ridenrain wrote:
If Kyoto is any indication, it's pretty clear that the taxpayers will not have a say in where these taxes go. Kyoto was all about the modern western world helping the poorer, developing world (China, Saudi Araba, Dubai, Arab Emerites..

) move directly to "green" power. This was soundly rejected by Canadians.
Kyoto was pie-in-the-sky idea. It's not a good example of a cap & trade system.
ridenrain wrote:
This is an unnessesary tax, at the wrong time, that will do nothing to reduce polution in Canada.
Which? A cap-and-trade system within Canada could be set up that would improve pollution and reduce taxes. It could be implemented to replace all sorts of other taxation schemes. There's nothing wrong with the idea, provided it's designed and implemented correctly. Any scheme that includes incentives to improve are likely to work better than the current system of taxation, based on income, which essentially is a tax on how WELL you do. A cap & trade system is based on taxing those who do BADLY instead of those who do well. Isn't that a good thing?