Federal Government & Politics II

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I'm with you on that. I benefit from the rebates, because I work from home and am considered to be in a "rural" area so get even an even higher amount. But I'd rather see the money go towards improving health care and the environment.

You and Moncton don't think the rebates are a big deal because you have six figure incomes and have housing wealth. Regressive taxation wouldn't bother you guys at this point. That's not surprising. Somebody making half as much as you and renting an apartment would have a very different take.

Also, once again. Another person who doesn't understand why the backstop works the way it does. It's the easiest to administer in non-compliant provinces. They do not want to and should not be making spending decisions for the provinces. What you are arguing for, is for the federal government to collect revenue and make spending decisions in a province, separate from the provincial government entirely.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Proof please.

We chose a strategy that said we'll meet a substantial part of our emissions reductions obligations through market mechanisms. Other than countries either use a different mix of regulatory and market measures or don't care at all. For example, stringent and ever tighter emissions regulations on vehicles. Which camp are you in? If the former, I'm all ears to your ideas on how to meet those obligations.

I guess we should put a pin in this discussion. In some senses it's a moot point. Public opinion has clearly moved on from a carbon tax.

I believe you have two points. A carbon tax is the best way to reduce emissions as it's market based AND everyone is taking actions and Canada can't/shouldn't be left out.

I agree with your first point and don't find the rebate to be very relevant. It doesn't matter what you do with the revenue. A tax changes behaviour though the inelesaticiy of demand for fuels means you need a lot of tax to really make much impact.

You second point is currenlty not reallty accurate. The EU is clearly the leader and even they are re-opneing coal powered power plants because they shut down nuclear and are protecting consumers and producers of industiral products. They have heavily taxed energy for other reasons for a long time so the low hanging fruit is largely gone in Europe. In 20 years we may end up with serious binding limits and it's certainly possible a slowly increasing carbon tax would have made that transition easier for consumers but us being wealthier by making producitivy based deciiosn between now and then will probably leave us in a better place. Would you rather be Australia in 2030 or Canada under Trudeau? Their fiscal room from selling LNG and coal will buy a lot of EVs.

[Truenorth00]

Is acottawa your +20 IQ, more fact based alt? Why do you keep responding to my discussion with him? The gish galloping is tiresome.

As to your other point, wait till you understand that carbon tax doesn't apply to exports and it's not stopping sales of LNG at all. Do you have any actual facts or are you here to regurgitate "alternative facts"?

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I agree with your first point and don't find the rebate to be very relevant. It doesn't matter what you do with the revenue. A tax changes behaviour though the inelesaticiy of demand for fuels means you need a lot of tax to really make much impact.

Unfortunately one of the few examples where there would have been clear impact that could change behaviour was undermined by the Liberals: the carbon tax on home heating oil would have cost, for example, a single detached household in Nova Scotia almost $1000/year:


https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/comme...tlantic-canada

I do think that for a carbon tax to be relevant (to the goal of reducing carbon emissions), it needs to both 1) make emissions cost the user (e.g. make fuel more expensive) and 2) promote uptake of alternatives besides being the cheaper option (e.g. proceeds are specifically earmarked for things like transit, conversion from coal to nuclear/hydro/etc.). Sadly this wasn't done here, making the whole concept of a carbon tax unappealing even to those who agree with the need for one.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

Unfortunately one of the few examples where there would have been clear impact that could change behaviour was undermined by the Liberals: the carbon tax on home heating oil would have cost, for example, a single detached household in Nova Scotia almost $1000/year:

I do think that for a carbon tax to be relevant (to the goal of reducing carbon emissions), it needs to both 1) make emissions cost the user (e.g. make fuel more expensive) and 2) promote uptake of alternatives besides being the cheaper option (e.g. proceeds are specifically earmarked for things like transit, conversion from coal to nuclear/hydro/etc.). Sadly this wasn't done here, making the whole concept of a carbon tax unappealing even to those who agree with the need for one.

I think that is the average in Nova Scotia and if you include those that already have natural gas or heating pumps it's even larger. The idea we should spend $10000 to put heat pumps is a bit crazy though. Imagine if we used heating oil nation wide how expensive that would be.

Earmarking the money would do almost nothing. The US is spending 100X (or 10X per capita on mitigation efforts and what's the net effect? The point is behaviour change that we don't want. Will reject. And will move on from after the next election.

At some point we will need to have a discussion about the next step. Likely we will throw some money at home renovations and little tax breaks for good behaviour again. Private sector investment and spillover from the US will lower our emissions but net zero seems very far off under any scenario.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Is acottawa your +20 IQ, more fact based alt? Why do you keep responding to my discussion with him? The gish galloping is tiresome.

As to your other point, wait till you understand that carbon tax doesn't apply to exports and it's not stopping sales of LNG at all. Do you have any actual facts or are you here to regurgitate "alternative facts"?

Did you think this was a private conversation lol?

There are many policies besides the carbon tax that make us less desireable as an investment destination though I agree the impact a new government can have on this is over-rated. (partly because as you say market conditions but also because investors know an interventionist and obstructionist government can return to power before projects are complete. As well as federlist and indigenous issues making Canada unpredictible.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

Unfortunately one of the few examples where there would have been clear impact that could change behaviour was undermined by the Liberals: the carbon tax on home heating oil would have cost, for example, a single detached household in Nova Scotia almost $1000/year:


https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/comme...tlantic-canada

I do think that for a carbon tax to be relevant (to the goal of reducing carbon emissions), it needs to both 1) make emissions cost the user (e.g. make fuel more expensive) and 2) promote uptake of alternatives besides being the cheaper option (e.g. proceeds are specifically earmarked for things like transit, conversion from coal to nuclear/hydro/etc.). Sadly this wasn't done here, making the whole concept of a carbon tax unappealing even to those who agree with the need for one.

100% agree with this. The LPC really hurt the case for the carbon tax when they decided to play politics with what is exempted. Market mechanisms only work when the market isn't distorted.

That said, if we're going to pursue an emissions reduction strategy (which is admittedly not a priority for Canadians anymore), the least economically painful one is probably market based. Regulations tend to be driven by politics and can be extremely painful. Imagine a future left wing government adversely using regulation to force the oil industry to cut emissions while not pushing consumers to change at all.

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I think that is the average in Nova Scotia and if you include those that already have natural gas or heating pumps it's even larger. The idea we should spend $10000 to put heat pumps is a bit crazy though. Imagine if we used heating oil nation wide how expensive that would be.

It would be steep to go with heat pumps; I was thinking more of driving shifts from oil or propane to natural gas. The problem with natural gas is that the distribution network is still limited. (Here in Halifax, my next door neighbour has natural gas because their street happens to have a line; my house right around the corner facing the cross street, we're stuck with propane tanks.)

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Earmarking the money would do almost nothing. The US is spending 100X (or 10X per capita on mitigation efforts and what's the net effect? The point is behaviour change that we don't want. Will reject. And will move on from after the next election.

I suppose it goes back to what is done exactly. If the proceeds of that almost $1k from each household here all went to, for example, public transit, I'm sure there would be tangible benefit.

For perspective, here in Halifax currently households pay 10 cents per $100 value for the transit levy, so for the average $550k home say it's about $550/year. (Yes I realise there is a cap on assessed value so many may pay less than that.) But if you can add to that over 90k single households paying almost $1k in carbon tax, that's an additional $90 million - and that's just single detached households. I'm sure that such a large jump in per household transit funding could drive (pun intended) some improvement that would make transit a more feasible choice and, in turn, reduce transport related emissions. The Rapid Transit Strategy here calls for a total capital cost of $342M and annual additional operating costs of $22M to get 4 new rapid bus lines and 3 ferry routes. (Also realise that this would require coordination to get the money from federal collection to municipal services.)

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

100% agree with this. The LPC really hurt the case for the carbon tax when they decided to play politics with what is exempted. Market mechanisms only work when the market isn't distorted.

That said, if we're going to pursue an emissions reduction strategy (which is admittedly not a priority for Canadians anymore), the least economically painful one is probably market based. Regulations tend to be driven by politics and can be extremely painful. Imagine a future left wing government adversely using regulation to force the oil industry to cut emissions while not pushing consumers to change at all.

Agree - market based would be both least economically painful, as well as more likely to be palatable to the broad, middle-of-the-road public. Keep a tax targeted to individual behaviour (like buying fuel), and use the proceeds for things that individuals can tangibly use that lower emissions (like using transit), and that might actually work.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Still strong. I wonder if it will fade in a few generations.

Glad to see BC and manitoba still identify strongly with Canada.

The bloc albertois really proving every day they'd be better off as americans

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Proof please.

You could check out this paper from the IMF

Distributional Impacts of Heterogenous Carbon Prices in the EU

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/...-the-EU-551414

We analyse the consequences of carbon price heterogeneity on households in The EU from 2010 to 2020. Accounting for both heterogeneity in carbon pricing across emission sources and the indirect effects from inter-industry linkages, we obtain two key findings. First, due to widespread carbon pricing exemptions, household burdens are lower than previously estimated. Second, lower-income groups are affected disproportionately, because they spend a smaller share of their expenditure on products that benefit from exemptions than their higher-income counterparts….

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We chose a strategy that said we'll meet a substantial part of our emissions reductions obligations through market mechanisms. Other than countries either use a different mix of regulatory and market measures or don't care at all. For example, stringent and ever tighter emissions regulations on vehicles. Which camp are you in? If the former, I'm all ears to your ideas on how to meet those obligations.

It is quite clear we aren’t meeting any of our emissions targets. Certainly if the Liberals were serious about meeting these targets they wouldn’t have relocated 5 million humans from places with mostly low emissions per capita to a country with very high emissions per capita.

You can always tell when a government is serious about something because they will hurt their own supporters to address a problem (Chrétien cutting EI, for example). The Liberals are bravely taxing Tory supporters to redistribute to Liberal supporters.

[casper]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is quite clear we aren’t meeting any of our emissions targets. Certainly if the Liberals were serious about meeting these targets they wouldn’t have relocated 5 million humans from places with mostly low emissions per capita to a country with very high emissions per capita.

You can always tell when a government is serious about something because they will hurt their own supporters to address a problem (Chrétien cutting EI, for example). The Liberals are bravely taxing Tory supporters to redistribute to Liberal supporters.

The Liberals are trying to be balanced. We need to reduce our carbon footprint while at the same time ensuring our economy continues to grow and we have the people to meet the needs of our society.

Yes, the government has also invested significantly in building a pipeline for oil export. They have allowed private industry to build a second one for natural gas and a massive LNG terminal.

We can do both. We can ensure the Canadian economy continues to grow while we also do what we can to limit our impact on the environment.

I would agree with others, removing the carbon tax on heating oil was a mistake. That is a case where we should have kept the tax and focused on advancing the adoption of heat pumps where suitable.

[harls]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Glad to see BC and manitoba still identify strongly with Canada.

The bloc albertois really proving every day they'd be better off as americans

Ask the same people 'Do you support the Canadian Olympic team?' and watch it all be the same shade.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

You could check out this paper from the IMF

Distributional Impacts of Heterogenous Carbon Prices in the EU

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/...-the-EU-551414

We analyse the consequences of carbon price heterogeneity on households in The EU from 2010 to 2020. Accounting for both heterogeneity in carbon pricing across emission sources and the indirect effects from inter-industry linkages, we obtain two key findings. First, due to widespread carbon pricing exemptions, household burdens are lower than previously estimated. Second, lower-income groups are affected disproportionately, because they spend a smaller share of their expenditure on products that benefit from exemptions than their higher-income counterparts….

"Lower than previously estimated" =\= "barely trickles down to consumers in the EU"

Your partisanship is really overriding your normally very disciplined factual instincts.

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is quite clear we aren’t meeting any of our emissions targets. Certainly if the Liberals were serious about meeting these targets they wouldn’t have relocated 5 million humans from places with mostly low emissions per capita to a country with very high emissions per capita.

You can always tell when a government is serious about something because they will hurt their own supporters to address a problem (Chrétien cutting EI, for example). The Liberals are bravely taxing Tory supporters to redistribute to Liberal supporters.

Any carbon pricing scheme will disproportionately charge those who consume carbon more. And that will always be disproportionately Conservatives. Can you think of a way to reduce emissions that actually charges less to those who consume more, that would not then drive an increase in emissions (Jevon's Paradox).

As for immigration and emissions. Given that very few First Worlders are interested in moving to Canada, your prescription is basically the inverse of the Liberals here. Instead of their ridiculous growth, we'd have your ridiculous decline. After all, as one of the highest per capita emitting countries in the world, there's only 12 countries ahead of us that we could theoretically get immigrants from and lower emissions. And I doubt Canadians will be more pleased when we switch out Indians for mostly Gulf Arabs.

And again, criticism of the Liberal plan isn't an alternative. That's what I asked for. You're great at whining about the Liberals. That's not original. Plenty of that on here. Do you have actual ideas for a real emissions reduction strategy? Or do you think we should just drop the whole idea? At least be honest instead of deflecting and evasive. It's not that I think the Liberal strategy was great. There's plenty of flaws. But I can distinguish between criticizing the Liberals, criticizing the ideas (market based mechanisms) and criticizing the concept (reducing emissions). You seem intent on throwing out the baby with the bath water in a partisan rage.