SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Manitoba & Saskatchewan (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=129)
-   -   Carbon Tax Discussions (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=238556)

pappcam Apr 11, 2019 2:29 AM

Carbon Tax Discussions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by djforsberg (Post 8536319)
With all due respect Stormer, screw off. The debate about the consequences of climate change is settled, so enough with your belittling of what is the most pressing issue of our time. People like you who can’t take your oil coated glasses off are the exception. People like me who are still mulling over starting a family are considering climate change above short term economics for our major life decisions because we are already seeing how economies across the world are being negatively effected by climate change. Either Saskatchewan gets on board with the inevitable or we keep betting on a boom that human society depends on not happening.

Please don't

djforsberg Apr 11, 2019 2:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pappcam (Post 8536466)
Please don't

That’s a compliment from someone like you.

dmacc Apr 11, 2019 1:50 PM

carbon tax discusions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking (Post 8536155)
we all get our money back, so you'll have to explain how it could be a revenue stream. It will be for me personally, I suppose.

You think government regulations on industry are free and will not be passed down to a consumer? You don't think you are paying for tax incentives?...where do you think that money comes from?

Half of Winnipeg's emissions come from vehicles (1/3 from private cars). Another 1/3 is from buildings...most of which are private homes. If you target only heavy emitters (of which there are less than 10 in Manitoba) you are missing a pretty significant amount of the problem.

If we all get our money back then why tax us on it in the first place?

You are right, government regulation on industry would be passed on to consumers, but so will this carbon tax. So implementing it as a tax shows me that the government just wants to profit off of it. Tax incentives result in the government agreeing to take less of your money if you show you are spending your money in a sustainable way. The government doesn't give you money, they just tax you less.

Half of Winnipeg's emissions come from vehicles (1/3 from private cars), offering the ability to claim a portion of the purchase of a Hybrid/Electric car up to $45,000 would help encourage the transition. Also allowing people who buy bikes and bus passes to claim the total amount would also help. You can encourage people to change by making it a positive to change in stead of punishing those who don't change.

Winnipegger Apr 11, 2019 2:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmacc (Post 8536756)
If we all get our money back then why tax us on it in the first place?

You are right, government regulation on industry would be passed on to consumers, but so will this carbon tax. So implementing it as a tax shows me that the government just wants to profit off of it. Tax incentives result in the government agreeing to take less of your money if you show you are spending your money in a sustainable way. The government doesn't give you money, they just tax you less.

Because even though you get money back, the tax on pollution will affect the price of those goods, which will affect your decision at the margin. So while you may have received $180 to $340 back in this year's tax return in anticipation of the additional costs you will pay over the next year brought about by the carbon tax, you will still experience "sticker shock" the next time you go buy an item that now has carbon tax applied to it. The hope is that even though you got money back, when it comes time to actually pay the price on carbon when go to the store/gas station/pay your bill, you will think twice about how much of it you consume, if any. And if you choose to consume less, and don't end up paying as much carbon tax as you were reimbursed for this tax season, then the policy is working and you end up better off.

At the end of the day, in a democratic market economy, the government can influence your consumption decisions in two ways: taxing goods and services that bring about negative externalities/outcomes (i.e. pollution), and subsidizing positive externalities/outcomes (i.e. reducing carbon footprint by buying electric vehicles in jurisdictions that provide clean electricity). Both can be effective if done right.

bomberjet Apr 11, 2019 2:15 PM

The carbon tax is supposed to alter your habits away from fossil fuels. Is it the best system, probably not. But it's something. Will it last, probably not.

Change to electric when the time comes. Cars, heating, whatever.

EdwardTH Apr 11, 2019 2:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmacc (Post 8536756)
If we all get our money back then why tax us on it in the first place?

You are right, government regulation on industry would be passed on to consumers, but so will this carbon tax. So implementing it as a tax shows me that the government just wants to profit off of it. Tax incentives result in the government agreeing to take less of your money if you show you are spending your money in a sustainable way. The government doesn't give you money, they just tax you less.

Half of Winnipeg's emissions come from vehicles (1/3 from private cars), offering the ability to claim a portion of the purchase of a Hybrid/Electric car up to $45,000 would help encourage the transition. Also allowing people who buy bikes and bus passes to claim the total amount would also help. You can encourage people to change by making it a positive to change in stead of punishing those who don't change.

Yeah but a lot of the time being sustainable means just not making a purchase or buying less of something, how do you provide a tax incentive when there's no money being spent? If a guy decides to start walking to work there's no way to reward that. Somebody decides to eat less meat and lower their carbon footprint - are we gonna give tax breaks for all produce purchases? Also getting money back on your taxes is nice but how much does it factor in to the decision the consumer makes at that very moment, knowing they'll get xx% of it back a year later? People look at the sticker price.

There's no way to properly incentivize all low-carbon activities, but slap a tax on it and you can instantly create a negative incentive for everything carbon-intensive. Even things like where people buy their homes. If gas is pricey people might think twice about that McMansion out in the boonies where they have to drive 50km to work and back each day. I'd love to see how you put together a tax break scheme that rewards people for living closer to work or in a walkable neighbourhood, or for buying a smaller house with lower heating costs, etc. If you reward people for putting a more efficient furnace in their giant home you're really just encouraging more consumption - how would you reward someone for just buying a smaller home with less space to heat?

optimusREIM Apr 11, 2019 3:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdwardTH (Post 8536801)
Yeah but a lot of the time being sustainable means just not making a purchase or buying less of something, how do you provide a tax incentive when there's no money being spent? If a guy decides to start walking to work there's no way to reward that. Somebody decides to eat less meat and lower their carbon footprint - are we gonna give tax breaks for all produce purchases? Also getting money back on your taxes is nice but how much does it factor in to the decision the consumer makes at that very moment, knowing they'll get xx% of it back a year later? People look at the sticker price.

There's no way to properly incentivize all low-carbon activities, but slap a tax on it and you can instantly create a negative incentive for everything carbon-intensive. Even things like where people buy their homes. If gas is pricey people might think twice about that McMansion out in the boonies where they have to drive 50km to work and back each day. I'd love to see how you put together a tax break scheme that rewards people for living closer to work or in a walkable neighbourhood, or for buying a smaller house with lower heating costs, etc. If you reward people for putting a more efficient furnace in their giant home you're really just encouraging more consumption - how would you reward someone for just buying a smaller home with less space to heat?

But you're already taxing them for driving that far.

This tax is literally just going to hurt the lowest income earners and everyone else will just get over it. Eventually those at the lower end of the earning scale will feel the pinch more and more, which is not in anyone's interest.

I unequivocally disagree that the carbon tax is in any way an effective emissions reduction measure. Those who can afford the tax will alter their habits in negligible ways and those who are already struggling will be in even more unstable financial situations.

Maybe let's incentivize the production of renewable energy instead (because your electric car and green electric heating is dirtier than anything if you produce power with coal) and make investments in useful transit so that those who need to drive to get places might actually have a viable alternative, not this "made-in-winnipeg" bullshit transit solution. Also make investments in alternative energy science and research and make the information open-source so the private sector can take advantage and make the transition away from fossil fuels voluntarily.

rrskylar Apr 11, 2019 4:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinus (Post 8536621)
DefenCe :)

LOL! yeah damn ipad, use the word defense a lot on another forum!;)

NotToScale Apr 11, 2019 5:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djforsberg (Post 8536361)
I saw that headline. I’m more concerned about bringing a child into this world having to deal with the mess we are going to leave them, especially with people like Stormer, Scott Moe and Andrew Scheer who don’t give a shit.

That's pretty rich for you to say they don't give a shit. I think most people in Sask give a shit about nature, climate and the future.

LittleBoy Apr 11, 2019 5:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotToScale (Post 8537046)
That's pretty rich for you to say they don't give a shit. I think most people in Sask give a shit about nature, climate and the future.

Most people is certainly an overstatement. On a per capita basis, Saskatchewan emits 4x as much CO2 as the USA, Australia, or even Canada as a whole. If Saskatchewan were its own country, it would have the second worst emissions in the whole world. Yes, there are people legitimately concerned about climate change, but they are certainly not in the majority.

https://www.saskwind.ca/per-capita-ghgs-sk-world/

NotToScale Apr 11, 2019 5:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleBoy (Post 8537075)
Most people is certainly an overstatement. On a per capita basis, Saskatchewan emits 4x as much CO2 as the USA, Australia, or even Canada as a whole. If Saskatchewan were its own country, it would have the second worst emissions in the whole world. Yes, there are people legitimately concerned about climate change, but they are certainly not in the majority.

https://www.saskwind.ca/per-capita-ghgs-sk-world/

I will disagree, and that's fine. I think people legitimately care about the environment in Sask.

Stormer Apr 11, 2019 6:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleBoy (Post 8537075)
Most people is certainly an overstatement. On a per capita basis, Saskatchewan emits 4x as much CO2 as the USA, Australia, or even Canada as a whole. If Saskatchewan were its own country, it would have the second worst emissions in the whole world. Yes, there are people legitimately concerned about climate change, but they are certainly not in the majority.

https://www.saskwind.ca/per-capita-ghgs-sk-world/

But the main reason for this by far is that we were not blessed with Hydro like almost every other province in Canada. Cold weather, Agriculture and industry add a lot as well. Saskpower shifting from coal to natural gas and renewables over the next 11 years will make a big difference

Curmudgeon Apr 11, 2019 6:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar (Post 8537024)
LOL! yeah damn ipad, use the word defense a lot on another forum!;)

Both are correct. Defence is the original spelling and by far the most common spelling in the Commonwealth countries whereas Defense is the common spelling in the United States. It's an example of the simplification of American English that begin with the publication of Webster's dictionary around 1830. Defensive, defensiveness, defensible, etc. were spelled with the s then and still are, so it was thought preferable to spell the root word in the same way. The change in usage was a slow process, it took to the early 20th century before defense became the preferred spelling in the U.S. It's a creeping Americanism here, introduced to Canada in WWII and becoming increasingly used in Canadian publications over the following decades. Still fairly infrequent though.

djforsberg Apr 11, 2019 6:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotToScale (Post 8537106)
I will disagree, and that's fine. I think people legitimately care about the environment in Sask.

Saying you care about the environment and actually willing to be inconvenienced slightly by it, like using less harmful pesticides on your crops (i.e. neonicotinoids, which are destroying bee populations) or paying a price on carbon emissions to pay one's fair share of a negative externality, are another.

Also, I said this before, but it is absolutely appalling that the roofs of buildings in downtown (and elsewhere) Regina aren't covered in solar panels.

LittleBoy Apr 11, 2019 6:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotToScale (Post 8537106)
I will disagree, and that's fine. I think people legitimately care about the environment in Sask.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and I support that fully, as long as you acknowledge the statistics I've posted as scientific fact, you can feel free to interpret them in whatever way you feel is right.

NotToScale Apr 11, 2019 6:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djforsberg (Post 8537150)
Saying you care about the environment and actually willing to be inconvenienced slightly by it, like using less harmful pesticides on your crops (i.e. neonicotinoids, which are destroying bee populations) or paying a price on carbon emissions to pay one's fair share of a negative externality, are another.

Also, I said this before, but it is absolutely appalling that the roofs of buildings in downtown (and elsewhere) Regina aren't covered in solar panels.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. I do believe best farming practices are important, but also having healthy and profitable crops. No one is more concerned about the land then farmers as they are directly tied to it. Carbon taxation I don't agree with.

Since we talk construction here, buildings/construction/demolition and the life of buildings play a much bigger role in pollutants and energy waste/consumption. I think tackling that aspect and its effect on the environment/resources should have a bigger focus in todays world.

Having more efficiently designed residential, commercial and industrial buildings closer to a passiv-haus standard could go a long way.

NotToScale Apr 11, 2019 6:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleBoy (Post 8537164)
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and I support that fully, as long as you acknowledge the statistics I've posted as scientific fact, you can feel free to interpret them in whatever way you feel is right.

Sure, I acknowledge the information you provided. But you have to acknowledge that a farmer in Sask is going to have a higher ghg emissions record compared to a hipster living in Kitsilano neighbourhood of Vancouver based entirely on the careers, lifestyle and geographical nature of where they live. That's comparing apples to oranges. So sure, the graphs can state that and its probably true, but a per capita basis on regional differences is not the best argument for a stat like this. I will agree it looks good in graph form to get people yelling and pointing fingers.

jigglysquishy Apr 11, 2019 7:01 PM

The issue isn't farmers. It's people in White City or Warman who put on 30k km a year. Or the people in suburban Regina/Saskatoon who drive everywhere. Or the non ag workers in small town Saskatchewan who continue to aggressively support coal.

Realistically, commuters and coal power plants are far and away our biggest problem polluters. We should have fazed coal out in the 60s.

Stormer Apr 11, 2019 7:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy (Post 8537206)
The issue isn't farmers. It's people in White City or Warman who put on 30k km a year. Or the people in suburban Regina/Saskatoon who drive everywhere. Or the non ag workers in small town Saskatchewan who continue to aggressively support coal.

Realistically, commuters and coal power plants are far and away our biggest problem polluters. We should have fazed coal out in the 60s.

I would put commuters far below coal. Transport and electricity generation emit similar amounts of CO2 in Sask, but transport includes business vehicles, long haul trucks, aircraft, public transport, trains, etc.

djforsberg Apr 11, 2019 8:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotToScale (Post 8537172)
There is more than one way to skin a cat. I do believe best farming practices are important, but also having healthy and profitable crops. No one is more concerned about the land then farmers as they are directly tied to it. Carbon taxation I don't agree with.

Since we talk construction here, buildings/construction/demolition and the life of buildings play a much bigger role in pollutants and energy waste/consumption. I think tackling that aspect and its effect on the environment/resources should have a bigger focus in todays world.

Having more efficiently designed residential, commercial and industrial buildings closer to a passiv-haus standard could go a long way.

See that's the problem. In a fair and efficient market, you cannot effectively lower carbon emissions without a price on carbon, which is a negative externality that comes with a cost to others not involved in the transaction. You cannot believe in a fair and efficient market and want to lower carbon emissions while opposing a price on carbon. This is as fundamental as economics and human behaviour can get.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.