"It's really not an either-or situation."
Demerse said it's "an artificial distinction" to suggest, as Layton has done, that the NDP route would punish polluters while the Liberals' would punish consumers. She noted that a carbon price charged to big emitters will eventually end up being passed on to consumers.
And, the above is why I think the NDP have unnecessarily boxed themselves in on the environment file. On specifics, you could argue cap and trade trickles down anyways, as noted above, so you are essentially undercutting your own concerns about a carbon tax.
Layton admits as much on the NDP website today:
“We all know that the economy will be affected by any serious attempt to curb emissions,”
Which is why the NDP offers a billion dollars for "training", obviously in reaction to the lost jobs such a plan would bring. Anyways, if the NDP wishes to argue that they can focus on half the problem and get the desired result, floating themselves as the champions of the poor, while the Liberal plan is put on the backs of the "vulnerable", that is their choice, but in the end it won't fly. Why?
I don't know the Liberal plan, but if anyone wants to believe there won't be allowances to protect the people Layton champions, then they are in for a rude surprise. Layton argues the merits of cap and trade, which I don't necessarily disagree with, but in presenting such a black and white argument, the kneejerk attack on the Liberals, I think he has ultimately failed politically.
"How to put together a revenue neutral carbon tax, leading towards, leading towards a cap and trade system. It's not an either/or situation, we might have a revenue neutral carbon tax, followed by a cap and trade system."
Exactly the point of Demerse, and a posture which will out-flank the NDP. The Liberals will offer a cap and trade component, but with some understanding, supported by experts, that it will take time to develop. A two stage approach that doesn't reject either view, but embraces them both, while the NDP have painted themselves into one corner. It may just end up that Layton loses his either/or argument, as Dion agrees on merit, but differs in approach, with an added element. I'm sure my NDP friends would vehemently disagree ;)