>> 1.      "some of the revenues from a carbon tax can also be used to
>> compensate groups adversely affected by the tax."

Steve writes:
> If you take the money raised by such taxes and spend it you run the risk of
>creating a perverse incentive where you never actually decrease the
>activity, emission, whatever you are taxing.  Why, because now you have a
>group that relies on these taxes and wont be happy to see that revenue
>disappear.

It is obvious you don't understand the topic of taxation well enough and
it's effect on economies and groups which face an unequal & high tax burden.
Who pays the highest taxation currently? Well it is those people who are
wage earners, the worker. Reducing labour taxes would improve productivity
at the national level. As to your other question regarding tax cuts: Canada
has reduced it's taxation levels both for corporations and for individuals.
The province of Alberta will have no debt left in 2001 and this province has
had surplus budgets since 1996. Saskatchewan also has had no deficits for
several years. Ontario and BC are racking up huge surpluses this year.
Despite all the tax cuts, our employment rates are high historically, we are
now putting more funds back into our universal medicare, and we are creating
a better environment in many provinces by establishing new protected areas.
We plan far into the future and we don't always rely on 'for profit
organizations' to supply essential services. One of the salient features for
for this success is due to public funding of essential services like
utilities, cost control in medicine, etc.

Therefore following the Swedish and Scandinavian example of public
investment  we can have stability in our economy. Now the challenge will be
to use those additional revenues which are now contributing to an economic
surplus to invest in clean energy sources. And we are doing this. BC Hydro
is investing a lot into energy efficiency, renewable energy, and restoration
of habitat.

>Rrrriiiightttt, when was the last time we saw taxes get decreased.  Oh
>wait, I seem to remember, Reagan, but I am sure it was all an evil plot.

Last year and this year my taxes went down at the Federal and Provincial
levels. The capital gains tax is being slashed to 50% of the gains. We have
rebates for lower income persons for expenditures on the Goods and Services Tax.


>> 3.      "Carbon taxes offer a practical and administratively manageable
>> means of encouraging a "least cost" approach to achieving any given
>> level of
>> reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Compared to regulatory
>> alternatives
>> they could save significant economic resources."
>
>Actually this is true and I think a tax is preferred, it is all this other
>crud that is pawned off in an attempt to "sell" the tax.  If you agree to
>this tax we will lower other taxes (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, "Say no
>more.").

No. The idea is to reduce the marginal tax rate where it makes sense to:
where marginal rates impact the most productve components: labour and
capital. Right now companies like Cisco Systems and others are moving to
Canada because the Canadian labour costs are lower, our dollar is lower, and
we have a better public health care system which is much cheaper than in the
US. It makes sense now to invest in mass rapid public transportation, and
that is what Canada is doing. Bombadier is a world wide company that
manufactures light rail transit systems. It is currently investing in a
partnership with Daimler Benz which will make it one of the largest owners
of mass  transit in Europe. A new route was just commenced between
Washington, DC and New York. The trains travel at high speeds and are
competitive with jets.

 This company is going to be one of the 'growth stories of the decade." We
have light rail transit being installed in Vancouver as we speak so as to
reduce pollution,  to decrease traffic congestion on the streets and to
reduce communting time. This publically funded investment is partially paid
for by taxes on cars [essentially a carbon tax]. Lots of investment funding
is coming from the Federal government. In Houston, Texas, on the other hand,
there is no mass rapid public transit, and as a result the city there has
the nation's worst ozone levels. This city has horrendous urban sprawl...I
know because I have been there, and people are frustrated & angry because
there are day time advisories that warn parents to not let their children
play outdoors in the school yard.