The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

He should swap the C and the St.

I think that's just the way things get spelled down in Regina.

[whatnext]

Might as well put this here:

World’s Longest Ice Rink to Stay Shut for the First Time Since 1971
Mild temperatures in Ottawa keep Rideau Skateway closed
By David Scanlan
February 22, 2023 at 4:00 AM PST
Global warming is wreaking havoc on the world’s longest ice skating rink.

The Rideau Canal Skateway, a 7.8-kilometer (5-mile) stretch of frozen water that’s both a tourist icon and a nifty mode of transport in Canada’s capital city, is unlikely to open for the first time since it was built in 1971....

.... While a record 1.49 million people used the Skateway in 2018-2019, as extended cold temperatures kept the canal open for 70 days, the seasons have tended to range from 25 days to 40 days more recently.

“That’s been the reality for several years - the season gets shorter and shorter,” Hyde said. “I’m not shocked that something like this is happening.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...&sref=x4rjnz06

[1overcosc]

In fairness, some of that would be urban heat island effect, increased salinity of the canal area from the big increase in salt use since 1971, increased use of heavy vehicles on the ice requiring thicker ice than before, and a more cautious/paranoid mindset regarding imperfect ice.

People were still icefishing and riding snowmobiles on the frozen lakes out in Lanark this winter and that has the same climate as Ottawa.

[LightingGuy]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the only net loss are those households in the upper quintile of income.

https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/defaul...pricing_EN.pdf

If you have better data than the PBO please share.

Turns out that the PBO now agrees that the economic losses the average household will experience as a result of the carbon tax will outweigh the refunds that they are expected to receive.

After economic impacts are taken into account, only the bottom quintile is expected to recoup the economic cost that they experienced. The other 80% is expected to be at a NET loss.

The average household in Ontario is expected to lose $1820 per year of disposable income AFTER they've received their refund cheques by 2030-31.

https://distribution-a61727465666163...01a2409640bfdd

[Truenorth00]

Glad we have new data. I question some of the assumptions. For example, I think most delivery fleets will be substantially electrified by then.

But let's say the PBO is right (which wasn't the case a year ago), what's the alternative plan here? There seems to be the idea that climate change can be tackled for free, which does not seem to be the case. I think the government can and should offset some other taxes (especially income taxes) to make up for the added burden, instead of junking the climate pricing regime. I'm open to an alternative plan that achieves the same targets. I have yet to see one.

[lio45]

Agree with Truenorth, this just means the program is poorly implemented. No fundamental reason we can’t manage to make it revenue-neutral so the lower-than-average emitters actually benefit from that tax.

Alternatively, we can just admit it’s a tax raise. There are much worse ways to raise taxes than to raise them on polluters, proportionately.

[Truenorth00]

It's not even all that badly designed. The net loss large comes from tax on tax and tax on inflated prices. The way to compensate for this is to adjust other taxes. I would suggest cutting income taxes, which have the added advantage of boosting the savings rate.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not even all that badly designed. The net loss large comes from tax on tax and tax on inflated prices. The way to compensate for this is to adjust other taxes. I would suggest cutting income taxes, which have the added advantage of boosting the savings rate.

I think the best option is remove the means test and boost the annual carbon tax rebate.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not even all that badly designed. The net loss large comes from tax on tax and tax on inflated prices. The way to compensate for this is to adjust other taxes. I would suggest cutting income taxes, which have the added advantage of boosting the savings rate.

Agreed. Simply expand the rebate amounts to factor in the tax on tax revenues and that solves a lot of the problem.

[LightingGuy]

I think in 20 years time people will see the redistribution carbon tax as having been an unnecessary piece of policy that didn't accomplish its intended goal. People aren't going to convert to electric car just because it costs them an extra $20 to fill up ($500/yr more isn't much compared to the cost of an electric car). And being $1800 poorer is probably going to slow down the adoption, since people are less likely to buy a new car if they have less disposable income.

In the same report PBO said that they expect the income tax collected to be $8B less as a result of the NET loss experienced by the average household. Giving each household an income tax break to offset their NET loss, would double that to a $16B loss in income tax collected.

I think we should either:

1. Make the tax more affordable and use all proceeds to help fund green tech (instead of redistributing it). This will speed up the adoption green tech via subsidies.

2. Scrap the tax entirely. At the very least people will have more disposable income to buy a new vehicle, which will likely be electric start 3 years from now.

[LightingGuy]

Well what did you think was going to happen when you banned plastic?

"'Paper can't be a solution to plastic waste': Canadian environmentalists warn about the rise in single-use paper products"

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LightingGuy

Well what did you think was going to happen when you banned plastic?

"'Paper can't be a solution to plastic waste': Canadian environmentalists warn about the rise in single-use paper products"

That's one person's view.

Single use paper has to be better than single use plastic, all else equal. You can argue that we shouldn't have anything single use, but that's another issue.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by LightingGuy

1. Make the tax more affordable and use all proceeds to help fund green tech (instead of redistributing it). This will speed up the adoption green tech via subsidies.

A guy who sells lighting would say that....

First of all, the main goal is to reduce emissions. Not simply adopt more green tech. There's a reason "Reduce" is the first of the 3Rs. The climate rebate means people prioritize what they think is necessary instead of what is rebated. Indeed, it is the rebates that are perverse. We give $5000 to a person buying an EV and nothing to the person who walks, bikes or takes transit to work. Want to put solar on your 2500 sqft SFD? Here's some money. Live in a 1000 sqft condo with reduced energy demands? Nothing. At least the climate incentive payments reward those who actually live a modest low-impact lifestyle.

As for adopting more green tech. You can push with pricing or pull with rebates. But creating a market will always be larger than the number of people the government can rebate. I hope to eventually see all rebates phased out and simply replaced by mandates. Stop paying people to buy EVs and simply tell the automakers they must sell x% of EVs per year. Make it their problem. I think your own business would be much better if the government mandated much more stringent energy codes for new buildings, for example.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A guy who sells lighting would say that....

First of all, the main goal is to reduce emissions. Not simply adopt more green tech. There's a reason "Reduce" is the first of the 3Rs. The climate rebate means people prioritize what they think is necessary instead of what is rebated. Indeed, it is the rebates that are perverse. We give $5000 to a person buying an EV and nothing to the person who walks, bikes or takes transit to work. Want to put solar on your 2500 sqft SFD? Here's some money. Live in a 1000 sqft condo with reduced energy demands? Nothing. At least the climate incentive payments reward those who actually live a modest low-impact lifestyle.

As for adopting more green tech. You can push with pricing or pull with rebates. But creating a market will always be larger than the number of people the government can rebate. I hope to eventually see all rebates phased out and simply replaced by mandates. Stop paying people to buy EVs and simply tell the automakers they must sell x% of EVs per year. Make it their problem. I think your own business would be much better if the government mandated much more stringent energy codes for new buildings, for example.

Agree with all this. Live in a small apartment and don't drive and literally could care less about climate change. Yet my carbon footprint is probably smaller than anyone. Especially during Covid with no flights.

An EV reduces lifetime carbon per km by somewhere from 50% to 0%. Now it reduces Canada's carbon ledger by much more than that but as most of the carbon output is from mining and transporting the materials in the vehicle and our electricity is greener than average but there is no scenario where a personal vehicle isn't a large carbon emitter.

[Innsertnamehere]

From what I’ve seen most carbon emissions from EVs comes from it being produced and operated on a dirty grid - that is, they may not be totally clean today, but set up a societies ability to shift to basically-net-zero over time as other aspects of the economy clean up.

If you replace an ICE with an EV somewhere like Quebec or Ontario, the effective carbon footprint of a car shrinks to a level that is lower than taking a diesel bus or commuter rail train, for example. That is, very low, if not 0 quite yet.

Doing the same thing in Saskatchewan? Less so today, but perhaps if Saskatchewan can phase out coal in a decade, your car will magically become a whole lot cleaner.

I understand an EV doesn’t remove the other negative health and built form impacts cars have and encourage far less sustainable lifestyles still in other elements of a persons life, but in direct transportation emissions they have the ability to cut personal emissions to a small fraction of an ICE vehicle.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

From what I’ve seen most carbon emissions from EVs comes from it being produced and operated on a dirty grid - that is, they may not be totally clean today, but set up a societies ability to shift to basically-net-zero over time as other aspects of the economy clean up.

The net impact of the battery packs are vilified but very much up in the air IMO. Batteries are extremely valuable and there's good evidence to suggest that they could be used in the power grid well beyond their useful life in a vehicle (or after that vehicle is scrapped for other reasons.)

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/10/25...in-california/

[Truenorth00]

It's cool that EVs break even on emissions eventually. Still no reason for the taxpayer to subsidize your luxobarge. It's vote buying. Pure and simple. And I say this as someone who loves EVs and hope they succeed. We don't need rebates for EVs when the carbon tax should remind you everytime you fill up what you should do the next time you buy a car. If you want to go the rebate route, we should scrap the carbon tax and follow the US example of subsidies galore.

Moreover, the EV rebate did squat to ensure EV supply. Automakers just set prices at levels that let them pocket the rebate. Didn't even actually help Canadians get EVs like a mandate would have.

And if you got a rebate? It's not personal. You should still be able to admit that it's terribly inefficient policy.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's cool that EVs break even on emissions eventually. Still no reason for the taxpayer to subsidize your luxobarge. It's vote buying. Pure and simple. And I say this as someone who loves EVs and hope they succeed. We don't need rebates for EVs when the carbon tax should remind you everytime you fill up what you should do the next time you buy a car. If you want to go the rebate route, we should scrap the carbon tax and follow the US example of subsidies galore.

Moreover, the EV rebate did squat to ensure EV supply. Automakers just set prices at levels that let them pocket the rebate. Didn't even actually help Canadians get EVs like a mandate would have.

And if you got a rebate? It's not personal. You should still be able to admit that it's terribly inefficient policy.

I mean sure, rebates aren't the best use of money. That wasn't the argument though.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's cool that EVs break even on emissions eventually. Still no reason for the taxpayer to subsidize your luxobarge. It's vote buying. Pure and simple. And I say this as someone who loves EVs and hope they succeed. We don't need rebates for EVs when the carbon tax should remind you everytime you fill up what you should do the next time you buy a car. If you want to go the rebate route, we should scrap the carbon tax and follow the US example of subsidies galore.

Moreover, the EV rebate did squat to ensure EV supply. Automakers just set prices at levels that let them pocket the rebate. Didn't even actually help Canadians get EVs like a mandate would have.

And if you got a rebate? It's not personal. You should still be able to admit that it's terribly inefficient policy.

The rebate is stupid right now as every EV an automaker can produce basically sells out immediately - the problem with EV production right now is supply, not demand. Further stimulating demand does nothing for getting more EVs on the road.

The subsidies would be better placed on improving EV-support infrastructure and development - greater subsidies to get EVs designed and manufacturing facilities online, and ensuring that those processes are as clean as possible.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

From what I’ve seen most carbon emissions from EVs comes from it being produced and operated on a dirty grid - that is, they may not be totally clean today, but set up a societies ability to shift to basically-net-zero over time as other aspects of the economy clean up.

If you replace an ICE with an EV somewhere like Quebec or Ontario, the effective carbon footprint of a car shrinks to a level that is lower than taking a diesel bus or commuter rail train, for example. That is, very low, if not 0 quite yet.

Doing the same thing in Saskatchewan? Less so today, but perhaps if Saskatchewan can phase out coal in a decade, your car will magically become a whole lot cleaner.

I understand an EV doesn’t remove the other negative health and built form impacts cars have and encourage far less sustainable lifestyles still in other elements of a persons life, but in direct transportation emissions they have the ability to cut personal emissions to a small fraction of an ICE vehicle.

The production and transport of the battery and the materials to make it is also substantial. It takes a few years for an ICE to emit as much as an EV starts with. For a 20 year lifespan 200,000km using 100% clean electricity yes BEV emits 25% of ICE. However many many vehicles don't last their full lifespan. If you total your TESLA after 2 years a Porsche would have used less Carbon. Even 25% is a lot more than public transport.

Also while clean energy lowers the footprint a Watt used in QC is a watt that can't be sold to NY where they burn coal so it still has an impact.