Who did you vote for?

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Despite what downtown urban policy wonks like to espouse, there is nothing wrong with cars. The issue is not the vehicles themselves but rather how they are powered. Thankfully we have begun a truly metamorphic change in how we do it.

No, there is something wrong with cars. Even EVs have the massive space waste of roads and parking.

[misher]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

So tax manufacturing out of the country instead of oil?

Are you saying carbon tax is bad for the economy? That seems to contradict the message coming from the ones pushing it.

So is the intent of the tax to chase oil out of Alberta? Or to reduce emissions?
If it’s the second as has been pushed them reducing the emissions of what’s manufactured seems sensible. If it’s the first then no wonder the West is so pissed off.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The generation that follows them is even more concerned about climate change, and vastly more supportive of draconian measures. Unlike millennials who spent half their upbringing not really knowing much about climate change, a zoomer probably knows what climate change is before they've lost their baby teeth. If you think, this is the cohort to dump the issue, you've got another thing coming.

Climate change was out in the open in 2002. Millenials have been aware of it since they've been old enough to drive.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And yet surveys and voting behaviour show that older voters are the most likely to believe anthropogenic climate change is not real, does not need to be addressed or should not involve economic measures to be addressed.

It doesn't matter one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Prove me wrong. Find me survey data where older folks are more supportive of the carbon tax than younger folks.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yeah....these vague appeals and excuses for inaction ("But it's not efficient!") just aren't going to cut it with the demographic who actually cares about the issue.

Which is why they'll likely laugh at the narrative that somehow electric cars are gonna help the problem. This is like going from street heroin to oxys. It alleviates a small portion of the problem.


This isn't the first environmental history. The recycling histeria of the 90s was a total joke. It's done nothing.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Impose a $200 carbon tax tomorrow and you'd be right. Impose that 15 years from now and it'd be a different story. It's entirely about adjustment time.

So you want to spread out a $200 tax over 15 years?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

No shit. It's 2019. Which is exactly why the Harper play book of mocking a carbon tax didn't work this time around. People are sick of excuses and inaction.

Not owning a car is simple. I'm not trying to present some convoluted scheme of pricing posts rebates, green fuel cell technoligies etc etc etc etc etc.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not yet. We're probably 5-10 years away till they are truly competitive with gas cars. But the carbon tax is not just about electric cars. If it was, you wouldn't need a carbon tax, just jack up existing fuel excise taxes.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You're right. And for that we have things like the Places to Grow Act, which apparently Ontario's PC government wants to gut.

Probably because it made real estate in the GTA crazy expensive.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by esquire

Oh for sure, it's possible. But it's certainly not the "default mode" of the city the same way it is in many cities on other continents.

You mean it requires some level of "self" sacrifice?

The reality is most people are holding out for the Manhattan lifestyle to be far more affordable than it technically is.

If you put careful consideration into it, going carless is way more affordable outside of the major cities than within them.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Probably because it made real estate in the GTA crazy expensive.

Has very little to do with it, but honestly one of your less outlandish claims.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by misher

Are you saying carbon tax is bad for the economy? That seems to contradict the message coming from the ones pushing it.

So is the intent of the tax to chase oil out of Alberta? Or to reduce emissions?
If it’s the second as has been pushed them reducing the emissions of what’s manufactured seems sensible. If it’s the first then no wonder the West is so pissed off.

It's not bad for the economy it is bad for industry.

The whole reason it works is because it shifts economic activity away from traditional industry and into the service economy.

Which is why people who work in the service economy will advocate for it endlessly. Just as they will advocate for subways, electric cars endlessly. They aren't affected by it which is exactly why they don't care.

In material terms our economy is incredibly egalitarian. Most people consume in rough amounts the same energy. Carbon taxes will not effect a portion of the population who already diverts their income into luxury cars, new kitchens etc. They'll simply use these green vehicles as status symbols.

I use to be a climate change nut, I get the thought process.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by niwell

Has very little to do with it, but honestly one of your less outlandish claims.

So creating an artificial shortage in land isn't gonna increase land prices?

Why is it virtually everyone I know in London cites this as to why people are fleeing to outside the horseshoe?

[esquire]

^ I've lived without a car in Winnipeg and Edmonton. It was a breeze when I was younger. It got more complicated as I got older. Now with kids, not having a car would be quite an inconvenience given how the city is set up. I'm not going to make my life harder on principle just to impress other people on SSP.

I'd much prefer a city along the lines of what I've seen in Europe or Asia...once we get there, then I'll happily change my lifestyle.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

In material terms our economy is incredibly egalitarian. Most people consume in rough amounts the same energy. Carbon taxes will not effect a portion of the population who already diverts their income into luxury cars, new kitchens etc. They'll simply use these green vehicles as status symbols.

I use to be a climate change nut, I get the thought process.

What are you talking about? Carbon-based energy permeates almost every area of our society.

Luxury cars, new kitchens, Whole Foods, winter vacations, and everything else that urbanites spend their money on will be impacted by a carbon tax.

Individuals and businesses that find ways to reduce their carbon footprint will save money and get ahead in a carbon tax world, while reducing their carbon emissions, which is the overall goal of course.

This is Nobel Prize winning economics. Your continual denial of basic economic concepts is mind numbing.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I've lived without a car in Winnipeg and Edmonton. It was a breeze when I was younger. It got more complicated as I got older. Now with kids, not having a car would be quite an inconvenience given how the city is set up. I'm not going to make my life harder on principle just to impress other people on SSP.

It's not about principle its so that "your kids have a future".

Originally Posted by esquire

I'd much prefer a city along the lines of what I've seen in Europe or Asia...once we get there, then I'll happily change my lifestyle.

If you don't care about climate change I'm fine with that. Live your life how you see fit. Just don't set up a tax system or other economic plans that will most likely hurt lower income families.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

So creating an artificial shortage in land isn't gonna increase land prices?

Why is it virtually everyone I know in London cites this as to why people are fleeing to outside the horseshoe?

They probably don’t know what they are talking about. And of course op-eds by development industry reps will demand more land be released for development. I’ve seen the internal data dating back from well before the original Greenbelt Act and price increases only went wild longgg after everything was in place. For many reasons that have nothing to do with an “artificial shortage in land”, which, FWIW exists in every municipality in southern ontario. Places to grow act or not.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What are you talking about? Carbon-based energy permeates almost every area of our society.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Luxury cars, new kitchens, Whole Foods, winter vacations, and everything else that urbanites spend their money on will be impacted by a carbon tax.

It'll be impacted but it won't adversely affect that behavior.

The luxury audi will likely turn into an electric vehicle that costs the same. Since a whole lot of people can't afford that option it'll still maintain the prestige of being electric. This was the entire business model of tesla afterall.

New kitchens are relatively low in carbon footprint. The primary cost will be cheaper woods but it is a status symbol.

Winter vacations sure that's where they might actually feel the pinch, but that's absurdly low down on the totem pole.

Most of these costs can be offset into real estate.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Individuals and businesses that find ways to reduce their carbon footprint will save money and get ahead in a carbon tax world, while reducing their carbon emissions, which is the overall goal of course.

And it will most likely be people who do not have other options.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

This is Nobel Prize winning economics. Your continual denial of basic economic concepts is mind numbing.

You're confusing the question of whether or not they'll work with whether or not they'll work with whether or not the reduction of the industrial economy matters. Working class folk do not want to be selling iphones and starbucks.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by niwell

They probably don’t know what they are talking about. And of course op-eds by development industry reps will demand more land be released for development. I’ve seen the internal data dating back from well before the original Greenbelt Act and price increases only went wild longgg after everything was in place.

So you're saying that prices didn't go up when they were introduced but only some years after?

That doesn't contradict the notion that they have an effect.

EDIT: This pretty much sums up the entire modern left. They are so overly focused on whether or not their ideas will work they don't get that the other side has no interest in living in some "progressive utopia". The more you promote change for changes sake the more you deligitamize your viewpoint.

Originally Posted by niwell

For many reasons that have nothing to do with an “artificial shortage in land”, which, FWIW exists in every municipality in southern ontario. Places to grow act or not.

Eh what? I'm not really sure what you're claiming here. That London has a shortage of land to develop? Or that our housing costs are going up?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

It'll be impacted but it won't adversely affect that behavior.

It will if the carbon tax is high enough.

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

New kitchens are relatively low in carbon footprint. The primary cost will be cheaper woods but it is a status symbol.

I don't know why you bring up new kitchens. As if this is something people do more than once in a lifetime, if ever. Totally irrelevant.

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Winter vacations sure that's where they might actually feel the pinch, but that's absurdly low down on the totem pole.

Most of these costs can be offset into real estate.

LOL what? I'd love to "offset some vacation costs into real estate"

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

You're confusing the question of whether or not they'll work with whether or not they'll work with whether or not the reduction of the industrial economy matters. Working class folk do not want to be selling iphones and starbucks.

You're throwing out random generalizations. In a free market, participants, including workers, will adapt to the system presented.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It will if the carbon tax is high enough.

As I've said by the time it afffects the upper middle class it'll pretty much destroy the lives of the working class.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I don't know why you bring up new kitchens. As if this is something people do more than once in a lifetime, if ever. Totally irrelevant.

Condo renovation etc represent a massive amount of economic activity. They are relatively independent of carbon prices as the primary cost/fixed cost is labor.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

LOL what? I'd love to "offset some vacation costs into real estate"

I literally just said its an exception. But I can't imagine how you'd tax this without hurting the mobility of migrant workers.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You're throwing out random generalizations. In a free market, participants, including workers, will adapt to the system presented.

Yes and some people will be faster to react than others. This is common very basic sense.

You triple the price of rice and it means starvation for some people, for others it just means they'll have stake instead.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

So you're saying that prices didn't go up when they were introduced but only some years after?

That doesn't contradict the notion that they have an effect.



Eh what? I'm not really sure what you're claiming here. That London has a shortage of land to develop? Or that our housing costs are going up?

No - prices were increasing at a steady state before the introduction and well after the introduction. It was only in our recent speculative environment that things turned rampant. There’s still new Greenfield land being designated for development all the time, as dictated in each muni’s OP. The amount hasn’t changed in the GTA either.

The amount of developable land in all southern Ontario municipalities is dictated in their provincially approved OP. Just because there’s no greenbelt doesn’t mean that where development can occur isn’t limited. Generally a 30 year supply is required. To add new greenfield land outside of the official plan cycle requires a provincially approved amendment. It’s all outlined in the Provincial Policy Statement and the local OP.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

As I've said by the time it afffects the upper middle class it'll pretty much destroy the lives of the working class.

No, they can be progressive taxes. The working class can even be ahead financially.

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Condo renovation etc represent a massive amount of economic activity. They are relatively independent of carbon prices as the primary cost/fixed cost is labor.

Not really. Real estate in general is big, but that's a lot of new construction which has a carbon footprint that will be accounted for.

[misher]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

It's not bad for the economy it is bad for industry.

The whole reason it works is because it shifts economic activity away from traditional industry and into the service economy.

Which is why people who work in the service economy will advocate for it endlessly. Just as they will advocate for subways, electric cars endlessly. They aren't affected by it which is exactly why they don't care.

In material terms our economy is incredibly egalitarian. Most people consume in rough amounts the same energy. Carbon taxes will not effect a portion of the population who already diverts their income into luxury cars, new kitchens etc. They'll simply use these green vehicles as status symbols.

I use to be a climate change nut, I get the thought process.

Which is why if we applied to to Ontario and Quebec's industry they'd be a hell load more sympathetic to Alberta ^^

Right now its Alberta you should shutdown your economy. Once the story becomes Alberta, Quebec, BC, Ontario....then perhaps they'd understand why were so pissed off and get off their high horse. Why should Quebec be able to produce gas guzzling jets but Alberta not be able to produce the gas those jets guzzle? Is the person who produces the bullet or the gun more responsible?

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No, they can be progressive taxes. The working class can even be ahead financially.

So you propose a tax structure that will have little effect on the bottom 40 percent?

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Not really. Real estate in general is big, but that's a lot of new construction which has a carbon footprint that will be accounted for.

Yes but making new construction more expensive won't devalue existing properties but increase or maintain their values.

In terms of reno's its a relative cost(which is what I was refering to). You can do a whole lot of fancy things being entirely reliant on labor. I don't care if my house costs 100k more if I know the new rise in value is backed up by a permanent reduction in supply.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

So you propose a tax structure that will have little effect on the bottom 40 percent?

Rebates, like the feds are doing. You can adapt to various income levels as you see fit. The possibilities extremely flexible.