The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

You're kidding, right?

No species other than humans have been capable of creating the technology that allows us to do great things and terrible things at exponentially greater levels than we ever should have been able to. A beaver dam or a carnivore hunting its prey are not these things, but you know this.

This power that we have created for ourselves carries with it great responsibility. We have long mastered the power thing, but still seem to struggle with the concept of responsibility.

So let's just keep looking after our "own" like we have been all along, and see where it takes us. Most people won't notice anyhow.

No, I am not. The scale of the damage we can do is much higher than other animals, and much higher than it even been in history, but caring about that isn't part of our nature. If we cared more about nature than about ourselves when we were growing as a species, we would have gone extinct long ago. What I mean is that to overcome that, we need to fight a very deep rooted evolutionary trait and we need to keep that in mind when thinking about environmental policies.

A lot of people will not be convinced with "we need to save the planet" (as we have seen in this thread...), so we need to take that into account and adjust the discourse and the policies.

[Build.It]

You hit the nail on the head. This is why social engineering policies such as the carbon tax are destined to fail. It can't overcome human selfishness.

Policy makers need to realize that they will never be able to predict human behaviour, and should assume that humans will do what's in their own best interest first. That is generally why laissez-fare is the most best way to let newer more efficient technology become commercially viable.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Build.It

You hit the nail on the head. This is why social engineering policies such as the carbon tax are destined to fail. It can't overcome human selfishness.

Policy makers need to realize that they will never be able to predict human behaviour, and should assume that humans will do what's in their own best interest first. That is generally why laissez-fare is the most best way to let newer more efficient technology become commercially viable.

Actually, no. What will fail is the idea that if you make it more difficult for car owners, or if you try to shame them, you will convince them to give up their car and use a bike all year long, even in the snow.

A carbon tax makes a trade: you produce pollution, you are penalized, but if you reduce your pollution (at a cost to you, either financial or in having less comfort, or both) you get a reward. The conservatives use to agree with the principle of a carbon tax (or the cap and trade system that has a similar result) as an incentive to reduce pollution, but they changed their mind when they saw the left implement it and when special interest groups (oil lobbies...) fought against it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Actually, no. What will fail is the idea that if you make it more difficult for car owners, or if you try to shame them, you will convince them to give up their car and use a bike all year long, even in the snow.

A carbon tax makes a trade: you produce pollution, you are penalized, but if you reduce your pollution (at a cost to you, either financial or in having less comfort, or both) you get a reward. The conservatives use to agree with the principle of a carbon tax (or the cap and trade system that has a similar result) as an incentive to reduce pollution, but they changed their mind when they saw the left implement it and when special interest groups (oil lobbies...) fought against it.

But it isn't a cap and trade system. As you note, a cap and trade system creates incentives to innovate or make investments in order to sell the excess credits. The carbon tax creates no such incentives, it is just a tax on highly inelastic goods that is redistributed as a flat rebate.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But it isn't a cap and trade system. As you note, a cap and trade system creates incentives to innovate or make investments in order to sell the excess credits. The carbon tax creates no such incentives, it is just a tax on highly inelastic goods that is redistributed as a flat rebate.

The effects are similar in the end, you are rewarded if you pollute less. But I agree that the cap and trade system is better because it permits companies that are ready and able to innovate to sell their rights to pollute to other companies, and make profit with the sale.

[Build.It]

The carbon tax effectively operates as a wealth redistribution program. Its design is flawed. The top 20% of earners who are "net losers" don't feel the $1000 or so they're losing each year, so it's not going to do anything to change their behaviour. And everyone else who are supposedly winners in this are able to afford more gas than they would've otherwise because of the rebates. So how exactly is this supposed to reduce emmissions again?

Meanwhile it's making the price of anything that needs to be transported (in other words everything) to go up.

Businesses who get taxed just pass the cost on to their customer.

And when certain goods become too expensive to produce in Canada because of the tax, businesses decide to import it from the other side of the world instead, which releases substantially more GHGs.

Not only that, but it hasn't even worked at reducing emissions. Or more accurately, we don't know if it has worked, because they don't track GHG performance against the carbon tax to determine its effect.

[Truenorth00]

Cap and trade is just less transparent because you tax large industrial emitters. It's less efficient, because you have to create a whole permit system and enforce it, while creating a market to trade permits. But, since it doesn't end up directly on a consumer bill as a line item it's preferred politically. This is kinda like the debate between the old (hidden) MST and (visible) GST. The GST is the better policy but was (and is) disliked for being transparent.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Build.It

The carbon tax effectively operates as a wealth redistribution program. Its design is flawed. The top 20% of earners who are "net losers" don't feel the $1000 or so they're losing each year, so it's not going to do anything to change their behaviour.

Top 10% household here. We're net beneficiaries. The program rewards people who live frugally quite well. I remember when Conservatives liked such people and supported a higher savings rate.

[acottawa]

The carbon tax (as created) rewards certain attributes.

Vacationing overseas
Living relatively close to work (or working from home)
Living in a relatively new or recently renovated home
Driving a relatively new vehicle (further bonus if electric)
Heating your home with bunker oil

1-4 are closely associated with affluence, particularly the urban/hipster wing of the affluent category. 5 is closely associated with living in the Maritimes.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Top 10% household here. We're net beneficiaries. The program rewards people who live frugally quite well. I remember when Conservatives liked such people and supported a higher savings rate.

yup. Top 20% of polluting households are net negative. Use you big bucks to fly internationally and drive an F-250? Yea, you will be feeling it. Use your money to go out for nice dinners and buy a Tesla? You will still be pocketing cash.

And that's the whole point.

Conservative opposition to the Carbon Tax is simply mind blowing to me. It's the exact definition of a market-driven response to climate change. Put a price on carbon and let the market figure out how to cut emissions.

[Build.It]

Top 10% household here. We're net beneficiaries. The program rewards people who live frugally quite well. I remember when Conservatives liked such people and supported a higher savings rate.

Does the carbon tax have anything to do with your reasons for living that way? Was it a motivating factor? Or would you have lived that way anyways?

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

yup. Top 20% of polluting households are net negative. Use you big bucks to fly internationally and drive an F-250? Yea, you will be feeling it. Use your money to go out for nice dinners and buy a Tesla? You will still be pocketing cash.

And that's the whole point.

Conservative opposition to the Carbon Tax is simply mind blowing to me. It's the exact definition of a market-driven response to climate change. Put a price on carbon and let the market figure out how to cut emissions.

You are one of the smartest members on this forum (I remember your future skyline renders from years ago), so I'm going to present a challenge to you. Find some concrete evidence that the carbon tax has worked at reducing emmissions in Canada versus if we didn't have it. If you can find anything that proves it actually works, that should settle it.

I'm challenging you with this because I've already done this myself. I spent hours searching for anything to support the carbon tax has worked and couldn't find anything. All the data I found ended up proving the exact opposite. I used to be pro-carbon tax, but now I'm not.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Build.It

You are one of the smartest members on this forum (I remember your future skyline renders from years ago), so I'm going to present a challenge to you. Find some concrete evidence that the carbon tax has worked at reducing emmissions in Canada versus if we didn't have it. If you can find anything that proves it actually works, that should settle it.

I'm challenging you with this because I've already done this myself. I spent hours searching for anything to support the carbon tax has worked and couldn't find anything. All the data I found ended up proving the exact opposite. I used to be pro-carbon tax, but now I'm not.

Carbon taxes have actually been pretty extensively researched and are proven to be effective over time. There is lots of research out there if you want to dig.

I'm not sure why it should be a surprise that making a good more expensive (carbon) causes people to consume less of it. It would be far more surprising if carbon consumption worked unlike literally any other market good. Carbon behaves like literally everthing else in a market economy:



Right now, carbon is mostly subsidized and cheap.. It sits at the bottom right of that graph. Low cost, high supply, high demand. Introducing the carbon tax moves it up the demand curve by increasing costs, reducing demand. The more expensive you make it, the further to the right it goes and the less that is consumed. It's literally economics 101 and basically every market good in the history of the planet has operated on some version of this graph. The graph looks a bit different of course depending on the good and how elastic demand is, but all goods nonetheless operate on this curve in some capacity.

Like other market goods though, the market reaction will be proportionate to the scale of cost increase. Right now Canada's carbon taxes are still relatively low, despite all the hoopla they get about them. And since they are low, they offer a low amount of incentive for the market to shift demand away.

By 2030 when the Carbon Tax would be at $170/tonne (minus the fact that it will be exceedingly unlikely to last until then), the market cost on the good will actually be significant and which should start to create significant market incentives for markets to minimize exposure to those costs.

Carbon Taxes work like literally any other market incentive/disincentive provided by the government. Just like sin taxes, etc.

Like sin taxes, I suspect that conservatives don't like the carbon tax as it exposes how high-carbon many conservative's lifestyles are. Many rural residents believe city-dwellers are the "polluters" but the reality is usually the dead opposite. Economic models for ye and not for me, so to speak.

[Build.It]

From 2008 to 2012 BC had a revenue neutral carbon tax, similar to what most province have today. At the time though they were the only province to have this policy, none of the provinces had this. If what you're saying is true, that the revenue neutral carbon tax is effective at reducing emmissions, then we should've seen BC's emmissions drop substantially more than all the other provinces.

Instead this is what happened. BC is the yellow line.


https://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/ghg-emissions-aspx/

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Build.It

From 2008 to 2012 BC had a revenue neutral carbon tax, similar to what most province have today. At the time though they were the only province to have this policy, none of the provinces had this. If what you're saying is true, that the revenue neutral carbon tax is effective at reducing emmissions, then we should've seen BC's emmissions drop substantially more than all the other provinces.

Instead this is what happened. BC is the yellow line.


https://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/ghg-emissions-aspx/

There are a million different macroeconomic factors that can influence this - population growth, growth in certain high-pollution industries, etc.

BC in that time has also seen a massive investment in carbon industries up north regardless of the carbon tax being in place which likely influenced this, and as I said, right now carbon taxes right now are generally still too low to make major market adjustments. The market incentive just isn't strong enough at $30-$60 a tonne to see major behavioral changes in the market.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Carbon taxes have actually been pretty extensively researched and are proven to be effective over time. There is lots of research out there if you want to dig.

I'm not sure why it should be a surprise that making a good more expensive (carbon) causes people to consume less of it. It would be far more surprising if carbon consumption worked unlike literally any other market good. Carbon behaves like literally everthing else in a market economy:



Right now, carbon is mostly subsidized and cheap.. It sits at the bottom right of that graph. Low cost, high supply, high demand. Introducing the carbon tax moves it up the demand curve by increasing costs, reducing demand. The more expensive you make it, the further to the right it goes and the less that is consumed. It's literally economics 101 and basically every market good in the history of the planet has operated on some version of this graph. The graph looks a bit different of course depending on the good and how elastic demand is, but all goods nonetheless operate on this curve in some capacity.

Like other market goods though, the market reaction will be proportionate to the scale of cost increase. Right now Canada's carbon taxes are still relatively low, despite all the hoopla they get about them. And since they are low, they offer a low amount of incentive for the market to shift demand away.

By 2030 when the Carbon Tax would be at $170/tonne (minus the fact that it will be exceedingly unlikely to last until then), the market cost on the good will actually be significant and which should start to create significant market incentives for markets to minimize exposure to those costs.

Carbon Taxes work like literally any other market incentive/disincentive provided by the government. Just like sin taxes, etc.

Like sin taxes, I suspect that conservatives don't like the carbon tax as it exposes how high-carbon many conservative's lifestyles are. Many rural residents believe city-dwellers are the "polluters" but the reality is usually the dead opposite. Economic models for ye and not for me, so to speak.

Trust me, I fully understand the reasoning behind it and why it "should" work. But the results from the real world have not supported it.

Instead what has happened:

- Poor people are given more money than they had before, so they can actually afford more gas - opposite effect of the intent

- Canadian companies import more products from overseas - more GHG emmissions, and therefore also the opposite of the intent

At best the carbon tax is a GHG wash. At worst it actually slows down progress.

The only carbon tax system we know actually works is the one applied in Sweden, but that wasn't revenue neutral. The money raised was just used for rebates. I'm supportive of this model, but not the revenue neutral one we have in Canada.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

There are a million different macroeconomic factors that can influence this - population growth, growth in certain high-pollution industries, etc.

BC in that time has also seen a massive investment in carbon industries up north regardless of the carbon tax being in place which likely influenced this, and as I said, right now carbon taxes right now are generally still too low to make major market adjustments. The market incentive just isn't strong enough at $30-$60 a tonne to see major behavioral changes in the market.

BC is also now having an active debate on what LNG facilities to allow which would blow their carbon budget. As you point out, the policy does work where the carbon price has a notable impact.

[Build.It]

Keep in mind that after years of being a much higher emitter than us, we are about to surpass the USA in emmissions/capita. The country with more sprawl, worse public transit, a dirtier power grid, and no carbon tax, is on track to have fewer emmissions/capita than Canada possibly this year.


https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-g...-gas-emissions

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

yup. Top 20% of polluting households are net negative. Use you big bucks to fly internationally and drive an F-250? Yea, you will be feeling it. Use your money to go out for nice dinners and buy a Tesla? You will still be pocketing cash.

And that's the whole point.

Conservative opposition to the Carbon Tax is simply mind blowing to me. It's the exact definition of a market-driven response to climate change. Put a price on carbon and let the market figure out how to cut emissions.

Me too. The biggest supporters of carbon pricing (all over the world) were free market conservatives. Heck, Preston Manning supported carbon pricing in Canada. It's also why I find the idea so attractive. It's Econ 101 level easy to understand. In hindsight, some of this seems likely to be insincere. They seemed to support it, as long as it would never pass. This way they could point to some theoretical perfect economic idea as an excuse for inaction. They could also get wrapped up in debates about carbon tax vs cap and trade. As soon as it actually passed though (with provinces given the choice of implementation), they flipped. Makes me now wonder about all their other principles too. I now wonder if their arguments on housing are equally cynical. And looking at Ford ignoring the provincial housing taskforce, there's some evidence of duplicity here too.

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Like sin taxes, I suspect that conservatives don't like the carbon tax as it exposes how high-carbon many conservative's lifestyles are. Many rural residents believe city-dwellers are the "polluters" but the reality is usually the dead opposite. Economic models for ye and not for me, so to speak.

100% this. And since people tend to find sin taxes an annoyance, it's easy to campaign against it.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Keep in mind that after years of being a much higher emitter than us, we are about to surpass the USA in emmissions/capita. The country with more sprawl, worse public transit, a dirtier power grid, and no carbon tax, is on track to have fewer emmissions/capita than Canada possibly this year.

Could that be because we have more tar sands than they have?