Calgary Public Transit II

[joe498]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't see the problem. Diesel buses use carbon so they pay the tax. But they should be more efficient, so pay relatively less tax per user than a more carbon intensive car. Isn't that the whole point?

Well relative to the passengers a bus can carry in a day and if those passengers were to drive a car, a bus is without question better for the environment

Without some form of exemption for public transit, the carbon tax puts a tax on the very form of transit that should be encouraged. Less people will take transit if service is reduced as a result of the increased operation costs.

It really sounds silly but the net result of a carbon tax without an exemption could mean more cars on the road creating more pollution.

If one wants to take the pessimistic view that the carbon tax is purely a revenue generation tool rather than curb emissions, it may be that the province is deliberately opting to have more cars on the road for more revenue.

[DizzyEdge]

Any guesses what the fares would need to rise to to fully absorb the carbon tax?

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Any guesses what the fares would need to rise to to fully absorb the carbon tax?

2.7 cents, if I'm doing my math right.

Sources: the Metro article linked above quoting Nenshi saying Transit operating costs would go up by $3 million annually. With ridership at 110 million annually (2014) according to https://www.calgarytransit.com/about-us/facts-and-figures/statistics

Not that all (most?) decisions are economically rational, but I have a hard time imagining people saying, "3 cents?? Screw this, I'm driving!" and then paying, I would assume, higher marginal carbon taxes in the gasoline they're buying for the same trip.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by joe498

Well relative to the passengers a bus can carry in a day and if those passengers were to drive a car, a bus is without question better for the environment

Without some form of exemption for public transit, the carbon tax puts a tax on the very form of transit that should be encouraged. Less people will take transit if service is reduced as a result of the increased operation costs.

It really sounds silly but the net result of a carbon tax without an exemption could mean more cars on the road creating more pollution.

If one wants to take the pessimistic view that the carbon tax is purely a revenue generation tool rather than curb emissions, it may be that the province is deliberately opting to have more cars on the road for more revenue.

It sounds silly because cars also run on carbon-intensive fuels and in fact would produce more carbon (and thus pay more tax) per passenger km, something you understood way back in paragraph one, but seem to have forgotten by paragraph three.

It would have been a nice show if the government had handed back $3 per capita to municipalities operating public transit to offset the new tax - or even contribute more to operating costs as happens in other provinces. But for every penny a carbon tax adds to transit costs, it adds more to auto costs. Exempting public transit would not help emissions; it would hurt in the long run, as the City would not be as motivated to choose cleaner vehicles.

[MalcolmTucker]

If the province had explicitly or even implicitly stated the Green Line would be funded with this money, do you think there would be complaints? It is all just drama. Exempting the city isn't right. The city is moving over to CNG buses for part of the fleet, and will have an incentive to do the same for more of the fleet.

[J-D]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If the province had explicitly or even implicitly stated the Green Line would be funded with this money, do you think there would be complaints? It is all just drama. Exempting the city isn't right. The city is moving over to CNG buses for part of the fleet, and will have an incentive to do the same for more of the fleet.

Nat Gas is also carbon taxed in the budget is it not?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by joe498

Well relative to the passengers a bus can carry in a day and if those passengers were to drive a car, a bus is without question better for the environment

Without some form of exemption for public transit, the carbon tax puts a tax on the very form of transit that should be encouraged. Less people will take transit if service is reduced as a result of the increased operation costs.

It really sounds silly but the net result of a carbon tax without an exemption could mean more cars on the road creating more pollution.

If one wants to take the pessimistic view that the carbon tax is purely a revenue generation tool rather than curb emissions, it may be that the province is deliberately opting to have more cars on the road for more revenue.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Its stupid. You want to encourage people to take transit, if your goal is to reduce emissions, and not just grab money. A carbon tax increases the cost of transit, which is a disincentive. It is also one level of government taxing another level of government, which is bonkers in itself. And then, the tax eventually gets passed on to us as an increase in property taxes. As Nenshi said, I don't think they thought this all the way through.

ByeByeBaby covered most of my point but it isn't stupid - the simplest, fairest way to tax carbon is to tax all users equally. Because diesel buses are already more efficient than single occupant vehicles, the per user carbon tax will be much lower for the buses, so there is still greater incentive to ride them.
And, like it or not, diesel buses still do emit CO2 and are by no means carbon neutral. So incentivizing switching to electric/LNG etc buses is a good thing also - diesel buses are horrid things.

[joe498]

Originally Posted by milomilo

ByeByeBaby covered most of my point but it isn't stupid - the simplest, fairest way to tax carbon is to tax all users equally. Because diesel buses are already more efficient than single occupant vehicles, the per user carbon tax will be much lower for the buses, so there is still greater incentive to ride them.
And, like it or not, diesel buses still do emit CO2 and are by no means carbon neutral. So incentivizing switching to electric/LNG etc buses is a good thing also - diesel buses are horrid things.

There is no question a carbon tax is the most efficient way to tax. As with all economics there are always trade-offs and in this case, the city is on the hook. Cities have very limited ways to raise revenue. Raising costs on the city means either the city raise property taxes further, which is never popular (especially going into the next municipal election) or they have to reduce transit service.

Alternatively the province could send transfers or rebates back to the city to maintain the status quo or the city is at a disadvantage from the tax. If transit service is reduced, less people will take it creating a vicious cycle. If the carbon tax was ever about reducing pollution and not raising revenue via more cars driving because of reduced transit service, the province would be wise to comply a rebate of sorts.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by J-D

Nat Gas is also carbon taxed in the budget is it not?

Yes it is, and very heavily taxed given the current price of gas. Tax is $1/gj IIRC and current market price is barely $2.

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

OH come on. The city is experimenting with different bus technologies, uses wind power for the LRT, has the central energy district plant etc...They don't need a "push" by another tax that is going to be passed on to you and me, or worse have the city make tough decisions on deferring projects becuase they have to pay a silly tax. Sorry, Calgary Transit, you can't buy 10 new LRV's becuase we need to pay the piper. The fact is, for the foreseeable future the city is going to need fossil fuels.

Experimenting is generally just another word for lip-service.

The fact that LRT's run on wind power means that they won't pay a carbon tax, ergo nothing to pass on to consumers. Which also goes with my point that a carbon tax will weight the scales in favor of carbon-neutral technologies (such as LRT's) making them more attractive to city planners in the future, which is likely good for the city in the long run since we're then more likely to opt for things like bike lanes, LRT's, gondolas and electric buses going forward instead of lazily sticking with the old standby of throwing more diesel buses on the road.

[ClaytonA]

http://www.calgary.ca/UEP/ESM/Pages/Energy-Savings/City-Energy-Saving-Actions.aspx

...

Renewable energy

The City of Calgary and ENMAX have signed a long-term agreement to supply The City with renewable (wind and solar) electricity. As of 2012 City operations use 100 per cent green electricity, which makes us the largest percentage user of green electricity in North America.

...

There's lots of other initiatives listed there too like biodiesel; this is nothing new for the city, as they've had greenhouse gas reduction plans since 2004 and started planning for it in 1994. They signed that wind electricity PPA with Enmax in 2009. Note; that PPA has an implied carbon price of $35.71/t CO2e. There's solar panels on the municipal building, Southland Leisure Centre, fire halls, Telus Convention Centre, etc. Will it accelerate some of these things?

Soc, Milo, Bye, Riise, and Malcolm are right this is the fairest way and the City being dramatic.

Reducing this risk, carbon pricing, is embedded in the City and needs to continue. It's really risky to do nothing. A carbon price was a predictable risk, Alberta already had the SGER, and the City has/needs to keep addressing the risk. TransAlta and Capital Power continuing to build coal fired generating stations up until 2011 and now asking for compensation to shift to nat gas is unconscionable; imagine if the City had exposed all of you as much as they exposed their shareholders. Calgary has a target of 20 per cent reduction by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050, below 2005 levels (same as federal targets). Guess what, GHG emissions are up 22% since 2005 (not really fair just like Alberta as a whole given population growth); http://calgary-foundation.s3.amazonaws.com/mercury_assets/1111/original.pdf?1444832187

You should be very surprised if federal excise taxes on fuels don't increase in September; if they'd been indexed to inflation since the last time they were raised in the early 1990's, then they'd be about 5 cents per litre higher right now. Look at the trends/risk. What do you think two of the premiers were fussed about in March in Vancouver? This is something they can do federally whether the provinces are on board or not. If I was the City, then I'd have planned a contingency. There will probably be the same noises in five months, too. Of the 40 largest(?) global economies only India, China, Indonesia, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, and the US have lower fuel taxes. Source: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933205644 They are really low and you should expect them to go up-this is the low hanging fruit/motorists are getting a bargain. Wasn't it was less than a year ago, that the leading candidate per a transportation funding study for the Green Line was a 4.5 cent per litre local gas tax?

[speedog]

100% green energy or wind energy - what a huge farce. You, me and everyone else in Calgary who are getting their electricity off of the grid are getting the same ratio of green energy as everyone else. These 100% green energy consumers are also using the same proportion of dirty electricity as you, me and everyone else as well.

[DizzyEdge]

They theory is that the 'wind' rate payers are paying extra to subsidize the renewable generation. But what I've wondered is does that mean there's a finite amount of 'wind power' rates available, or can unlimited users pay the higher rate perhaps far beyond the amount of renewable power being generated?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

They theory is that the 'wind' rate payers are paying extra to subsidize the renewable generation. But what I've wondered is does that mean there's a finite amount of 'wind power' rates available, or can unlimited users pay the higher rate perhaps far beyond the amount of renewable power being generated?

Well, right now extra wind credits are sold in advance to utilities in California mostly. Potentially the number of credits is proportional to the amount of production. You can always build more production in Alberta, or elsewhere if it isn't useful to build it in Alberta. It doesn't really matter where in the world you build the turbines green house gas wise.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well, right now extra wind credits are sold in advance to utilities in California mostly. Potentially the number of credits is proportional to the amount of production. You can always build more production in Alberta, or elsewhere if it isn't useful to build it in Alberta. It doesn't really matter where in the world you build the turbines green house gas wise.

Good point

[milomilo]

But... it does matter? Unless I'm mistaken our grid isn't properly connected to the rest of Canada let alone California, so if the renewable sources here can't provide enough electricity to meet the 'green' customers then it will have to come from coal/gas.

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, depends if you care about reducing green house gases for the cheapest price possible, or care more about reducing green house gases in Alberta (or California) no matter what the cost. I know which I would choose, but for some people local action trumps costs.

Greenhouse gas emissions do not cause local pollution, so you don't need to reduce them locally to reduce emissions (or constrain emissions growth) world wide.

[milomilo]

Well I'd say that's an accountants trick. 'We' wouldn't be reducing emissions, just paying someone else to do it on our behalf. We are going to have to get rid of our coal plants anyway so it would be much more honest to actually reduce our own emissions rather than pass the buck.

[MalcolmTucker]

Why is it better to pay someone in Hanna to reduce emissions on my behalf than paying someone in Wyoming to reduce emissions on my behalf?

[milomilo]

Call me cynical, but the credits trading stuff relies on the other state reporting their carbon output accurately and introduces incentives to understate output. Alberta also couldn't honestly stand up and say we are reducing carbon emissions, only that other more forward looking places are doing it for us. It's a scam - you may not think so but I suspect many would if they realised the green electricity they were paying for and thought was coming from Alberta was actually traded to some hydro plant in a third world country.

And anyway, eventually we are going to have to switch to renewables so it would be best to actually do it rather than pretend we are doing it.