The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Truenorth00]

Do you finally understand how carbon taxes work in Canada or do you still think this is all federally run? Let us know if you need it explained to you further.

[LightingGuy]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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

Option B is better for the environment, but it is not realistic given our current infrastructure. Our goal is to be net zero by 2050. Given how slow government moves there is no way in hell that we will have half decent transit and cycling infrastructure for 80% of Canadians in that timeframe. It would be great if we could, but it is probably going to take much longer.

Option A is more realistic - it's the lowest hanging fruit, and something we can do now which would have a remarkable immediate impact. Deal with that now so it's out of the way, while also planning transit and pedestrian upgrades.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Under your suggestion the person who lives carless and works from home, is subsidizing the guy replacing his F150 with a Lightning.

Agreed under the current system, since semi-trailers aren't exempted from the carbon tax, but not under what I'm proposing.

My solution: The F150 owner should be taxed more at the pump, but semi-trailers should be exempted since they don't have another market-ready option. The only argument to tax transportation companies is to incentivize them to pick more efficient routes, but that point is moot since they are already heavily incentivized to do that through competition.

In a few years when there are more commercially viable semi-trailers on the market then we should tax the hell out of ICE semi-trailers and provide similar rebates for them to upgrade to electric.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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.

My argument is against any system that does the redistribution scheme regardless of whether it's provincial or federal. You're arguing the politics, I'm arguing for what changes are necessary to the structure of the tax so that it actually does work.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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.

I have a better understanding of their theory now, thanks, but I still disagree with its current construct. They should be using 100% of it for rebates.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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.

Oh the price signals will definitely work - but it is impossible to know what the actual longterm response will be. Predicting future human behaviour accurately is incredibly difficult. Even people who get it right once, have a long track record of being wrong. The vast majority of predictions about what will happen in the economy turn out to be wrong. This includes me, you, economists and investors.

And actually I took multiple economics courses in University, and Statistics courses, and other math courses when I got my engineering degree. I also ran a profitable business on the side while I was studying.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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.

Congratulations, didn't know that. What was the business, and did it actually make a profit and does it still exist? Also, did you personally sell its products to customers?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

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.

I have a large ego, but it doesn't make me wrong about this. Economists thought that QE won't lead to inflation, yet here we are. Economists thought that greenbelts and development restrictions won't inflate housing prices, yet here we are.

Economists are excellent at studying past economic trends - ie. understanding why certain economic events happened. But they are just as clueless as everyone else at predicting market responses, hence why there always unintended consequences to market manipulation.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by LightingGuy

I have a better understanding of their theory now, thanks, but I still disagree with its current construct. They should be using 100% of it for rebates.

Ugggh. You still don't get it.

The Feds only insist that every province have a carbon price that meets the federal minimum. They don't dictate how a province spends that money. They don't dictate how a province collects that money. For example, Quebec and BC do not give rebates. BC imposes direct carbon taxes. Quebec mandates participation in a joint emissions trading program with California.

If a province refuses to implement a carbon price that meets the federal minimum, then the feds will apply the federal backstop in that province. This backstop imposes a carbon price and rebates 90% with 10% withheld for grants to community organizations in that province. The federal government does not want to run rebate programs for individual provinces. That is why it gives the provincial governments the option to do so themselves.

We've now gone several pages and you seem absolutely ignorant to the above. Lots of confident arguing with little knowledge of the history or facts here.

Ontario was part of the same emissions trading scheme as Quebec. And Ontario used the revenue to provide grants for various things like EVs and PV panels. When the PCs got elected they withdrew from the emissions trading program and cancelled the programs the emissions credits funded (eg. GreenON). They refused to impose their own tax policy and thus had the backstop imposed on Ontario. The Ford PC could have just as easily done what BC did.

Personally, I prefer the backstop and am just fine with what Ford did. But also, if I didn't like the backstop, I'd be complaining about Queen's Park, not Ottawa. Your partisan reflex seems to limit your ability to understand policy and place blame appropriately.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by LightingGuy

I have a large ego, but it doesn't make me wrong about this. Economists thought that QE won't lead to inflation, yet here we are. Economists thought that greenbelts and development restrictions won't inflate housing prices, yet here we are.

Economists are excellent at studying past economic trends - ie. understanding why certain economic events happened. But they are just as clueless as everyone else at predicting market responses, hence why there always unintended consequences to market manipulation.

Why are you selling lights and not running the Bank of Canada, if it's that easy?

Also, how many years of QE were there? And yet, no inflation till Covid and trillions in fiscal stimulus. Were the economists wrong for all those years pre-Covid too? Or do you just have selective memory to protect your ego?

Also, please let us know all the other professional fields you're an expert at.

[LightingGuy]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ugggh. You still don't get it.

The Feds only insist that every province have a carbon price that meets the federal minimum. They don't dictate how a province spends that money. They don't dictate how a province collects that money. For example, Quebec and BC do not give rebates. BC imposes direct carbon taxes. Quebec mandates participation in a joint emissions trading program with California.

If a province refuses to implement a carbon price that meets the federal minimum, then the feds will apply the federal backstop in that province. This backstop imposes a carbon price and rebates 90% with 10% withheld for grants to community organizations in that province. The federal government does not want to run rebate programs for individual provinces. That is why it gives the provincial governments the option to do so themselves.

We've now gone several pages and you seem absolutely ignorant to the above. Lots of confident arguing with little knowledge of the history or facts here.

Ontario was part of the same emissions trading scheme as Quebec. And Ontario used the revenue to provide grants for various things like EVs and PV panels. When the PCs got elected they withdrew from the emissions trading program and cancelled the programs the emissions credits funded (eg. GreenON). They refused to impose their own tax policy and thus had the backstop imposed on Ontario. The Ford PC could have just as easily done what BC did.

Personally, I prefer the backstop and am just fine with what Ford did. But also, if I didn't like the backstop, I'd be complaining about Queen's Park, not Ottawa. Your partisan reflex seems to limit your ability to understand policy and place blame appropriately.

I'm not arguing "historical facts", I'm saying that any jurisdiction that doesn't use the CT revenue for rebates is going through a pointless exercise that will accomplish nothing. It doesn't matter who it is and how they got there.

[LightingGuy]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Why are you selling lights and not running the Bank of Canada, if it's that easy?

I would do as poor of a job or poorer. The problem is that it's centralized control.

Of all the central banks I find the Swiss to do the best job of not catering to politicians. I love their their Direct Democracy government. And their neutrality. Really I just have a lot of admiration for the how the Swiss run their country.

Oh and by the way this is Switzerland's per capita CO2 emissions versus a few others:



Source: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/count...AN~CHE~SWE~NLD

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Also, how many years of QE were there? And yet, no inflation till Covid and trillions in fiscal stimulus. Were the economists wrong for all those years pre-Covid too?

Good question, my best understanding is this: QE inflation was concentrated in assets. When it went into overdrive, some people cashed out (such as me), in which case it actually enters the economy that CPI tracks. Land (at the macro level) and stocks went up at approx the same rate as the money supply increased for the past 15 years.

I strongly recommend you read "The Price of Tomorrow" by Jeff Booth if you're into economic theory. Even if you disagree with everything he says (which I suspect you might), it's a great read and very well researched.

The problem is that our economy relies on people going into debt. Hopefully this is something that gets fixed by advancements in blockchain and AI technology, but we're still a loooong ways away from that point.

[ssiguy]

I have never been a big supporter of carbon taxes. Ottawa should simply mandate the amount the provinces have to reduce their emissions by {ie 30% by 2030} and if they reach that goal then great but if they don't then Ottawa can start pulling back on transfer payments until they do.

Canada is not little Sweden or Austria but a massive country with a very different economic base that is highly regional. This means that what works in one province doesn't mean it's going to work in the others. This is why I have always supported the provinces making their own plans to get to those goals...........they know what's best and realistically attainable for themselves way more than Ottawa does. That may indeed include a carbon tax but for others it may mean free transit, stricter emissions vehicles, carbon capture etc or a combination of any or all of them. Mother Nature doesn't give a damn how we get to our targets as long as we get to them.

As far as these zero emissions rebates, I don't agree with them or at least not in the current form. Someone who can afford a $50,000 car gets a nice rebate while those who can't get squat. The rebates should also apply to people who want to convert their current ICE over to electric. It would be far fairer and much more beneficial to Canada itself as these retro fits would be done at the local level as opposed to subsidizing jobs in another country to build new vehicles. Also better for the environment as it would exponentially reduce our emissions faster and not create near as many GHG emissions in the first place by not having to build new cars.
l
Also the rebates should only apply to vehicles made in Canada within 3 years so that the money is reinvested in Canadian jobs and will force larger car companies {ie those selling more than 20,000 zero emissions vehicles a year} to invest in Canada. You are not forcing anyone to build cars here which would mean it is still compliant with the WTO but simply not offering the rebates.

[LightingGuy]

Some more interesting comparisons:



Source: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/count...SA~CAN~AUS~NZL



Source: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/count...HE~SWE~NLD~NZL

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I have never been a big supporter of carbon taxes. Ottawa should simply mandate the amount the provinces have to reduce their emissions by {ie 30% by 2030} and if they reach that goal then great but if they don't then Ottawa can start pulling back on transfer payments until they do.

This is a recipe for breaking up the country. It amounts to a direct attack on the most carbon intensive province: Alberta.

Setting a national price is fair because it's universal and no person or industry is paying more or less based on location. This all maintains the national goal while allowing some industries to expand emissions at a cost, while letting others cut. It also ensures that carbon taxes don't become equalization by other means. It keeps revenue raised inside a province, in that province. Otherwise, we'd all be getting larger rebates at the expense of Albertans, on top of the equalization they already support through their taxes.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

As far as these zero emissions rebates, I don't agree with them or at least not in the current form. Someone who can afford a $50,000 car gets a nice rebate while those who can't get squat.

Why can't you just stop being poor? - LightningGuy probably....

Personally, I think it's time to cut all EV rebates. Time to let the industry sink or swim. Rising gas prices should be enough to get people to switch to a smaller or electrified vehicle. If we want to provide rebates, let it be to manufacturers making cars in Canada (and the US for trade agreement sake). I don't see why EVs built in Europe or Asia, creating jobs there should get subsidies from Canadian taxpayers.

[LightingGuy]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Someone who can afford a $50,000 car gets a nice rebate while those who can't get squat.

Those who can't will be able to access used electric vehicles sooner - since there will be more of them.

[ssiguy]

It's not a recipe for breaking up the country. The provinces don't have to get to the same emissions per-capita but rather reduce them by 30% by 2023 whether that be BC or Newfoundland. What is a recipe for breaking up the country is making one or 2 of the provinces have to carry the weight while others do nothing.

Alberta had plans to get rid of all coal-fired plants by 2030 and now has already attained that reducing GHG emissions in the province by 9%. The carbon price had nothing to do with this because the generating companies would simply pass the extra costs onto the consumer and electricity is something everyone has to pay for whether they like it or not. This is an excellent example of why the provinces should be in charge of reducing their emissions by a goal set by Ottawa. They still have to attain that goal but the individual provinces know the best way to do it. Canada is far too big and diverse to have a one-size-fits-all GHG plan.

[Truenorth00]

Talking about coral fired power plants in Alberta and ignoring the largest source of emissions in the country based there and the source of so much prosperity in Alberta ....

[Cunning Stunt]

How many batteries does it take to power the equipment used to make the batteries?

[whatnext]

There's no question the climate is warming but the next time some Greta shrieks about Greeenland's glaciers melting direct them to this:

A 2-million-year-old ecosystem in Greenland uncovered by environmental DNA
Kurt H. Kjær, Mikkel Winther Pedersen, Bianca De Sanctis, Binia De Cahsan, Thorfinn S. Korneliussen, Christian S. Michelsen, Karina K. Sand, Stanislav Jelavić, Anthony H. Ruter, Astrid M. A. Schmidt, Kristian K. Kjeldsen, Alexey S. Tesakov, Ian Snowball, John C. Gosse, Inger G. Alsos, Yucheng Wang, Christoph Dockter, Magnus Rasmussen, Morten E. Jørgensen, Birgitte Skadhauge, Ana Prohaska, Jeppe Å. Kristensen, Morten Bjerager, Morten E. Allentoft, PhyloNorway Consortium, …Eske Willerslev Show authors
Nature volume 612, pages283–291 (2022)Cite this article

320 Altmetric

Metricsdetails

Abstract
Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene epochs 3.6 to 0.8 million years ago1 had climates resembling those forecasted under future warming2. Palaeoclimatic records show strong polar amplification with mean annual temperatures of 11–19 °C above contemporary values3,4. The biological communities inhabiting the Arctic during this time remain poorly known because fossils are rare5. Here we report an ancient environmental DNA6 (eDNA) record describing the rich plant and animal assemblages of the Kap København Formation in North Greenland, dated to around two million years ago. The record shows an open boreal forest ecosystem with mixed vegetation of poplar, birch and thuja trees, as well as a variety of Arctic and boreal shrubs and herbs, many of which had not previously been detected at the site from macrofossil and pollen records. The DNA record confirms the presence of hare and mitochondrial DNA from animals including mastodons, reindeer, rodents and geese, all ancestral to their present-day and late Pleistocene relatives. The presence of marine species including horseshoe crab and green algae support a warmer climate than today. The reconstructed ecosystem has no modern analogue. The survival of such ancient eDNA probably relates to its binding to mineral surfaces. Our findings open new areas of genetic research, demonstrating that it is possible to track the ecology and evolution of biological communities from two million years ago using ancient eDNA.

The Kap København Formation is located in Peary Land, North Greenland (82° 24′ N 22° 12′ W) in what is now a polar desert. The upper depositional sequence contains well-preserved terrestrial animal and plant remains washed into an estuary during a warmer Early Pleistocene interglacial cycle7 (Fig. 1). Nearly 40 years of palaeoenvironmental and climate research at the site provide a unique perspective into a period when the site was situated at the boreal Arctic ecotone with reconstructed summer and winter average minimum temperatures of 10 °C and −17 °C respectively—more than 10 °C warmer than the present7,8,9,10,11. These conditions must have driven substantial ablation of the Greenland Ice Sheet, possibly producing one of the last ice-free intervals7 in the last 2.4 million years (Myr)....

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05453-y

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Cunning Stunt

How many batteries does it take to power the equipment used to make the batteries?

Migs version 6.022^23

[OldDartmouthMark]

N.S. releases sweeping plan aimed at cutting emissions, reaching climate goals

The province has legislated an overall goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 53 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

The new plan outlines 68 measures, including a new pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity by 90 per cent by 2035 and to reduce home heating oil use by at least 20 per cent by 2030.

To help with vehicle emissions, the new government plan pledges to build more electric vehicle charging stations across the province and to increase the number of zero-emissions vehicles and e-bikes through rebates and public education programs.

The plan includes a ban on the installation of oil-fired heating equipment in new buildings and homes by 2025 and the adoption of current national building codes. There is also a call to increase the amount of renewable energy used for electricity generation by building at least 500 megawatts of new local, renewable energy by 2026 and an additional 50 megawatts of new community solar. An action plan for the development of green hydrogen is also to be created by next year.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Migs version 6.022^23

He should swap the C and the St.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

For example, Quebec and BC do not give rebates.

Just one small nit: BC has the climate action tax credit:

The B.C. climate action tax credit (BCCATC) helps offset the impact of the carbon taxes paid by individuals or families.

It's income-tested so it's given to low and medium income families. I guess you could debate the difference between a rebate and a tax credit, but the effect is generally the same.

[LightingGuy]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I guess you could debate the difference between a rebate and a tax credit, but the effect is generally the same.

It really isn't - that's what the entire multi-page debate was about.

Rebates can only be used on low emission technology.

Tax credits is just money handed to people which they can use for anything including vacations, a new ICE car, etc.

[Cunning Stunt]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

He should swap the C and the St.

chuck you farlie