Federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion announced his grand-old climate plan to save the world and attempt to get his party back into power this fall recently.  The big buzz of his plan is “carbon-taxes” as opposed to the Harper-Layton deal of “cap-and-trade.”

The New York Times has a bit of an explanation and comparison between the two systems:

Under the cap-and-trade model, which is embodied in most of the legislation that has been offered so far to deal with global warming, the government would set an overall limit — squeezed lower and lower over time — on the amount of carbon dioxide that can be pumped into the atmosphere.

…

A carbon tax reverses the process. The government would impose a tax on carbon output, gradually raising the price of energy produced from fossil fuels to higher and higher levels. The cost of coal would go up the most, because it emits more carbon dioxide for each unit of energy, with the price rising less for products derived from oil like gasoline and jet fuel, and even less for natural gas. The money raised by the tax, ideally, would be used to offset other taxes in ways that could compensate lower-income households and minimize damage to the economy.

Carbon taxes are likely less popular due to the word “tax” which no one likes, however, an experiment has been launched in BC where they have begun taxing all fossil fuels.

Critics can be found supporting either side of the issue, however the key here is that BOTH methods actually start doing something about climate change, as opposed to earlier “intensity” regulations.  Time will tell which method reigns supreme in Canada.