follows the steps to register and submit his or her comment it goes to a moderator for the website. Once it has been approved, your comment will be displayed on the website. A comment may be edited or deleted for reasons of content or language.
All readers wishing to join a conversation must first sign in and agree to the Terms of Usage, which explain the rules of acceptable content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard from BC writes: Wow.. this looks more like a blog written by an armchair journalist, than an editorial peice. Saying something doesn't make sense, doesn't mean that it's actually true... perhaps you should try explaining why a revenue neutral carbon tax makes no sense, because their is a lot of information out there that indicates that it DOES in fact make sense. It's unfortunate that you can't put aside your tax emotions and actually research why this is a revenue neutral tax on carbon. By the bay, sin taxes have played a major role in reducing the number of people who smoke cigarettes in BC.
Also, if, for example, people started driving electric cars instead of gas powered cars we would see a net decline in emissions because it is much more efficient to produce electricity on a large scale ata power plant than having millions of cars burning fuel inefficiently each day.
And finally, your argument that the environental debate ignores peoples' basic needs should come packaged with your own bottle of snake oil. Of course people need to heat their homes, but they don't need to keep them warm throughout the entire day while they are at work - which many people do... this is the type of wasteful behaviour that is being targeted with this tax. And as for burining firewood to warm a house... yes, this adds to pollution, but like you mentioned... so few people use firewood to heat their homes that they are not a significant contriutor, of course you're not going to tax this.
It's always funny to see someone use a persuasion article in such a heavy handed fashion, it's just unfortunate that you hide behind the guise of an editorial... hopefully people will read this and see past your emotional appeal and notice the complete lack of factual information backing up your claims.
|
| Posted 04/07/2008 at 1:08 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
Greg NL_Expatriate from BC writes: Chainsaws run on fossil fuels.
Pellet stoves are a very acceptable alternative for heat in an urban setting.
Wood is a renewable resource.
Burning wood is no different than letting it rot in the forest it releases the same amount of carbon BACK into the environment.
Don't confuse carbon with particulate from unburnt or improperly burnt wood from either poorly seasoned wood or outdated wood stoves and poorly maintained wood stoves.
Carbon taxes that redistribute from rural producers economies to urban supply and service economies is just another way the national parties plan on redesigning the system to buy votes in the majority provinces with moneys collected from the minority provinces. Per capita colonialism. It isn't the national political parties we need to change it is the political system of democratic discrimination against the minority provinces by all of the national parties in there never ending bid to gain power.
|
| Posted 04/07/2008 at 4:07 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
Jeff from NFLD writes: Richard from BC, obviously the definition of Editorial did not permeate lotusland. It is an opinion. Just because it doesn't fit with your opinion doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.
People heat there houses with firewood. You, like every other environmental hack, would say 'stop using firewood' without actually putting forward any viable alternatives. Firewood is just an example here.
Canada already has a carbon tax, it's called the GST. In case you and your kind forgot the GST is a consumption tax and does everything that the lieberal's Carbon Tax is supposed to do. All Dion is trying to do is set up another bureaucratic dept. in the federal govt, a la the Gun Registry, to siphon off funds for the liberals and their friends (a la Ad Scam).
Climate change is a fact, but so was the last ice age. Would you have us believe the glaciers melted because of camp fires??
|
| Posted 04/07/2008 at 5:23 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
|
Richard from Sarcasm, NL writes: It doesn't make sense because Brian Jones says so. It doesn't make sense because the Tory Telegram says it doesn't make sense. That should be enough. Why insert reason into such a discussion? Why is that so hard for you British Colombians to accept? Newfoundlanders cannot car pool. That makes no sense. They cannot live closer to their jobs. That doesn't make sense. They cannot bike or walk to work, that doesn't make sense. They cannot use their own hydro energy - that doesn't make sense. They cannot recycle, compost, reduce their consumption or use products that travel lesser distances. That doesn't make sense. They cannot use public transit. That doesn't make sense. Brian Jones said so. It doesn't make sense. Oh - and by the way, if wood is harvested in a sustainable manner, burning it is carbon neutral. Of course, Brian Jones didn't say so, so that might be wrong. Isn't it great when 'it doesn't make sense' is the only thing a columnist has to hang an argument on? What a pathetic effort.
|
| Posted 04/07/2008 at 7:55 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
|
Gunther from NL writes: Nice grammar.
|
| Posted 04/07/2008 at 11:52 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
NOTE
The management of this site emphasizes that it is in no way liable for persons, physical or legal, who are hosted here. Moreover, the managers of this site may not be held liable for errors and omissions that may slip into the information displayed in these reader comments. Everyone who submits a comment should read, understand and agree to the Terms of Usage for this section.
|
|
|
2
