The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Like I said, a situation that has come about because of deliberate political cynicism. That doesn't invalidate the basic economic concepts behind carbon pricing.

A sensible policy requires a consideration of the political environment as well as economic theory. Implementing a policy that only changes behaviour over a long time horizon without broad political consensus won’t do much.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

A sensible policy requires a consideration of the political environment as well as economic theory. Implementing a policy that only changes behaviour over a long time horizon without broad political consensus won’t do much.

To be fair, when the policy was actually implemented, or wasn't that controversial and the LPC did campaign on carbon pricing. Unfortunately for Canada, the US went heavy on subsidies. I'm coming around to the idea that alignment with the US might just mean ditching carbon pricing and resorting to subsidies. Also since our apparent understanding of the world is now dictated by American tv.

I'm not going to say I mind if the government is going to cut the $800 rebate for my family and give me $8k to buy an EV instead (likely Poilievre strategy). I do think it's poor public policy though.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Both of you have yet to provide evidence that the revenue-neutral model has successfully reduced emissions in Canada when compared to us having no carbon tax.

You'll just have to accept supply and demand as an economic concept.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You'll just have to accept supply and demand as an economic concept.

He's an entrepreneur. It's apparently beyond his understanding.

Even a cursory look at emissions per capita would show there's at least some progress (setting aside oil exports). Raw population growth is outstripping our ability to cut emissions absolutely though.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Build.It

You hit the nail on the head. This is why social engineering policies such as the carbon tax are destined to fail. It can't overcome human selfishness.

Policy makers need to realize that they will never be able to predict human behaviour, and should assume that humans will do what's in their own best interest first. That is generally why laissez-fare is the most best way to let newer more efficient technology become commercially viable.

This isn't social engineering. It's more like a sin tax. I mostly disagree we should or could pay the cost to bring our emissions to zero but that is a different debate. If the most important policy consideration in Canada is to get to zero emissions as fast as possible of course a carbon tax is one of the best ways to get there. It will be closer to $800/tonne though and knock our standard of living back to Argentina's. Even if our getting to zero solved the problem I think it's clearly not worth that. Given that our contribution is all but irrelevant it surely is pointless virtue signaling.

Nobody in the mainstream left or right wants to hear that though. Centre Left wants to imagine it's win win and recycling and low flow shower head is all the sacrifice needed. and Centre right imagines it can be done without taxes by someone else changing their lifestyle with a few incentives. Far left is happy to destroy capitalism to fix the problem and right doesn't believe or I think more commonly doesn't care.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

This isn't social engineering. It's more like a sin tax. I mostly disagree we should or could pay the cost to bring our emissions to zero but that is a different debate. If the most important policy consideration in Canada is to get to zero emissions as fast as possible of course a carbon tax is one of the best ways to get there. It will be closer to $800/tonne though and knock our standard of living back to Argentina's. Even if our getting to zero solved the problem I think it's clearly not worth that. Given that our contribution is all but irrelevant it surely is pointless virtue signaling.

Nobody in the mainstream left or right wants to hear that though. Centre Left wants to imagine it's win win and recycling and low flow shower head is all the sacrifice needed. and Centre right imagines it can be done without taxes by someone else changing their lifestyle with a few incentives. Far left is happy to destroy capitalism to fix the problem and right doesn't believe or I think more commonly doesn't care.

Nobody on any part of the political spectrum who has any sort of intelligence thinks that recycling or low flower shower heads have anything to do with emissions. You have to be pretty dumb to think that low flow anything creates greenhouse gas.

Some of the far left would be happy to destroy capitalism anyway - if it lowered greenhouse gas emissions that's just a bonus. Unfortunately, without significant regulation and financial prodding, much of capitalism will quite happily continue poisoning, polluting and emiting. Some have already decided they don't really care whether they promised to change their ways. And of course, they own some politicians so they can carry on with business as usual.

Even the ones who they don't own outright are willing to help by buying pipelines and propping up industries that help to continue burning stuff - even though burning stuff is what is creating the methane and CO2 that's changing the climate.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

yup. Top 20% of polluting households are net negative. Use you big bucks to fly internationally and drive an F-250? Yea, you will be feeling it. Use your money to go out for nice dinners and buy a Tesla? You will still be pocketing cash.

And that's the whole point.

Conservative opposition to the Carbon Tax is simply mind blowing to me. It's the exact definition of a market-driven response to climate change. Put a price on carbon and let the market figure out how to cut emissions.

As a conservative myself, I really like the way the carbon tax is structured - simple tax collection, money just rebated back, no bureaucracy. It's exactly what I would expect Margaret Thatcher to have come up with if she had been asked to design a climate change policy.

My main complaint with the plan is that we aren't actually using it and we've started rolling out all these mandates and heavy handed regulations anyway, even though the carbon tax means none of that is necessary. I wonder how much the increased public opposition to the tax in the last couple years comes from this fact (that the promise of the carbon tax as an alternative to big government has been violated by the LPC themselves). The kind of people who just hate paying carbon taxes were probably always opposed to it, but there's a lot less people supporting it now than five years ago.

[casper]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

As a conservative myself, I really like the way the carbon tax is structured - simple tax collection, money just rebated back, no bureaucracy. It's exactly what I would expect Margaret Thatcher to have come up with if she had been asked to design a climate change policy.

My main complaint with the plan is that we aren't actually using it and we've started rolling out all these mandates and heavy handed regulations anyway, even though the carbon tax means none of that is necessary. I wonder how much the increased public opposition to the tax in the last couple years comes from this fact (that the promise of the carbon tax as an alternative to big government has been violated by the LPC themselves). The kind of people who just hate paying carbon taxes were probably always opposed to it, but there's a lot less people supporting it now than five years ago.

I don't think most people understand it or care all that much about it. The only reason it has the attention it does is due to Conservative marketing.

It was successful in pushing early adaptors to start the transition. If it is pulled today, there now is likely enough momentum that we will likely continue on the path to a greener Canada.

Same thing with all the other green programs. Government forced stores to stop using plastic shopping bags in a number of cities. Now that the transition is done are we going back? No.

Now that heat pumps are a main-stream solutions are we going back? Probably not.

EVs are very mainstream. The growth in adoption may slow without the incentives but the transition is locked in and has its own momentum.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Nobody on any part of the political spectrum who has any sort of intelligence thinks that recycling or low flower shower heads have anything to do with emissions. You have to be pretty dumb to think that low flow anything creates greenhouse gas.

Some of the far left would be happy to destroy capitalism anyway - if it lowered greenhouse gas emissions that's just a bonus. Unfortunately, without significant regulation and financial prodding, much of capitalism will quite happily continue poisoning, polluting and emiting. Some have already decided they don't really care whether they promised to change their ways. And of course, they own some politicians so they can carry on with business as usual.

Even the ones who they don't own outright are willing to help by buying pipelines and propping up industries that help to continue burning stuff - even though burning stuff is what is creating the methane and CO2 that's changing the climate.

Hot water is certainly a decent source of carbon emissions. But the point is the consumer is attracted to these supposed win-win solutions. As your link points out there is even a downside to low flow shower heads. But reduce your hot water consumption by 20% in showers or use an on demand natural gas hot water heater is nothing compared to changing lifestyle that nobody wants to do. It's also fun to blame capitalism or capitalists from your suburban home with two cars in the driveway even if one of them is electric the Carbon footprint is more than 10 African or Indian families.

[bolognium]

The thing that's nice about the carbon tax approach is not only does it incentivize a change of habits, but it also rewards people that are already living lifestyles that are aligned with reducing emissions. If you rent in a multi-unit building or own a condo, and walk or take transit to work then the carbon tax works out really well for you.

If you're not looking to buy an EV, install solar panels, or replace a gas furnace with a heatpump, the whole green-goods subsidy approach is kind of a big middle finger to people that are already living low carbon-footprint lifestyles.

Bummed the carbon tax was politically botched cuz I'm enjoying it!

[Truenorth00]

My main complaint are the exemptions they put in line heating oil. Once you make Swiss cheese of the taxation regime, it ceases to be effective.

I don't think the regulation part is really heavy. They only really imposed three major regulations.

1) Coal phaseout by 2030. And this was really just an excuse to give a handful of provinces transition money.

2) 2035 ICEV mandate. This was really only imposed when carmakers started actively discriminating and prioritizing markets with mandates. Both the country as a whole and provinces inside the country. Even today, it's way easier to get an EV in Quebec and BC than the rest of the country. Regulation here is arguably pro-consumer.

3) Clean Fuel standard. This is arguably the most controversial and one that arguably would be unnecessary with a carbon price.

Some of these regulations are arguably needed because the carbon price is simply not high enough to compel economics based transition on their own. We see this kind of dance playing out in the oil sector right now with carbon capture. They want Contracts for Difference to guarantee a carbon price, to invest in carbon capture. They don't want that investment undermined by a future government scrapping carbon price.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by bolognium

The thing that's nice about the carbon tax approach is not only does it incentivize a change of habits, but it also rewards people that are already living lifestyles that are aligned with reducing emissions. If you rent in a multi-unit building or own a condo, and walk or take transit to work then the carbon tax works out really well for you.

If you're not looking to buy an EV, install solar panels, or replace a gas furnace with a heatpump, the whole green-goods subsidy approach is kind of a big middle finger to people that are already living low carbon-footprint lifestyles.

Bummed the carbon tax was politically botched cuz I'm enjoying it!

I wished there were these incentives when I last renoed the house. I don't expect them to be there when I need to replace the Furnace and AC. And I missed out on the Solar one.

[Build.It]

Even a cursory look at emissions per capita would show there's at least some progress (setting aside oil exports). Raw population growth is outstripping our ability to cut emissions absolutely though.

I'm asking you to provide a source that shows how the revenue-neutral carbon tax system has reduced emissions. It's a very simple request.

You also didn't answer my question:
Does the carbon tax have anything to do with your reasons for living in a condo with one vehicle? Was it a motivating factor? Or would you have lived that way anyways, regardless of the carbon tax?

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Ontario’s emissions per capita are the third lowest in Canada, at 10.1 tonnes of CO2e – 43% below the Canadian average of 17.7 tonnes per capita.

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-an...s-ontario.html

They use the metric tonne, so when you convert to imperial tons it's 11.1 tons, same as Georgia and many other US states. We were a tad lower than NY and PA in 2020. I'm curious how we compare today.

Thanks for the precisions.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Build.It

I'm asking you to provide a source that shows how the revenue-neutral carbon tax system has reduced emissions. It's a very simple request.

It's only relevant against the theoretical world in which we don't have a carbon tax. Nothing will convince you.

"You can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It's only relevant against the theoretical world in which we don't have a carbon tax. Nothing will convince you.

"You can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

That's your excuse for not having evidence?

If the carbon tax works it should be easy to prove. There should be at least some sort of study now that it has been around for 6 years to confirm that it has done anything to reduce emissions. In a country of 40 million people, with plenty of well-educated environmental scientists, has no one even attempted to confirm that it actually works?

It should be pretty simple to figure out:

Compare various provinces emission reductions with years prior to the tax, and also compare it to peer countries/states who didn't have the tax at the same time as we did the tax.

[ssiguy]

My issue with the carbon tax is not the tax perse but rather the idea that if it works for one part of the country it will work everywhere. Canada is not the Netherlands or even Germany. We have wildly different geographies, economies, and political leanings. Canada is a classic case of "one size doesn't fit all".

By all means, Ottawa should set the environmental goals and have real financial penalties for not reaching them but let the individual provinces determine the best way to get there. In some provinces, where most of their emissions come from transportation, let them increase gas taxes and further subsidize transit or maybe most are from coal-fired plants so their best course of action maybe to spend their money closing them down, and for some it maybe decarbonizing their agricultural sector. It could be any of these things, all of them, none of them, or a combination of all of them including a carbon tax. We have vastly different economies and sources of GHG across the nation and reductions should reflect that reality because it is exactly that........a reality.

Mother Nature doesn't give a damn about how we reduce our GHG emissions as long as we do it so why does Ottawa?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Ontario’s emissions per capita are the third lowest in Canada, at 10.1 tonnes of CO2e – 43% below the Canadian average of 17.7 tonnes per capita.

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-an...s-ontario.html

They use the metric tonne, so when you convert to imperial tons it's 11.1 tons, same as Georgia and many other US states. We were a tad lower than NY and PA in 2020. I'm curious how we compare today.

Ontario produced 150.6 megatonnes of carbon emissions in 2021, up 2.7 per cent from 2020.

2022 data aren't published yet, but Ontario burned a lot more natural gas that year to generate electricity, so GHGs associated with electricity went up from 3.9 Mt CO2e in 2021 to 6.1 Mt CO2e in 2022.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Compare various provinces emission reductions with years prior to the tax, and also compare it to peer countries/states who didn't have the tax at the same time as we did the tax.

There's a few more variables than that. I'll trust the basic concept of supply and demand, and the Nobel winning carbon tax.

As others have stated, it's likely too low to push the needle too far.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Ontario produced 150.6 megatonnes of carbon emissions in 2021, up 2.7 per cent from 2020.

2022 data aren't published yet, but Ontario burned a lot more natural gas that year to generate electricity, so GHGs associated with electricity went up from 3.9 Mt CO2e in 2021 to 6.1 Mt CO2e in 2022.

In fairness to Ontario, GHG emissions plunged worldwide in 2020 due to the lockdown during COVID which stifled manufacturing, international travel, and commuting. A slight rebound in the emissions in 2021 was to be expected as the economy bounced back and people started travelling and working again.