Letter writer Mike Dutcher (Gazette, Jan. 4) has challenged Chris Nelson's article ‘Gambling on pipelines and carbon tax’ (Gazette, Dec. 14). While Mike did provide informative and accurate descriptions of Alberta’s long standing Emissions Reduction Program (since 2007), he went on to claim that a carbon tax, “tends to be the best option for resource based provinces.” My goodness, what school of resource economics did he go to? Perhaps Kathleen Wynne's School of Economics? And how's that working out for our friends out east?
Then to compare the competitiveness of our oil and gas producers within the global marketplace, where no other producer faces a substantive emission tax (i.e., not OPEC, Russia, U.S. nor Venezuela), while comparing us with EU and Scandinavian “non” producing countries is so far out of context as to be absurd. Henceforth, please compare apples with apples.
Our provincial economy – our healthcare, hospitals, all of it – is dependent upon a viable oil and gas industry. Viable is an economic term, rarely used in social justice circles. And our ethics are in our regulations and they are substantive. Imagine for a bit the regulatory costs facing our competitors, in Russia or OPEC nations.
I offer that a carbon tax on consumers in an oil- and gas-producing province is the very worst way to achieve reduction in consumption. Plus it is additive to the $20/T cap and trade tax on Alberta producers already. Does anyone believe they haven't off loaded that cost onto consumers already? Government has merely picked a new target. It’s now all of us.
But I see from the well-publicized photo op they got the oil and gas industry off their back, by sharing those costs with all Albertans.
Bill Rugg, St. Albert
