Comments on: How to make real climate policy without destroying the Canadian federation: Insightful new CD Howe report on regional equity concerns of Canadian climate policies http://greenpolicyprof.org/wordpress/?p=489 George Hoberg -- Seeking insights into governance for sustainability Sat, 20 Aug 2016 14:35:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: A Canadian Election Primer on the Climate Policy Expert Consensus on Policy Design | GreenPolicyProf http://greenpolicyprof.org/wordpress/?p=489&cpage=1#comment-1941 A Canadian Election Primer on the Climate Policy Expert Consensus on Policy Design | GreenPolicyProf Fri, 29 Apr 2011 22:19:44 +0000 http://greenpolicyprof.org/wordpress/?p=489#comment-1941 [...] In Canada, the regional distributional issues are particularly controversial, but there are well-considered mechanisms to address these concerns. We need a national dialogue on the fairest way to share the burden of [...] [...] In Canada, the regional distributional issues are particularly controversial, but there are well-considered mechanisms to address these concerns. We need a national dialogue on the fairest way to share the burden of [...]

]]> By: Andrew Leach http://greenpolicyprof.org/wordpress/?p=489&cpage=1#comment-1843 Andrew Leach Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:18:44 +0000 http://greenpolicyprof.org/wordpress/?p=489#comment-1843 Great post. You do a fantastic job of breaking down key misconceptions about climate policy, without failing into the trap that many people did when this report was released. If I recall, the Globe and Mail headline implied that the C.D.Howe report showed that climate policy would not harm Alberta. As you correctly point out, the report shows that you can design a policy that would imply a net transfer of wealth into Alberta while still allowing Canada to meet its GHG mitigation goals. Unfortunately, we spend far too much time in this country discussing the mechanism (carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade) and not enough time discussing stringency and rent attribution/revenue recycling from those policies. Unfortunately, the policy landscape is still littered with opinions decrying \job-killing carbon taxes\ or with papers that suggest that BC's experience with a carbon tax suggests that people will all benefit from carbon policy. It's too bad the world is much more complicated than that and, as you point out, policy design, the rules by which proceeds are re-assigned and the stringency of the policy matter a lot more than whether it is a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade policy, or an emissions-intensity based system. Cheers, Andrew Great post. You do a fantastic job of breaking down key misconceptions about climate policy, without failing into the trap that many people did when this report was released. If I recall, the Globe and Mail headline implied that the C.D.Howe report showed that climate policy would not harm Alberta. As you correctly point out, the report shows that you can design a policy that would imply a net transfer of wealth into Alberta while still allowing Canada to meet its GHG mitigation goals. Unfortunately, we spend far too much time in this country discussing the mechanism (carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade) and not enough time discussing stringency and rent attribution/revenue recycling from those policies. Unfortunately, the policy landscape is still littered with opinions decrying \job-killing carbon taxes\ or with papers that suggest that BC’s experience with a carbon tax suggests that people will all benefit from carbon policy. It’s too bad the world is much more complicated than that and, as you point out, policy design, the rules by which proceeds are re-assigned and the stringency of the policy matter a lot more than whether it is a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade policy, or an emissions-intensity based system.

Cheers,

Andrew

]]>