Federal Government & Politics II

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

What a weird juxtaposition of sentences. Essentially you said: You are such an idiot for supporting those protesters but how can you not respect automatically these other protestors who are a tenth the size. Just weird.

Yes protestors have genuine feelings and we should see their perspectives but don`t have to automatically respect the loudest voices. As the convoy proved.

The point being that he is being dismissive of anyone supporting rights of trans youth but was all in on the convoy crowd, claiming iirc that they represented a much larger portion of the population than they did. 1000 people is not a small crowd considering the size of that plaza. Students in the province are organizing walk outs in protest. This is galvanizing opposition and brought back Nenshi from political retirement. He could pose the biggest threat to Smith and the Conservatives of any current candidate in the NDP. Smith and Nenshi were also classmates at U of C.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Journalism is a growing industry in Canada. Sure, the old legacy media with its radio and cable news is dying, but new media is growing just as fast to replace it. Like any other industry, it's evolving with the times. The amount of time, effort, and money the current government has devoted to trying to block this evolution just comes across as luddite.

I honestly don't know where you're getting this from. I'm open to being proven wrong, so I'd welcome statistics to validate your claim as it seems at odds with reality. Obviously, we're seeing a transition from radio and television to digital platforms, but replacing an organized large-scale newsroom with dozens of smaller websites and bloggers will not be the same thing. It doesn't matter what the delivery method is, you still need trained personnel to do the job properly.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Build.It

In what world is a theoretical model equivalent to real-world evidence? This isn't how science works, I'd expect you to know that at least. He effectively won his prize for having a hypothesis.

A carbon tax is the free market way of incentivizing non-carbon emitting fuel sources. It's almost too easy to understand, but here we are.

Originally Posted by Build.It

"A recent report1 showed that the per capita use of fossil fuels in BC has declined by 17% during the first four years following its implementation, which is 19% more than in the rest of Canada. Similarly, the per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have declined by 10% in BC from 2008 to 2011. Thus far, the BC carbon tax appears to be fulfilling its purpose."

However before you celebrate and call this a success, we should compare BC to other places in Canada, and see if this drop in emissions is due to the carbon tax or not.

So over the same time frame from 2008 to 2013, when BC did have a revenue-neutral carbon tax, and Ontario did not have revenue-neutral carbon tax, Ontario's emissions per capita fell more sharply than BCs. This is the exact opposite of what you would expect if you are a carbon tax advocate.

The drop in emissions during that timeframe almost certainly had everything to do with the recession, and not the carbon tax. And just like I've been saying this whole time, the fact that BC had a carbon tax at the time seems to indicate that it actually slowed down the rate at which emissions would've otherwise decreased.

Do you actually know why Ontario's carbon emissions dropped significantly? Arguably they are a special case (and a positive one for the climate). Here's what happened: https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal

It was expensive and unpopular, but it got the job done.

Do you think BC was in recession during this period? You might want to check that out too.

You're doing a good job of pulling out evidence, but you are still seeing what you want and calling it gospel.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Damn, the way you communicate in 80% of your posts is so goddamn abrasive, as if anybody else’s opinion that differs from yours, especially on complicated topics, is fucking stupid.

Yeah, I lack a filter when it comes to countering conservative BS online. Even if he is right and it is not a majority that support trans youth receiving medical care as Nenshi said "That's not the point of minority rights." Not too long ago a majority of Canadians (including myself 20+ years ago) opposed gay marriage.

Edit: See my apology to 1overcosc.

Your current premier is the leader of the province with the most influx of people because of affordability and opportunity.

https://bnnbreaking.com/world/canada...xpensive-city/

Not most affordable anymore. Edmonton is still affordable but certainly not Calgary. And overall we pay higher utility bills and insurance than any other province due to deregulation and no fault insurance. Both things that this government claimed would make them more affordable.

Your current premier is standing up for an energy industry that, if completely shutdown like Steve Gilbo would like, absolutely birthing would happen to the earths atmosphere.

YOUR Federal Environment minister Steven Guilbeault is doing his job in protecting the environment from an AER and provincial government that knew for years of leaks from Imperial Oil's Kearl oilsands mine and knowingly allowed people downstream to be poisoned while covering it up.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...erta-1.6984307

Also YOUR Prime Minister bought a pipeline to build to the West Coast after industry abandoned it and dished out 1.7 BILLION dollars to help remediate the orphan well mess across the prairies that was left by decades of negligent conservative governments and corrupt oil and gas companies.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6832608/c...D19%20pandemic.

The war measures act that was implemented on a massive group of people coming together for the largest protest in history, protesting their rights and freedoms, yet showed no signs of violence in the nations capital.

Lies.

https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/ottawa-pol...test-1.5770083

The prime minister who implemented the war measures act not only insulted the people, but refused to have diplomatic discussions and even went so far as to hide from the media using COVID as an excuse….

You mean like the UCP went into hiding after 200 children and adults were hospitalized for E. Coli outbreaks due to negligence from the provincial government when it cut safety inspections? Or like when Pierre Poilievre routinely avoids press conferences, preferring to only do interviews with friendly conservative media?

So like, give people a break if they do support the convoy, it’s their goddamn right. Your mudslinging is fucking outrageous

"Yuuuuppp!"

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Do you actually know why Ontario's carbon emissions dropped significantly? Arguably they are a special case (and a positive one for the climate). Here's what happened: https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal

It was expensive and unpopular, but it got the job done.

Do you think BC was in recession during this period? You might want to check that out too.

That's a fair rebuttal, so let's add in a few other provinces as well: QC, NB, NS and NL.

BC is the yellow line, and they had the lowest drop in GHG emissions of any province over the 4 year span. And it wasn't by an insignificant margin either. At best you can say the carbon tax in BC was inconsequential.


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

Also regarding BC's economy:

"During the 2008-09 Financial Crisis and recession, we estimate the BC economy peaked in November of 2008 and contracted 3.7 per cent over the following 12 months, while the unemployment rate rose more than 4 points."
https://www.bcrea.bc.ca/wp-content/u...telligence.pdf

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I'm not actually particularly supportive of Smith's proposed policies. There's some elements that are broadly good ideas, others that are absolutely horrible, and overall, the whole policy suite suffers from being very top-down with hard rules and no flexibility, which is exactly the opposite of what's needed on this topic: a nuanced conversation.

How I feel about this whole thing is really different depending on what element of this we're talking about.

Restricting minors from medical transition: There's something to be said for this, broadly, but a blanket ban is too far. This issue really warrants a review instead of a top-down policy. LGBT identity is complex and many of us spend years trying to figure out our identities. For me it was really simple, I just woke up one day and realized I was gay and that was that, but for a lot of LGBT folks it's a lot more complicated than that. A friend of a friend spent years living as a lesbian before realizing he's a trans man in his early 30s; he wasn't closeted or hiding or anything, it just didn't dawn on him for the longest time. I have a first cousin once removed who went through the exact opposite - when she was a teenager she thought she was a trans man and identified as male with he/him pronouns for some time, then later realized she was just a really butch lesbian. She did switch her pronoun & name (reverted after she came out as lesbian) but never did any medical transitioning and it's a damn good thing she didn't given what ultimately happened. Some guardrails on medical transition to ensure patients really do want it and are sure of their identity make a lot of sense. Contrary to what a lot of right wing ranters say, those guardrails do exist, but there's a bit of a concerning trend these days for those guardrails to be removed in the name of "reducing barriers to gender care". It used to be that you had to spend 2 years living publically under your new gender before you could access medical transition for example; this was recently removed after pressure from activists. The huge increase in "detransitioning" cases of people who underwent medical transition then changed their mind, is definitely a sign, IMO, that this is a problem. And generally, I would say that a person under 18 has a much higher chance of these sort of problems. But a blanket ban on any gender care for people under 18 is a problem in the other direction. I think the answer here is just to make sure those guardrails I mentioned are properly applied & aren't watered down. It's also hard to know what's real and what's not because there's a lot of misinformation & fake news coming from the right on the one hand, and on the other hand, an extreme unwillingness to even talk about the issue among the left.

Banning teachers from using a kid's identified pronoun: This is nonsensical. Not gonna mince words here. None of those concerns I brought up about medical transition are valid here, because preferred names & pronouns can be changed without consequence. If a kid decides they're not trans after all, there's no harm if they had a different name for a while (unlike with medical transition).

Mandatory parental notification: This one is complicated. I honestly I'm not sure what the best approach is. Parents absolutely should not be cut out of these conversations (children are part of their families, first and foremost), but there is definitely a risk of harm to some kids in some cases. I have no freaking clue what should be done on this one.

I appreciate this nuanced answer. You make valid points. I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions in my response.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Build.It

That's a fair rebuttal, so let's add in a few other provinces as well: QC, NB, NS and NL.

BC is the yellow line, and they had the lowest drop in GHG emissions of any province over the 4 year span. And it wasn't by an insignificant margin either. At best you can say the carbon tax in BC was inconsequential.


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

Why are you cherry picking those provinces? Why not look against Alberta and Sask, whose emissions rose during that period.

Why would they rise, if as you stated earlier, there will be a natural decline if the government just stays out of the way?

Maybe BC's would have grown 2009+ without a carbon tax.

Honestly the CT is too low. Look at Sweden's CT for an example of a level that really forces the market into low emissions.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Why are you cherry picking those provinces? Why not look against Alberta and Sask, whose emissions rose during that period.

Why would they rise, if as you stated earlier, there will be a natural decline if the government just stays out of the way?

Maybe BC's would have grown 2009+ without a carbon tax.

Honestly the CT is too low. Look at Sweden's CT for an example of a level that really forces the market into low emissions.

I was trying to pick provinces with economies most similar to BC. But here is AB and SK. Even they showed a drop in emissions over the same time frame.



Sweden has had a carbon tax since 1991, however their carbon tax goes straight to government revenue, and is spent on green projects. It is not a revenue-neutral model like we have. Notably, Truenorth is on the record saying he doesn't like this type of Carbon Tax model (where it is used for clean tech grants), yet it is the only version of the CT that seems to result in lower GHG emissions. Maybe kool maudit can provide more input here since he actually lives there. But my understanding is that operates very differently than ours.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Sweden has had a carbon tax since 1991, however their carbon tax goes straight to government revenue, and is spent on green projects. It is not a revenue-neutral model like we have. Notably, Truenorth is on the record saying he doesn't like this type of Carbon Tax model (where it is used for clean tech grants), yet it is the only version of the CT that seems to result in lower GHG emissions. Maybe kool maudit can provide more input here since he actually lives there. But my understanding is that operates very differently than ours.

Why would a non-revenue neutral tax lower emissions more ? Are you saying it's only the grants that lower consumption. Sweden also calls their fuel tax Carbon tax but most of Europe has similar or even higher levels of fuel taxes. This is like New Brunswick who lowered their fuel tax when they added a carbon tax.

Can you please say at what point higher fuel prices will lower consumption?

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Why would a non-revenue neutral tax lower emissions more ? Are you saying it's only the grants that lower consumption.

I'm saying it's mostly the grants. Rather than just taxing and returning the money to people to use for whatever, they're taxing and using it for grants to directly replace the old technology.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Can you please say at what point higher fuel prices will lower consumption?

I've already addressed this, but I don't disagree that higher fuel prices results in lower consumption - even if that difference is extremely marginal (as is clearly the case in Canada). You're still asking the wrong question though.

The right question is: "Will our GHG emissions go down faster with a carbon tax, or without a carbon tax?"

I've already provided real-world evidence that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is either inconsequential or actually slows down the rate at which GHG emissions decrease.

We still don't have any evidence that a revenue-neutral carbon tax results in emissions dropping faster than if there were no carbon tax though.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Journalism is a growing industry in Canada. Sure, the old legacy media with its radio and cable news is dying, but new media is growing just as fast to replace it. Like any other industry, it's evolving with the times. The amount of time, effort, and money the current government has devoted to trying to block this evolution just comes across as luddite.

The amount of job hemorrhaging in Canada's news media sector every year for the past, I dunno decade, is not being replaced with bountiful jobs in new media.

Even if you count popular podcast/YouTuber bros and substack writers on the same footing as actual journalists.

Do you have data in your possession to back up your claims?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Build.It

I'm saying it's mostly the grants. Rather than just taxing and returning the money to people to use for whatever, they're taxing and using it for grants to directly replace the old technology.

The right question is: "Will our GHG emissions go down faster with a carbon tax, or without a carbon tax?"

I've already provided real-world evidence that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is either inconsequential or actually slows down the rate at which GHG emissions decrease.

We still don't have any evidence that a revenue-neutral carbon tax results in emissions dropping faster than if there were no carbon tax though.

You have not provided any "evidence" of this. By what mechanism would higher prices on fuel and heating and basically static prices on everything else with a direct payment to families lead to more consumption. It belies logic. Now the very small carbon tax may have made only a very small decrease in consumption but if prices don't change behaviour and thus demand capitalism is finished. Sure heating oil in short term is very inelastic but we know that people have changed heating sources because of the tax. Maybe nobody has put on sweaters because heating costs went up $20 a month but apparently in the Maritimes people are starving because of the tax which granted is higher on home heating oil but won't put a sweater on? Again it is illogical.

Is it worthwhile paying and making our economy smaller to reduce emissions is a different question. So far we are already complaining for something that has made very little difference. And you are correct we need a much higher tax to make substantial changes. This will damage our economy and given our small role and the continued growth of the largest polluters is completely pointless in my opinion but when you say it doesn't change behaviour at all it sounds silly.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

You have not provided any "evidence" of this. By what mechanism would higher prices on fuel and heating and basically static prices on everything else with a direct payment to families lead to more consumption. It belies logic. Now the very small carbon tax may have made only a very small decrease in consumption but if prices don't change behaviour and thus demand capitalism is finished. Sure heating oil in short term is very inelastic but we know that people have changed heating sources because of the tax. Maybe nobody has put on sweaters because heating costs went up $20 a month but apparently in the Maritimes people are starving because of the tax which granted is higher on home heating oil but won't put a sweater on? Again it is illogical.

Is it worthwhile paying and making our economy smaller to reduce emissions is a different question. So far we are already complaining for something that has made very little difference. And you are correct we need a much higher tax to make substantial changes. This will damage our economy and given our small role and the continued growth of the largest polluters is completely pointless in my opinion but when you say it doesn't change behaviour at all it sounds silly.

I've already said everything I could say on the matter, provided plenty of examples of places that do have a carbon tax vs those that don't, and I've explained how the tax affects peoples' spending on capital (upgrades because you have money) vs maintenance (cutting back because you don't have money). The fact remains that we have yet to see a single example of a jurisdiction that implemented a revenue-neutral carbon tax and then saw they're emissions drop faster than they would've otherwise. However we do have at least two examples of the result being the exact opposite (BC vs every other province, Canada vs USA). If that's not enough to convince you then so be it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Build.It

I've already said everything I could say on the matter, provided plenty of examples of places that do have a carbon tax vs those that don't, and I've explained how the tax affects peoples' spending on capital (upgrades because you have money) vs maintenance (cutting back because you don't have money). If that's not enough to convince you then so be it.

That's not evidence. That's opinion. And if we're going by opinion. I'm going to believe the guy who won a Nobel Prize (and whose model has been proven repeatedly in every emissions trading market in the world) vs the guy whose understanding of the subject contradicts the very foundations of economics (supply and demand), and observed behaviour during literally every price spike.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That's not evidence. That's opinion. And if we're going by opinion. I'm going to believe the guy who won a Nobel Prize (and whose model has been proven repeatedly in every emissions trading market in the world) vs the guy whose understanding of the subject contradicts the very foundations of economics (supply and demand).

That's because you're only looking theories/models and I'm looking at the results of real world examples. If the real-world results change, then I'll change my mind. Until then I can only work with the data we have available, and so far the data I've seen hasn't supported your claims. And no one else has provided any other data countering what I've provided.

This is the equivalent of arguing your hypothesis is correct without running any experiments, or (perhaps more accurately in you/YOW/Warren's situation) running the experiments and ignoring the results. I'm looking at the results of the experiments and saying the results don't match the hypothesis. How many more times would you need to see the results of the experiments not match the hypothesis before you actually believe it?

I think where we're missing each other (and why I believe you are wrong) is that you are only looking at the economics and completely ignoring the human behaviour element. You assume that human behaviour is predictable, that people will simply adopt newer cleaner tech, when in reality none of us know what decisions humans are going to make as a result of the tax. Humans are inventive and are good at finding workarounds, which is why there are always unintended consequences when social engineering policies are attempted. The only thing I know about social engineering policies is that the result won't be what you think it will. That is why I'm doing my best to look at the results first before making any predictions.

And what emissions trading market are you talking about? If this is evidence that the revenue-neutral scheme lowers emissions faster than not having a tax, then please provide some more info on this. (And also why didn't you just provide this the first time I asked for evidence instead of making source-less claims for two days and over multiple posts? If this is truly evidence that the scheme actually works then I would've shut up about it and we could've argued about something else lol)

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Build.It

That's because you're only looking theories/models and I'm looking at the results of real world examples. If the real-world results change, then I'll change my mind. Until then I can only work with the data we have available, and so far the data I've seen hasn't supported your claims.

EU ETS. There's a good place to start. But of course, you'll have some reason why it's not carbon pricing reducing emissions in Europe.

Really what's the point discussing with someone who literally thinks the laws of supply and demand don't apply to commodities. You should entertain commodities traders with this line. As rough math, 13.3¢/L carbon tax is equivalent to adding $21 per barrel of oil. I want to see the reaction when you tell commodities traders that oil going up $21/bbl would not reduce demand for oil.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

EU ETS. There's a good place to start. But of course, you'll have some reason why it's not carbon pricing reducing emissions in Europe.

But really what's the point discussing with someone who literally thinks the laws of supply and demand don't apply to commodities. You should entertain commodities traders with this line. As rough math, 13.3¢/L carbon tax is equivalent to adding $21 per barrel of oil. I want to see the reaction when you tell commodities traders that oil going up $21/bbl would not reduce demand for oil.

Try me. I've never heard of this. A source would be appreciated.

I'm not disputing that demand for oil would drop at all. I'm disputing the assumption that it will convince more people to buy EVs. We don't know if that will be the result. All we know is that demand will go down.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

I agree that City delivery fleets should be electric. Plenty of close support. Gas will be around for longer distance business driving until the tech matures. It is not there yet. I drive about 35,000 Km's per year in my job in some pretty remote parts of Atlantic Canada and I am replacing my vehicle with Gas.
I was one of the 1400 that were stranded on the Cobequid Pass back in November 2008.The Transports could not determine where the side of the Highway was so they just stopped on the Hill in 8 inches of un forecast Snow. Cars could not get by and no one knew what was going on. Human behavior is funny as everyone around me (15 cars and three transports) ran our engines for at least two hours waiting for plows that never showed up .
It was a little unnerving experience but I had plenty of warm clothes and a full tank of gas. Electric vehicles would have had to be towed in the situation.

Myself and the 14 other cars were lucky after 6 hours as the RCMP directed us to three point turn and go back the way we came and cross over to the other highway . Most of the folks could not do that and spent 14 hours overnight on the Pass.

Why would EVs have to have been towed? Whether you are in an EV or ICE if you are idling for heat in this situation you need to watch your energy consumption. ICE vehicles run out of gas all the time in mega traffic jams.

BTW it's extremely unlikely an EV will run out of juice in stop and go very slow traffic due to regenerative braking. Every time you slow down or stop, you're recharging a bit.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

LoL. We'd be surprised if you weren't voting for PP.

Canadians should be so lucky. Not only would I whip this country into shape while my charming personality and rugged good looks would be the cherry on the cake.

[MolsonExport]

This quasi-experimental study is the first to find a significant causal effect of carbon taxes on emissions, empirically analyzing the implementation of a carbon tax and a value-added tax on transport fuel in Sweden. After implementation, carbon dioxide emissions from transport declined almost 11 percent, with the largest share due to the carbon tax alone, relative to a synthetic control unit constructed from a comparable group of OECD countries. Furthermore, the carbon tax elasticity of demand for gasoline is three times larger than the price elasticity. Policy evaluations of carbon taxes, using price elasticities to simulate emission reductions, may thus significantly underestimate their true effect.

Andersson, J. J. (2019). Carbon taxes and CO2 emissions: Sweden as a case study. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11(4), 1-30.

In view of the challenges posed by climate change and the increasingly ambitious climate targets around the world, the search for effective climate policy instruments is gaining momentum. Carbon pricing, for example, in the form of a carbon tax, and its effects are therefore attracting increasing attention in academic as well as policy discussions. We review the empirical effects of carbon taxes with regard to several impact dimensions commonly studied in the literature: environmental effectiveness, macroeconomic effects, impacts on competitiveness and innovation, distributional implications, and public acceptance. An increasing body of empirical studies shows that carbon taxes can effectively reduce carbon emissions or at least dampen their growth while not negatively affecting economic growth, employment, and competitiveness. The existing empirical evidence suggests that the distributional impact of carbon taxes depends on the type of energy use and the indicators to capture distributional effects, as well as on household characteristics. Lump-sum transfers are shown to be better suited to mitigate regressive effects for lower incomes, while higher incomes benefit more from a reduction of labor taxes. Public acceptance of carbon taxes can be increased by providing public information, avoiding negative distributional effects, and channeling part of the revenues into "environmental projects."

Köppl, A., & Schratzenstaller, M. (2023). Carbon taxation: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 37(4), 1353-1388.