The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[LightingGuy]

Moved from the Liberal thread.
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...6344&page=2147

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You seem to have a poor grasp of basic economics. The entire point of the carbon tax is to shift the equilibrium price of hydrocarbons to compel a reduction in demand. This is basic high school level supply and demand curves.

If you want to cut the carbon tax by 90%, that would reduce it to $5/tonne. That is effectively 0.5¢/L. Aside from the ridiculous idea of expanded government bureaucracy, how do you plan to achieve your stated goals with:

1) Very little revenue from a half cent per litre tax.

2) A price signal that does nothing to encourage any behaviour change.

A rebated program creates the price signals without actually substantially creating an economic impact. No money is actually taken out of the economy.

I understand perfectly well what they're trying to do, I just think it's going to backfire with unintended consequences - humans suck at predicting how the market will respond to things. This includes politicians and professional investors.

That said your argument above would imply 5¢/L would then be enough to encourage behaviour change. That's an extra $5 or less to fill up for most people. That isn't nearly enough to discourage pickup trucks.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by LightingGuy

Moved from the Liberal thread.
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...6344&page=2147



I understand perfectly well what they're trying to do, I just think it's going to backfire with unintended consequences - humans suck at predicting how the market will respond to things. This includes politicians and professional investors.

That said your argument above would imply 5¢/L would then be enough to encourage behaviour change. That's an extra $5 or less to fill up for most people. That isn't nearly enough to discourage pickup trucks.

I struggle to see why carbon pricing won't work like literally every other market good. Increase the price, people buy less of it. If your goal is to have less carbon, increasing it's cost is a very straightforward and market-oriented solution which lets the market figure out what the easiest way to reduce carbon emissions is. there likely isn't a more economically efficient method of doing it, and I really just don't see reasons as to why carbon pricing would behave differently than any other market good.

Someone who fills up their pickup once a week may not change their behavior that much - but we've all seen how recent gas price runups have shifted the market to much more fuel efficient vehicles. And that $0.5/l may not seem like much but for commercial operators who look constantly to minimize fleet operating costs, they may start opting for slightly more expensive vehicles which consume less gas, for example.

The carbon tax is currently $0.11 per litre right now by the way, $13 extra on 120 litres (typically for a full size pickup). And it goes up $0.02 each year until 2025 then $0.04 per year thereafter.

Honestly conservative opposition to Carbon taxing continuously flummoxes me. If you acknowledge that Climate Change is a problem that needs to be addressed, carbon taxes are likely the least interventionist and most market-friendly way of delivering results for a government under classical free-market thinking.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I struggle to see why carbon pricing won't work like literally every other market good. Increase the price, people buy less of it. If your goal is to have less carbon, increasing it's cost is a very straightforward and market-oriented solution which lets the market figure out what the easiest way to reduce carbon pricing is. there likely isn't a more economically efficient method of doing it, and I really just don't see reasons as to why carbon pricing would behave differently than any other market good.

It's the perfect market incentive involving the least friction. Honestly it should be cranked up to around $200/t like Sweden to see real impacts, but it's politically difficult.

Too bad it's caused 50% inflation in Sweden for years.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by LightingGuy

I understand perfectly well what they're trying to do, I just think it's going to backfire with unintended consequences - humans suck at predicting how the market will respond to things. This includes politicians and professional investors.

Are you seriously suggesting that people don't respond to price signals? And you claim to run a business? Seriously?

Originally Posted by LightingGuy

That said your argument above would imply 5¢/L would then be enough to encourage behaviour change. That's an extra $5 or less to fill up for most people. That isn't nearly enough to discourage pickup trucks.

Nowhere did I once say 5 ¢/L is enough. Nice try. That's why the tax goes up by $15/tonne every year. That adds an additional 1.5 ¢/L per year, from 2023 till 2030. This would be about 19 ¢/L in 2030. The point is to get gasoline buyers to see increasing gas prices every year so that when it comes time to buy a new vehicle they actually prioritize fuel efficiency. And we know this works because past energy shocks did change car buying behaviour and continued till increasing efficiency made it possible to afford a 2022 F150 on the fuel costs of a 1995 Camry.

[someone123]

I don't think trying to compel lower demand is the right goal. The goal should be to price in externalities and the appropriate price depends on how much the damage costs to offset, which is potentially straightforward to track for atmospheric CO2.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

And that $0.5/l may not seem like much but ...

Probably a typo on your part but FYI, that's fifty (50) cents a liter. (While the guy you quoted was talking about five (5) cents.)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think trying to compel lower demand is the right goal. The goal should be to price in externalities and the appropriate price depends on how much the damage costs to offset, which is potentially straightforward to track for atmospheric CO2.

It's straightforward to associate CO2 emissions with damage, but the other part is less straightforward (calculate the CO2 baked into a given item).

Taxing dirty energy sources is the optimal way to do this. Make widgets the way you want, but any dirty energy used in the process means you're automatically making up for environmental damage through extra taxes.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Honestly conservative opposition to Carbon taxing continuously flummoxes me. If you acknowledge that Climate Change is a problem that needs to be addressed, carbon taxes are likely the least interventionist and most market-friendly way of delivering results for a government under classical free-market thinking.

At least 80% of this forum agrees 100% with what you just wrote there.

The only possible conclusion is "anyone who opposes the carbon tax is either a socialist/large-government-fan (who wants a more cumbersome and less free market solution requiring more govt involvement), or actively prefers climate inaction (for whatever reason)"

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Honestly conservative opposition to Carbon taxing continuously flummoxes me. If you acknowledge that Climate Change is a problem that needs to be addressed, carbon taxes are likely the least interventionist and most market-friendly way of delivering results for a government under classical free-market thinking.

Let's be honest. The CPC (I don't want to say conservatives) don't actually think climate change is a problem, or at least one that requires any real urgency and sacrifice. They mostly know they have to say they believe in tackling climate change because the electorate broadly demands it. But actual policy urgency? Hardly.

They also aren't nearly as free market as they profess to be. They are happy to engage in interventionist policies when their base benefits. Dairy monopoly anyone?

LightningGuy's position actually sums up much of the CPC (again, not all conservatives) mindset quite well:

1) Scrap 90% of the tax. The last 10% is there for political cover. "See? We have a carbon tax. We aren't climate deniers."

2) Redirect all revenue (whatever miniscule amount is left after a 90% cut) away from redistribution and towards friendly businesses (like construction companies and car dealerships). Added bonus is the donations kickbacks from these businesses.

The above thought process is exactly what led O'Toole's ridiculous carbon frequent flyer plan. It will be interesting to see if Pierre just goes mask off and says he will cancel all of the LPC's climate policies. Or he tries some other hare brained idea like O'Toole. They just can't admit that the LPC plan is the least interventionist plan possible.

[LightingGuy]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

LightningGuy's position actually sums up much of the CPC (again, not all conservatives) mindset quite well:

1) Scrap 90% of the tax. The last 10% is there for political cover. "See? We have a carbon tax. We aren't climate deniers."

2) Redirect all revenue (whatever miniscule amount is left after a 90% cut) away from redistribution and towards friendly businesses (like construction companies and car dealerships). Added bonus is the donations kickbacks from these businesses.

I said if only 10% is actually being invested into green tech then the other 90% is a pointless drain that we'd be better off getting rid of.

I also said I'd respect the carbon tax more if 100% of the current revenue went into green tech investment. This is my preference.

What you're pushing is a theory, what I'm saying is what actually has worked - because that's what Sweden did. They didn't do the redistribution thing, they just used it for rebates/grants and have reduced their CO2 more than any other country on the planet as a result.

Yes that means some people will make some money off of it, and yes it means richer people will get into electric cars first. But this is going to happen anyways - rebates will just make this happen sooner. And then we will also get used electric cars sooner that lower income people can buy as a result. This is a good thing.

You seem to not like rich people, and that is clouding your judgement. This is a carbon tax and the goal is to reduce emissions. Not to redistribute wealth.

Stop being naive and face reality. Playing moral police isn't going to solve problems. Being pragmatic will.

I have actually helped businesses reduce their energy, share a car with my wife and live in a walkable area. What have you done that actually helps cut emissions?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by LightingGuy

What you're pushing is a theory, what I'm saying is what actually has worked - because that's what Sweden did. They didn't do the redistribution thing, they just used it for rebates/grants and have reduced their CO2 more than any other country on the planet as a result.

Sweden levies the equivalent of US$126/tonne. That is CA$171/tonne. Or 340% higher than our current rate.

Source: https://taxfoundation.org/sweden-car...gas-emissions/

How does that square away with your insistence that carbon taxes should be cut by 90%? So you only want the part where Sweden reinvests carbon taxes, not the part where the tax generates substantial revenue?

Like I said, you (and the CPC) are in to tokenism as political cover.

[LightingGuy]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Sweden levies the equivalent of US$126/tonne. That is CA$171/tonne. Or 340% higher than our current rate.

Source: https://taxfoundation.org/sweden-car...gas-emissions/

How does that square away with your insistence that carbon taxes should be cut by 90%? So you only want the part where Sweden reinvests carbon taxes, not the part where the tax generates substantial revenue?

Like I said, you (and the CPC) are in to tokenism as political cover.

Reread my post. I said I would prefer if all of the current tax collected was used for EV/green rebates - I have zero issue with that since we know it works. But if they're unwilling to do that then the 90% that gets redistributed is pointless. I agree though that the 10% won't go very far.

Sweden also has a lot of exemptions, which we would need as well so it doesn't put a burden on the economy. They have a good system.

Again, I told you some of the things that I personally have done to help reduce emissions in Canada. Tell us what what you have done to personally? Since you like to be so judgmental of others, please share.

[goodgrowth]

The same argument used for Canada to reduce it's emissions regardless of it having a small percentage of global emissions can be applied internally...and that is accelerate early adoption even it means rich people/businesses get tax breaks on green tech.

I mean if it's really about emissions..

[LightingGuy]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Honestly conservative opposition to Carbon taxing continuously flummoxes me. If you acknowledge that Climate Change is a problem that needs to be addressed, carbon taxes are likely the least interventionist and most market-friendly way of delivering results for a government under classical free-market thinking.

I agree with you - my issue with the carbon tax is the redistribution element, and that it doesn't have exemptions for industries that have no other alternatives at the moment such as freight, and airlines.

For ICE cars, there are now a number of really good EV cars on the market. Prices have come down but they are still expensive compared to an equivalent ICE car.

We would need to tax the living shit out of people to make up the difference in cost for them - far more than what the government plans on doing for the redistribution scheme to achieve its goal.

For example:
Hyundai Tucson MSRP is ~ $39K
Hyundai Ionic MSRP is ~ $49K, not including upgrades they have to make at their house to charge their car.

The average Canadian drives 15,000 km per year. At 10L/100km, that's 1500L of gas. Even if the carbon tax went up to $0.3/L, that would only cost the average individual an additional $450/yr.

So that is at least a 10-year return on investment - longer than most people even keep their cars.

But, if 100% of the revenue collected from ICE cars is used for EV rebates, the economics are completely different.

(1500L/yr/driver) x ($0.11/L tax) = $165 carbon tax revenue generated per driver per year

($165 per driver) x (26M drivers in Canada) = $4,290,000,000 total carbon tax revenue generated per year

In 2019 (most recent pre-COVID year) there were 1,900,000 cars sold in Canada.

Let's assume we want 30% of cars sold in 2022 to be EV.

(30%) x (1.9M total car sales) = 570K target EV sales

($4.29B) / (570K target EV sales) = $7,526.31 rebate per EV car sold

This gets us there much much faster. Every year there will be fewer ICE cars on the road that they can collect carbon tax from, but the price of EVs will be dropping as well and eventually cost won't be the issue anymore.

$165 spread over a year won't be felt by anyone, and it actually accomplishes the goal.

Rebates are the only proven method to work. But redistributing those funds will accomplish nothing.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by LightingGuy

Again, I told you some of the things that I personally have done to help reduce emissions in Canada. Tell us what what you have done to personally? Since you like to be so judgmental of others, please share.

1) My personal lifestyle is irrelevant to a policy discussion. You're just trying to deflect here.

2) Live in a condo (with family) with one car (Hybrid), right next to public transit. Let me know if your personal footprint is anywhere on the same planet. I was only judging your uninformed policy takes, but since you decided to make it personal....


Also, this is now a change of position. From "cut 90% and spend the rest on green stuff" to "spend all of it on green stuff". Did seeing actual numbers from the rest of us prompt a rethink?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by LightingGuy

I agree with you - my issue with the carbon tax is the redistribution element, and that it doesn't have exemptions for industries that have no other alternatives at the moment such as freight, and airlines.

For ICE cars, there are now a number of really good EV cars on the market. Prices have come down but they are still expensive compared to an equivalent ICE car.

We would need to tax the living shit out of people to make up the difference in cost for them - far more than what the government plans on doing for the redistribution scheme to achieve its goal.

For example:
Hyundai Tucson MSRP is ~ $39K
Hyundai Ionic MSRP is ~ $49K, not including upgrades they have to make at their house to charge their car.

The average Canadian drives 15,000 km per year. At 10L/100km, that's 1500L of gas. Even if the carbon tax went up to $0.3/L, that would only cost the average individual an additional $450/yr.

So that is at least a 10-year return on investment - longer than most people even keep their cars.

But, if 100% of the revenue collected from ICE cars is used for EV rebates, the economics are completely different.

(1500L/yr/driver) x ($0.11/L tax) = $165 carbon tax revenue generated per driver per year

($165 per driver) x (26M drivers in Canada) = $4,290,000,000 total carbon tax revenue generated per year

In 2019 (most recent pre-COVID year) there were 1,900,000 cars sold in Canada.

Let's assume we want 30% of cars sold in 2022 to be EV.

(30%) x (1.9M total car sales) = 570K target EV sales

($4.29B) / (570K target EV sales) = $7,526.31 rebate per EV car sold

This gets us there much much faster. Every year there will be fewer ICE cars on the road that they can collect carbon tax from, but the price of EVs will be dropping as well and eventually cost won't be the issue anymore.

$165 spread over a year won't be felt by anyone, and it actually accomplishes the goal.

Rebates are the only proven method to work. But redistributing those funds will accomplish nothing.

Simple question. What's better for the environment?

A) Replacing a gas car with an EV.

B) Replacing a gas car with a bicycle, a bus pass and sneakers

Under your suggestion the person who lives carless and works from home, is subsidizing the guy replacing his F150 with a Lightning. You should ask Kathleen Wynne how this exact plan worked out for her.

Also, you have some terrible assumptions piling on assumptions. Starting with the idea that the carbon tax is being collected nationally. It is collected by province. This is why provinces with the federal backstop all have different rebates. The provinces can decide what to do with that money. The rebate only applies to the federal backstop. And the only amount rebated is what is collected in that given province. Quebec and BC don't rebate, for example. Quebec doesn't impose a fixed carbon price either. It participates in an emissions trading scheme. So if you have issues with the carbon tax spending tell your provincial government. It's not a federal matter.

[Truenorth00]

Hey LightningGuy did you vote for Doug Ford or Kathleen Wynne? The Ontario Liberals had the plan you wanted. All the Ontario green programs were funded by a provincial carbon tax. The PCs scrapped that plan and then were forced onto the federal backstop (only applies to provinces without a provincial plan).

Why aren't you asking Doug Ford to scrap the rebate and spend it all on grants?

[LightingGuy]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I was only judging your uninformed policy takes, but since you decided to make it personal


Also, this is now a change of position. From "cut 90% and spend the rest on green stuff" to "spend all of it on green stuff". Did seeing actual numbers from the rest of us prompt a rethink?

The entire premise of my debate has been that I agree with the tax as long as it's used for rebates. Prior to our debate I was confused why they would just give 90% back - it seemed like government bureaucracy and "pandering to poor people" at its finest. I figured at the time that if the government deemed that 10% of the collected rebates to be enough, then why the hell are they bothering with the other 90%. The only thing that has changed since we started our debate is that I learned the redistribution part is the main point of the carbon tax.

I actually care what happens to our planet, as evidenced by my choice in career and how much time I have invested into this debate when I have more important things I should be doing (since I'm a business owner I can actually tell you exactly how much money my time spent on this debate has cost me).

I think that the government is making a huge mistake - they clearly don't understand how real businesses work and as result the carbon tax as constructed is unlikely to result in any positive impact. That's why I'm being so vocal. If I didn't actually care about the effectiveness of this program, I wouldn't be wasting my time on this topic.

I also don't think you (or most Canadians for that matter) have a very strong grasp of economics and how businesses make decisions - which again is why I decided to speak up on this. I don't mean any offense by this, but I can tell by the way you you think that you probably don't have a business background (IIRC you said in the past you were in the military, which I respect you a lot for).

Your entire position on the redistribution element is based on articles written by economists. In case you're not aware, economists (as well as professional investors) get it wrong all the time. Your average business owner who (doesn't have a money printing machine, and) is able to remain profitable even through tough economic times, has a far better understanding of how the economy actually works compared to an economist who only researches broad macroeconomics. You can choose to continue to dismiss that if you want, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Finally during our debate, not once did I make any assumptions about you. I didn't call you anything rude or try to humiliate you. I only asked you that one question in my last post because I had enough of you continuously trying to make out like I'm some kind of corrupt asshole who doesn't care about the environment.

Here are some of things you said to me or about me during the process, when all I was doing was providing logical recourse and identifying why the program as currently constructed is likely to not work. You're the one who made it personal, not me.

"Owning a business makes you aware of accounting. Not how economics works."

"So again, if you don't want the truck driving suburbanite to change, just be honest about it. Stop pretending there's some elaborate intellectual argument about the economics here. Straight up selfishness is at least honest."

"And there it is. You support climate policy only if it bolsters government programs that bring you business."

"Says a lot about you. And I'm sure it's just coincidence that your proposed solution lines your pockets."

"Note also his solution.... This is the part where supposed free market folks cook up elaborate spin to justify corporate welfare that benefits their own pocketbooks."

"You're entitled to your opinion. Not your reality of made up facts. Especially, just because you want a policy that directs funding towards your businesses."

"LightningGuy's position actually sums up much of the CPC (again, not all conservatives) mindset quite well:

1) Scrap 90% of the tax. The last 10% is there for political cover. "See? We have a carbon tax. We aren't climate deniers.""

"Like I said, you (and the CPC) are in to tokenism as political cover."

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by LightingGuy

The entire premise of my debate has been that I agree with the tax as long as it's used for rebates. Prior to our debate I was confused why they would just give 90% back - it seemed like government bureaucracy and "pandering to poor people" at its finest. I figured at the time that if the government deemed that 10% of the collected rebates to be enough, then why the hell are they bothering with the other 90%. The only thing that has changed since we started our debate is that I learned the redistribution part is the main point of the carbon tax.

....

I think that the government is making a huge mistake - they clearly don't understand how real businesses work and as result the carbon tax as constructed is unlikely to result in any positive impact. That's why I'm being so vocal. If I didn't actually care about the effectiveness of this program, I wouldn't be wasting my time on this topic.

So you don't understand how carbon taxes work in Canada, or how the federal backstop works and still think it's all the federal Liberals fault? The reason I'm calling you out is for this partisan BS.

And you still haven't answered who you voted for provincially, given that one of the parties actually implemented the exact climate policy you preferred.

Originally Posted by LightingGuy

I also don't think you (or most Canadians for that matter) have a very strong grasp of economics and how businesses make decisions - which again is why I decided to speak up on this.

A guy who claims price signals (the foundation of all economics) don't work claiming that others don't understand economics is rich. I'm going to bet money that you never took a single economics course in high school or university. Or at the very least never paid attention.

Originally Posted by LightingGuy

I don't mean any offense by this, but I can tell by the way you you think that you probably don't have a business background (IIRC you said in the past you were in the military, which I respect you a lot for).

I was part of a team that won a startup competition in Toronto in the early 2010s. And I did that as a side thing to help out my buddies doing the competition. The fact that you make this assumption says a lot about you.

Originally Posted by LightingGuy

Your entire position on the redistribution element is based on articles written by economists. In case you're not aware, economists (as well as professional investors) get it wrong all the time.

From, "Most Canadians are ignorant about economics," to, "Most economists are ignorant about economics...."

At this point, I'm just curious how you fit your ego in the room, what with all that superior economics knowledge and all.

[LightingGuy]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Hey LightningGuy did you vote for Doug Ford or Kathleen Wynne? The Ontario Liberals had the plan you wanted. All the Ontario green programs were funded by a provincial carbon tax. The PCs scrapped that plan and then were forced onto the federal backstop (only applies to provinces without a provincial plan).

Why aren't you asking Doug Ford to scrap the rebate and spend it all on grants?

Before 2014 I voted Liberal provincially.

In 2014 I lived in Alberta (voted for Notley)

In 2018 I voted for Wynne

In 2022 I spoiled my vote at the polling station. I viewed Ford as more competent than the other options, but I couldn't justify voting for him because of other things he's done which I disagree with.

Federally I have voted Liberal every single election. This includes 2021, but I regretted it shortly after and wish I had spoiled instead.

I am glad to see that the CPC is calling the Lib and NDP out on their anti-capitalist bullshit, but am unlikely to vote for PP myself.

I will likely either vote Independent or spoil in all future elections until the system changes for the better. I don't like any of the options and think the whole partisanship thing is bullshit. It is good for politicians but not for the people. It's the politicians who are divided, not the people. This includes Trudeau, Poilievre and Singh.

I think that Representative Democracy in Canada has failed, and that we'd be better off as a nation by switching to Direct Democracy.