The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Build.It]

This is actually hilarious. And I'm not whining, I'm trying to help you. And I'm also laughing at you.

How can you look at the result and continue to believe that it's working? It is clear as daylight that itis not working. Peer countries such as the USA and Australia, who used to be higher emitters than us, have now broken even with us, and neither have a carbon tax.

The only people who think this tax is a good idea are people who don't know how it works (vast majority of the supporters), and those who do understand how it works and are profiting from it because they already had frugal lifestyles to begin with (such as yourself).

People are selfish. Most people will do what is easiest and most convenient for themselves. If they know they're just going to get refunded anyways, then it means they can continue driving an SUV.

I would go as far as to say that in terms of unintended consequences, the carbon tax is just as idiotic as the greenbelt. Possibly even more so.

Do you seriously think a tax is going to change the bloody weather?

And why is no other country doing this? If this is such a good idea, you'd think that countries around the world would be doing it. The reason other countries don't send refund cheques is because itbis an incredibly stupid idea that is obviously not going to work.

The problem with collectivists (who are vastly over-represented on this forum) is they assume everyone else is a collectivist too.

Most people are selfish and lazy. They won't change shit for anyone unless they absolutely have to. If they keep getting refund cheques it means they don't jave to change anything.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Build.It

This is actually hilarious. How can you look at the result and keep telling us it's working. It is clear as daylight that itis not working. Peer countries such as the USA and Australia, who used to be higher emitters than us, have now broken even with us, and neither have a carbon tax.

Because they had a ton of coal power generation to get rid of. We are already past the easy part. Where's their next leg down going to come from? The American answer is $900 billion in subsidies over 10 years. That's another way to send a price signal too. I can guess what you'd say if we did that instead.

[Truenorth00]

You still haven't answered the question. So I'll repeat it for you:

When the price of something goes up do you consume less of it? Yes or no.

And if no, is there a price point where you would change your purchasing behaviour or would you buy till infinity?

[Build.It]

I answered that question very directly.

If the price goes up, but I know I will get refunded the price increase, then I'm not going to change anything. There is absolutely no reason for me to have to change anything as long as I keep getting refunded.

If the price goes up and I don't get refunded the difference, then I will change my behaviour, because now it actually is costing me.

I'm honestly floored that you don't get this. All I can say is if you don't understand the most basic human motivators (humans are lazy and will follow the path of least resistance. Always.) please do yourself a favour and never accept a job that requires you to sell stuff, because tou will get absolutely crushed.

[Truenorth00]

^ So your complaint is about the rebate then. Not the carbon tax. Apparently, people will start changing their behaviour if the rebate goes away. Per your reasoning.

I think people react to sticker shock. But then I'm not a "lighting guy".

[Build.It]

Yes. Finally we're getting somewhere. I guess 20 times is the charm.

And how snobby and conceited do you have to be to think that most people aren't smart enough to figure out that it's just a trick, and that they're not actually paying more for gas? Chrystia Freeland tells us this every day, and CBC and CTV happily share her telling us this across all their platforms.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Yes. Finally we're getting somewhere. I guess 20 times is the charm.

It's cute you think that.

When you get around to understanding what price equilibriums are, we will. First businessman, I've come across that thinks being forced to market a product at a higher price wouldn't impact sales, just because of a rebate months later.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Build.It

I answered that question very directly.

If the price goes up, but I know I will get refunded the price increase, then I'm not going to change anything. There is absolutely no reason for me to have to change anything as long as I keep getting refunded.

If the price goes up and I don't get refunded the difference, then I will change my behaviour, because now it actually is costing me.

I'm honestly floored that you don't get this. All I can say is if you don't understand the most basic human motivators (humans are lazy and will follow the path of least resistance. Always.) please do yourself a favour and never accept a job that requires you to sell stuff, because tou will get absolutely crushed.

You're not getting rebated the price increase. You are getting a set credit regardless of use. As TrueNorth says at what point to do reduce consumption?

If gas is $20 a litre and we all get $1000 a month in Carbon credit you just say oh I guess I have to spend this all on gas? Or do you move closer to work with the extra $1000 a month or get a new electric car with the $1000 a month. Of course you do. Now sure at this point it is very small so behaviour change is only at the margins but it also has a small economic impact. $20 gas even with a $1000 rebate would be devasting to many communities, lifestyles and businesses and lower economic growth. Is there any point to this disruption is the question. The idea taxes don't reduce consumption because you get a payment seems so obviously wrong I don't know how we are even debating it.

You can't compare our tiny carbon tax with economy wide fluctuations based in many cases on random events rather than any carbon reduction plan. In the US case its plentiful natural gas replacing coal as much as any policy choice.

[Truenorth00]

@YOWetal

I disagree with your position that we shouldn't do something about Climate Change. But thank you for at least separating your opinion on that from basic economic understanding.

On April 1, the carbon tax goes up to $80/mt. This works out to 17.6¢/L. At the $170/mt, proposed for 2030, the carbon tax would be 37.4¢/L. I find it hard to believe that gas costing 20¢/L will have zero impact on gas consumption or the types of vehicles people buy.

Now part of it, is that oil prices can fall enough to make up for gas going up 3.3¢/L per year. To some extent this has been the case. Inflation adjusted fuel prices are lower today than a decade ago. Add in improved fuel efficiency and it seems a lot of the cost savings from the last few years have gone to larger vehicles.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I live in BC, and I get a rebate under the BC Climate action tax credit, paid every quarter into my account. It's based on income and family structure, so a top 10% family like yours might not see anything, but us low-income types see some money. I only have electricity, no gas, and I don't buy gasoline for a vehicle, so I only contribute a very small amount of my income to carbon tax, but I get over $100 a quarter back, generously contributed by people who chose to use or buy gas to drive to distant suburbs like White Rock.

I haven't seen a nickel since we've had carbon taxes in BC. Initially when it was brought in it was "revenue neutral" from a government standpoint and they allegedly reduced other taxes like income to compensate for CT revenue.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I haven't seen a nickel since we've had carbon taxes in BC. Initially when it was brought in it was "revenue neutral" from a government standpoint and they allegedly reduced other taxes like income to compensate for CT revenue.

I suspect I'll be seeing less, as another pension finally kicked in. The income cutoff is tapered, and I think it's lower than for some other allowances. Which would explain why so many people complain about the tax going up, and not getting a rebate. In BC the statement comes from the CRA, combined with the GST/HSTC rebate (for those who qualify).

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We don't have a one size fits all. The only requirement is that provinces put a price on emissions. How they do that and what they do with the revenue is up to them. The federal backstop only applies if they don't comply.

You live in BC. You should know this. You don't have the same system as Quebec. Nor do you get a rebate like the provinces applying the federal backstop.

Originally Posted by Changing City

I live in BC, and I get a rebate under the BC Climate action tax credit, paid every quarter into my account. It's based on income and family structure, so a top 10% family like yours might not see anything, but us low-income types see some money. I only have electricity, no gas, and I don't buy gasoline for a vehicle, so I only contribute a very small amount of my income to carbon tax, but I get over $100 a quarter back, generously contributed by people who chose to use or buy gas to drive to distant suburbs like White Rock.

So in effect it is welfare.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So in effect it is welfare.

It's basically the same as the low income GST rebate.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Because they had a ton of coal power generation to get rid of. We are already past the easy part. Where's their next leg down going to come from? The American answer is $900 billion in subsidies over 10 years. That's another way to send a price signal too. I can guess what you'd say if we did that instead.

Yeah, which is why it's funny to point at the initial years of BC's carbon tax and say "IT'S NOT WORKING!!!" BC's energy production is 99% hydroelectric, so there aren't any wins to be made on that front. Industry and transportation make up the bulk of BC's carbon emissions, and those are big ships that take a long time to turn around. One only needs to point to BC's take-up of electric vehicles now to see what sort of impact taxes on fuel have in the long term.

Is BC's carbon tax perfect and the silver bullet for carbon emissions? No, but nobody was claiming that it is, and focusing on that alone while ignoring everything else in the works is disingenuous.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So in effect it is welfare.

You have to apply for welfare. This is automatic, once you've submitted your taxes. If your income is low enough, it assumes you consume the average carbon-related goods, and you get a rebate based on that. If you've used your low(ish) income driving around in a gas-guzzler, and then head home to your natural gas heated home, you're probably still paying more carbon tax than the rebate. If you avoid CO2 generating activities, it's a bonus. And an encouragement to carry on avoiding generating greenhouse gases.

[ssiguy]

Getting off the Carbon Tax for a minute................

I find it really rich how Trudeau and his left-wing environmentalist always talk about Canada having to reduce it's emissions but are the same people who are supportive of letting everybody and his brother into the country.

Think about it. If Canadians dropped their per-capita emissions by one-third over the next decade, which would be no small feat, our total emissions wouldn't drop by one ounce because that would only keep up with our population growth.

Even on the environmental level, our mass immigration is a disaster.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

My main complaint with the plan is that we aren't actually using it and we've started rolling out all these mandates and heavy handed regulations anyway, even though the carbon tax means none of that is necessary.

This is a good point. I like the carbon tax in theory, and one of the reasons is that it prices in externalities and if set correctly allows people to make socially optimal decisions by looking at dollar value trade-offs. We can debate what the right pricing is.

In practice here in BC it's a blended tax and social transfer scheme that depends on your income (with families who could barely afford to rent an apartment here having money clawed back while the mansion dwelling $0 income homemakers will get a full payout as usual), and it hasn't stopped the feds or other levels of government from implementing other ad hoc climate-related policies. The town councillors and the like want to be seen personally pushing for climate policy.

Another problem which we saw with heating oil in Atlantic Canada is that, yes, while it can encourage better decisions, not all of the purchases are voluntary. You can't pick the energy source of your local electric utility and it's not always easy to switch away from old carbon intensive practices. It's not just a matter of buying a truck vs. electric car the next time you're in the market for a vehicle. If you are in some provinces your electric vehicle will be charged with hydro and in other places it'll be coal. If your house already has an oil furnace and tank, swapping them out is expensive.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Getting off the Carbon Tax for a minute................

I find it really rich how Trudeau and his left-wing environmentalist always talk about Canada having to reduce it's emissions but are the same people who are supportive of letting everybody and his brother into the country.

Think about it. If Canadians dropped their per-capita emissions by one-third over the next decade, which would be no small feat, our total emissions wouldn't drop by one ounce because that would only keep up with our population growth.

Even on the environmental level, our mass immigration is a disaster.

On the one hand who cares as only worldwide emissions matter. The focus on our number makes sense but is often illogical. We buy electric vehicles and half the lifetime carbon ends up counting in Chile and China where the minerals for the battery are extracted and processed.

On the other hand the "better" life we give to these immigrants dramatically increases their emissions.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's not just a matter of buying a truck vs. electric car the next time you're in the market for a vehicle. If you are in some provinces your electric vehicle will be charged with hydro and in other places it'll be coal. If your house already has an oil furnace and tank, swapping them out is expensive.

Actually, it is. Even an electric truck recharged from coal-fired power plants emits fewer GHGs than one burning fossil fuels. And of course in Canada there are almost no coal powered electricity plants.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I haven't seen a nickel since we've had carbon taxes in BC. Initially when it was brought in it was "revenue neutral" from a government standpoint and they allegedly reduced other taxes like income to compensate for CT revenue.

This is fundamentally the problem with BC's implementation. Nobody ever remembers the tax cut. But they are reminded of the tax everyday. The equal rebate gives everybody the same shot at saving money. It's up to you how much you spend/save on emitting activities.