from a CBC article
Liberal environment critic David McGuinty challenged Baird on whether he supports a carbon tax on industry, asking whether he agrees "it's time to charge for the right to pollute into the atmosphere."
"I disagree with the notion of a carbon tax," Baird said. "Our approach will be to provide regulation for industry to ensure we reduce both greenhouse gas emissions and reduce air pollutants."
But wait a sec: Regulation is the way the old-left dealt with environmental issues. The enlightened right, having taken a little economics, ought to know that carbon taxes are the right way to provide incentives and raise a little revenue as well. If you don't want the government to have more money to spend, then you just lower income taxes so the carbon tax increase becomes revenue neutral.
Some people get it. Read this excellent Slate article by Anne Applebaum:
Fortunately, there is such a solution, one that is grippingly unoriginal, requires no special knowledge of economics, and is extremely easy for any country to apply. It's called a carbon tax, and it should be applied across the board to every industry that uses fossil fuels, every home or building with a heating system, every motorist, and every public transportation system. Immediately, it would produce a wealth of innovations designed to save fuel, as well as new incentives to conserve. More to the point, it would produce a big chunk of money that could be used for other things. Anyone for balancing the budget? Fixing Social Security for future generations? Cutting income tax dramatically? As a little foreign-policy side benefit, users of the tax would suddenly find themselves less dependent on Gulf oil or Russian gas.
Wearing a green tie (as Blaird was doing when he dismissed the use of carbon taxes) is an empty gesture if you don't understand the simplest economics of the environment.
