Carbon Tax Discussions

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

You're being dogmatic. Impossible to engage in a constructive discussion about what can and should be done to address a changing climate and possible resource shortages if only certain questions and answers are permitted. Was is possible to have an open debate about astronomy in the confines of the 15th century church? There isn't, and there shouldn't be, only one conclusion, one argument and one solution. Your first point is deflection. There has to be consideration of economic consequences. The country is flirting with recession as it is and the productivity gap vs. the U.S. continues to widen.

Naturally a colder climate increases emissions. Three families live in 1000 square foot bungalows, one family lives in Winnipeg, another in Denver and another in Victoria, B.C. Each family heats by natural gas, has the same furnace and they all heat their homes to 21°C (70°F). Who do you think will use the most natural gas in a typical heating season? Is a typical heating bill higher in January or in April? Regarding density and infrastructure, who creates more emissions?, the individual who drives 20 km round trip to work each day in a private car or the individual who uses rapid transit for the same journey? Which individual is more representative of the typical Canadian, esp. outside of the three largest cities, and more particularly those in the inner portions of those cities? Which individual is more representative of the typical resident of London, Tokyo or New York? Why isn't public transport patronized widely in Houston? For that matter, why is it not in Winnipeg?

To your third point, some will likely get their money back, but for instance a typical two person household who use 80 litres of gasoline a week (probably a low estimate for typical consumption habits here) will see their fuel bill rise by $183 and Manitoba Hydro expects the carbon tax to add $88 to the average heating gas bill, so the total for those two items is $271 which exceeds the $255 rebate for this household, and other cost increases have yet to be factored in, particularly for food which prices will rise due to increased transport costs.

And what are the overall plans for greater efficiency? What is under construction, what are the proposed targets for example for average fuel economy? Why afer 50 years of talking is a Toronto-Montreal (Windsor-Quebec) high speed rail corridor still decades away? To what extent doesl population growth affect emissions? Will the tax result in added revenue which will be used in order that existing inefficiencies can be sustained? These are all legitimate questions.

Just because it’s cold in Canada doesn’t mean you can’t buy a high efficiency furnace or put on a sweater or live in a smaller house. Just because we’ve built sprawling car dependent cities doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reduce driving or buy smaller cars or fewer cars. These are exactly the reasons the carbon tax is important. Using 80 litres of gas a week is your choice. Not using transit is your choice. Neither are requirements and the goal is to change those things. If you are not getting your money back you are the problem and you should pay. If your family spends $6000 per year on gasoline maybe not having the rebate cover your costs by a hundred dollars isn’t your biggest problem.

House sizes have doubled since the 1970’s and family sizes have dropped by 1/3. A tax helps change that consumption. Our cars have also all become trucks and SUV’s. Why? Is that something that is unable to change? Only Germans can live in smaller spaces and drive smaller cars?

For other commenters.

Carbon tax doesn’t hurt low income because they get the money back and only wealthy people will not get back more than they pay.

Providing incentives for electric cars is not a way to create change. There’s more than a million cars in Manitoba today. How long would it take to switch even half of those over. And again. Incentives cost money. So you are paying for it as a taxpayer. The Carbon Tax you are not.

And again. Cars are only part of the problem. Tax the pollution you tax the problem. Incentives only reach small pieces.

Carbon taxes have been proven effective. Incentives have not.

[trueviking]

Personally I think the carbon tax should be reinvested into green technology and things like transit instead of getting it back but making it revenue neutral is the only way to sell it politically as this discussion points out.

A good description fior why it still works even if you get the money back is - if I told you I would reimburse you at the end of the year all the money you spent on cauliflower, which was made more expensive through a tax, you might choose less expensive broccoli more often when you are standing at the grocery store. You still get the money back but you’ve changed your behaviour.

[Riverman]

^ Your hammer and sickle are showing.

Everything will be more expensive. There is no tax in history that will impact the poor like this one. Every single thing we eat, buy, want and need comes on a truck. Every single thing will be more expensive. Will these increased costs be refunded too? Bloody unlikely.

Oh did you forget to mention GST will be charged on top of the carbon tax?

Fortunately, this moronic experiment will be over in October.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Fortunately, this moronic experiment will be over in October.

Will it though? I'm definitely not voting for Scheer (Trump wannabe authoritarian). I'm also definitely not voting for Trudeau. So who's left? This is a common theme among people I talk to. Just wait until the Liberals are re-elected.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

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.

What do you do about trade exposed industries? Trudeau is just exempting most of them. Unless you get Trump, China and India onside, you are just kissing those industries goodbye.

[NotToScale]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

You cannot believe in a fair and efficient market and want to lower carbon emissions while opposing a price on carbon.

Look, you can believe that, that's fine, I think there are better ways to reduce and curb polluting. I don't believe a tax is the answer.

As I stated already, in keeping the discussion in construction, a focus on building practices can help reduce needs on heating/cooling/electrical, which in turn would help reduce the need on the electrical grid and those big power emitters.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Personally I think the carbon tax should be reinvested into green technology and things like transit instead of getting it back but making it revenue neutral is the only way to sell it politically as this discussion points out.

BRT isn't green. Rail, powered by somewhat cheap (and safer than Nuke) Hydro power is.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by Stormer

What do you do about trade exposed industries? Trudeau is just exempting most of them. Unless you get Trump, China and India onside, you are just kissing those industries goodbye.

Imported goods should have a tariff applied to them equal to the carbon tax, unless a price on carbon is already included in the cost. Its unfortunate the Liberal government hasn't looked into this seriously yet.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by NotToScale

Look, you can believe that, that's fine, I think there are better ways to reduce and curb polluting. I don't believe a tax is the answer.

It has nothing to do about beliefs. As I said, its as fundamental to economics and human behaviour as it can be. Its like climate change itself. You cannot disbelieve facts, you can only disregard them.

Edit: I will add that what I am saying includes the necessary expediency of reducing carbon emissions before its too late and we end up with run away carbon concentrations (~12 years).

Originally Posted by NotToScale

As I stated already, in keeping the discussion in construction, a focus on building practices can help reduce needs on heating/cooling/electrical, which in turn would help reduce the need on the electrical grid and those big power emitters.

I'm all for that.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Imported goods should have a tariff applied to them equal to the carbon tax, unless a price on carbon is already included in the cost. Its unfortunate the Liberal government hasn't looked into this seriously yet.

I was also referring to industries that export and have to sell at world prices in competition with sellers from countries without carbon pricing. Examples in Saskatchewan would be agriculture, potash, steel and of course oil.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Everything will be more expensive. There is no tax in history that will impact the poor like this one. Every single thing we eat, buy, want and need comes on a truck. Every single thing will be more expensive.

Okay, here's my attempt to respond to this AND get the conversation back on-track. *ahem* Yes a carbon tax stinks, but it is intended to force a change in behaviour that many people are reluctant to make voluntarily. I would think, however, that the effects of climate change, in the form of violent and unpredictable storms, droughts, fires, etc. have already proven to be hugely more expensive in the form of cancelled airline flights, closed highways, flooded land, etc. It will also cause expense in Winnipeg Construction (IX) through climate-related delays!

There....pretty clever, eh???

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by pspeid

Okay, here's my attempt to respond to this AND get the conversation back on-track. *ahem* Yes a carbon tax stinks, but it is intended to force a change in behaviour that many people are reluctant to make voluntarily. I would think, however, that the effects of climate change, in the form of violent and unpredictable storms, droughts, fires, etc. have already proven to be hugely more expensive in the form of cancelled airline flights, closed highways, flooded land, etc. It will also cause expense in Winnipeg Construction (IX) through climate-related delays!

There....pretty clever, eh???

eh, I wouldn't put too much effort into trying. Its better to let the anti-vaxx, anti-climate, anti-humanity, anti-science people point themselves out - you can then go ahead and ignore anything/everything they say.

Can't solve stupid with moderation

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by Stormer

I was also referring to industries that export and have to sell at world prices in competition with sellers from countries without carbon pricing. Examples in Saskatchewan would be agriculture, potash, steel and of course oil.

For sure. And they should be helped. The fact the carbon tax is being phased in is one way. The provinces have full control of applying their own carbon taxes and the Sask government has the ability to rebate some or all of the carbon taxes these industries are now paying (though I enjoyed my personal refund - thanks Trudeau).

Just like in Canada, a majority of Americans want meaningful action on climate change. But we can’t wait for other countries to catch up, otherwise we will be the ones caught playing catch up. It’s too bad we didn’t start doing this during the oil boom.

Remember, carbon taxes are a conservative idea. Regulations, the other option, are typically a liberal idea and it’s best we avoid those in this case, to keep things fair and efficient.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by pspeid

Okay, here's my attempt to respond to this AND get the conversation back on-track. *ahem* Yes a carbon tax stinks, but it is intended to force a change in behaviour that many people are reluctant to make voluntarily.

Turdo giving $12 M corporate welfare cheques to Loblaws (for "freezers") that made a profit of $3 B in the past year doesn't sit very well with a lot of Canadians. Its robbing from the Poor to give more to the Rich.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/search-results/search-ctv-news-7.137?page=0&sortOrder=date&q=Loblaw+%2412+million&fdate=seven_days&ftype=&fpage=2.625


https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/don-...otes-1.4375979

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

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... 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.

As a guy who walks or cycles to work every day, the incentive *is* that there's no money being spent... on gas, on parking, on a second vehicle for the household (if my partner decided to also drive to work instead of walk). Plus the added incentive of exchanging the joys of driving on Winnipeg's smooth roads alongside it's many adept and courteous drivers for boring old exercise and fresh air.

As much of an urbanist nerd as I am, the main reason we both walk to work (and live within ~20 minutes of work in the first place) has little do with Freiburgian car-free ideals, or because we think we live in New York or Tokyo(?!). It has to do mostly with with Manitoban Scotch and Ukrainian thriftiness.

[bomberjet]

I bus to work to avoid paying for parking. I burn 80 litres of fuel in a month, maybe. Not a week. I'm sure I could also reduce that usage if I so desired. More in summer going to the lake of course.
My furnace is an 80's mid-efficient. I could swap that out for high efficiency or go electric next year when we do the change.

I'm also thinking of changing my hot water system to on demand. Our tank is getting old. There are long pipe runs in the house that use a lot of hot water. I'll probably go with small on demand system in the kitchen and a larger one for the 2 baths and laundry on the other side of house.

All that stuff will eliminate a lot of my direct carbon tax costs. Which is the purpose. I would have to pay for those things anyways at renewal time. So why not do something about it.

[PhotoJim]

Originally Posted by LittleBoy

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.

Not to justify our level of CO2 emission, but how do we compare to, say, North Dakota? (And their climate is noticeably milder than ours.)

We don't have a lot of hydroelectric production and no nuclear production, and we live in a very cold climate with hot summers, so we are going to use a lot of energy until how we generate electricity changes. (Electric cars, in our climate, are not going to be the solution.)

[Festivus]

The correct answer, of course, is to use the Infinity Gauntlet to travel back in time to stop British, American, and Ukrainian settlers from moving to this prairie hellscape to begin with 120 years ago.

:p

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by PhotoJim

Not to justify our level of CO2 emission, but how do we compare to, say, North Dakota? (And their climate is noticeably milder than ours.)

We don't have a lot of hydroelectric production and no nuclear production, and we live in a very cold climate with hot summers, so we are going to use a lot of energy until how we generate electricity changes. (Electric cars, in our climate, are not going to be the solution.)

I'll give the Sask Party credit for pushing nuclear early in their tenure but I feel they didn't go far enough in quelling the unsubstantiated fear of it. We should have converted the coal fired generators to natural gas long ago and we can still use a lot more wind and solar to fill in the gaps.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Riverman

^ Your hammer and sickle are showing.

Everything will be more expensive. There is no tax in history that will impact the poor like this one. Every single thing we eat, buy, want and need comes on a truck. Every single thing will be more expensive. Will these increased costs be refunded too? Bloody unlikely.

Oh did you forget to mention GST will be charged on top of the carbon tax?

Fortunately, this moronic experiment will be over in October.

Lets hope! Anyone who champions any kind of tax is a moron.

When does China with close to 1.5 Billion people implement their carbon tax?