Lamenting the decline of the car

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by lio45

And so am I, in my opinion...





Totally agree, but you should know that I'm all for jacking up the price of flights and imported goods. I'm on record saying that already here (multiple times).

To make up for the fact that lots of our fruits and veggies are imported in winter, healthy foods could easily get discounted.

A good taxation policy for foods would look like:

Healthy + grown locally = would move to being cheaper

Unhealthy + grown locally = approximately no changes
Healthy + grown far away = approximately no changes

Unhealthy + grown far away = would move to being pricier

Basically, we'd put a price on pollution, but at the same time we'd reward healthy choices (with healthcare being public, that's just a no brainer...), all while everyone's still perfectly free to do what they want - maybe even more free than we are right now.

(Actually, in my ideal pollution-pricing environment, we'd absolutely gain new freedoms. People could do various things that are currently illegal right now.)

I don't think applying carbon taxes to shipped-in good would actually make much of a difference, other than the few niche perishables that are flown in, like flowers & live seafood that's already luxury goods. Anything that comes via truck or ship will be up a few cents a pound.

What's the trucking cost as a percentage of the total cost of say shipping citrus from Florida?

Some rough numbers I found get me to around 5c/lb for something that sells at $1-2/lb. You could double the cost of fuel with a carbon tax - that would be around $400/tonne -and it wouldn't much affect the cost of trucked-in produce.

Sure would change my choice for my next car, though.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

...wait a second, who came out on top there

Keep reading....you'll see...

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lio45

And so am I, in my opinion...





Totally agree, but you should know that I'm all for jacking up the price of flights and imported goods. I'm on record saying that already here (multiple times).

To make up for the fact that lots of our fruits and veggies are imported in winter, healthy foods could easily get discounted.

A good taxation policy for foods would look like:

Healthy + grown locally = would move to being cheaper

Unhealthy + grown locally = approximately no changes
Healthy + grown far away = approximately no changes

Unhealthy + grown far away = would move to being pricier

Basically, we'd put a price on pollution, but at the same time we'd reward healthy choices (with healthcare being public, that's just a no brainer...), all while everyone's still perfectly free to do what they want - maybe even more free than we are right now.

(Actually, in my ideal pollution-pricing environment, we'd absolutely gain new freedoms. People could do various things that are currently illegal right now.)

The health stuff sounds far too nanny state for my liking and likely impossible to effectively manage, but (to sound like a broken record) the rest would of course be solved by carbon pricing, so long as the producer is paying the same rate.

'Buying local' should not be an endgame in itself. Unless I want to eat only beef, wheat and garlic then as an Albertan it's going to be quite difficult to get much locally grown produce, unless it's from a greenhouse. And then the question is; is it more energy efficient to grow peppers in a greenhouse in Medicine Hat, or fly them in from California? Or maybe one of those options produces better tasting peppers with more energy, and I decide it's worth the extra cost.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by esquire

Winnipeg is similar... which is why I wince when I see someone driving an expensive sports or luxury car here, especially in the winter. It seems so pointless, seeing an Audi R8 or the like trundling along at rush hour, doing 25 km/h down Osborne, with the impeccably tuned suspension allowing the driver to feel every pothole.

If money is no object, seriously, the vehicle to buy is a top-trim Lincoln Navigator, GMC Yukon Denali or some other such beast that conquers the snow and smooths out the bumps.

I don't buy the argument that an SUV or AWD is of much benefit when driving winter roads in the city. Unless you have an AT Walker, you aren't going to get anywhere faster than anyone else because the roads gridlock.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm a family guy with a crossover SUV and a family sedan. I can't say that I have really noticed any SUV advantages regarding getting kids in and out or their own comfort level.

However, the SUV definitely offers the advantage of being able to haul larger items or bust through snowdrifts on those occasions you need it to. And neither situation is all that rare. There is undoubtedly a level of practicality that you get with an SUV. And practicality is what I am after... IDGAF about handling or whatever. To me, cars are basically appliances on wheels that do a job.

I have 6 kids and have never had a vehicle larger than a subcompact. In the rare instance, the whole family goes somewhere together we take 2 cars. Kids can sit 3 across on the back. If they fight, that is their problem. The other advantages of having less space are more efficient packing and less clean up. We go beach camping most weekends and I shutter to think how much extra work would be required to lug around anything more than essentials. The same logic applies to flying. If you go carry on only, there is much less packing, unpacking and laundry required.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by milomilo

As far as I can tell, the only airline fuel that is subject to the carbon tax is for flights wholely within provinces falling in the federal carbon tax framework (so not BC, Alberta, Quebec). That's a massive failing, one of the most polluting things we do isn't accounted for.

Taxation of jet fuel would only encourage more refueling in the US, which would increase emissions due to aircraft carrying more weight. Carbon taxation can't work in the real world.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The health stuff sounds far too nanny state for my liking and likely impossible to effectively manage, but (to sound like a broken record) the rest would of course be solved by carbon pricing, so long as the producer is paying the same rate.

Pretty easy to manage IMO: anything that's fresh fruit or veggie gets an extra anti-tax slapped on it (a.k.a. a rebate). It would make up for the fact that they're trucked in from the Sun Belt which would make them pricier.

Carbon pricing only would be an incentive for Montrealers to live off a winter diet of Montreal-bottled Pepsi and Montreal-made bagged potato chips. In the grand scheme of things, I don't find it too nanny-statey to nudge people to do the right thing with financial incentives. Keep in mind no one would be forcing anyone to do anything.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Unless I want to eat only beef, wheat and garlic then as an Albertan it's going to be quite difficult to get much locally grown produce

To follow up on what I said above... revenue-neutral, substantial carbon pricing would make beef, wheat and garlic cheaper in Alberta, while making everything else significantly pricier.

"Don't like to be stuck eating only beef as it's the only thing you can afford now that the true environmental costs of moving goods on long distances are now billed to customers? Well, then it's up to you to move away from that barren semi-arid place you live in where the only viable local activity is cattle ranching!" is a bit extreme, no?

Though, I'm libertarian enough that I could live with that. No one is forcing anyone to live in Alberta­.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lio45

Pretty easy to manage IMO: anything that's fresh fruit or veggie gets an extra anti-tax slapped on it (a.k.a. a rebate). It would make up for the fact that they're trucked in from the Sun Belt which would make them pricier.

Carbon pricing only would be an incentive for Montrealers to live off a winter diet of Montreal-bottled Pepsi and Montreal-made bagged potato chips. In the grand scheme of things, I don't find it too nanny-statey to nudge people to do the right thing with financial incentives. Keep in mind no one would be forcing anyone to do anything.

So you want to subsidize carbon emissions from trucks and subsidize ridiculously destructive desert farming because you don’t want to eat fruits and vegetables that will keep in the winter?

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by Doug

I have 6 kids and have never had a vehicle larger than a subcompact. In the rare instance, the whole family goes somewhere together we take 2 cars. Kids can sit 3 across on the back. If they fight, that is their problem. The other advantages of having less space are more efficient packing and less clean up. We go beach camping most weekends and I shutter to think how much extra work would be required to lug around anything more than essentials. The same logic applies to flying. If you go carry on only, there is much less packing, unpacking and laundry required.

I've got 5 kids and we usually fly with only carry-on.... our last 10-day trip we managed with just 2 official carry-on, the ones that Swoop and Flair charge for. Without diapers we might have made it with one. It's amazing what you can fit into 7 "personal items".

We do drive a mini-van but any car#2 we but will be a subcompact but maybe a subcompact CUV.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

3 times to SF in 5 years. This year, only two trips to Europe (UK, Germany)

Anyways, how do you get to Florida? By kite? Air travel is certainly not environmentally the best, but I reckon that more fuel is burned pushing one person in a vehicle to Florida than what would be used, as their share, of a full plane of travelers going to Florida.

Anyways, we are not disagreeing. I don't bring truck nuts on the plane either.

FWIW, I usually go there by manual Civic with cruise control, driven economically (~6L/100km). At first sight from basic laws of physics, I'd agree with you - though several others seem to think flying, even per passenger, is worse.

(in any case, I wasn't actually blaming you seriously, needless to say )

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lio45

To follow up on what I said above... revenue-neutral, substantial carbon pricing would make beef, wheat and garlic cheaper in Alberta, while making everything else significantly pricier.

"Don't like to be stuck eating only beef as it's the only thing you can afford now that the true environmental costs of moving goods on long distances are now billed to customers? Well, then it's up to you to move away from that barren semi-arid place you live in where the only viable local activity is cattle ranching!" is a bit extreme, no?

Though, I'm libertarian enough that I could live with that. No one is forcing anyone to live in Alberta­.

Well, except we live in a global economy where it's cheap, efficient and easy to move food around, there's been no need for everybody to live close to the food production for well over a century. It must be pretty hard to get locally grown food for much of the year in Quebec, Ontario or anywhere else in Canada too, it should be noted.

I doubt a carbon price at the levels recommended by economists will have a huge impact on what we see in the grocery stores. It will likely make the most egregiously wasteful items of food noticeably less affordable while the majority of the selection stays the same. Of course, that's the point - let the market find what is wasteful, don't arbitrarily have the government dictate that local = good, imported = bad.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Of course, that's the point - let the market find what is wasteful, don't arbitrarily have the government dictate that local = good, imported = bad.

Yeah, I didn't really use the best words in my post above - when I said local would become cheaper and imported would be more expensive, my point was that local would USUALLY become cheaper BECAUSE it's (usually) emitting less carbon to reach the shelves (being at a significant advantage there), and same (opposite) for imported. That shortcut I took is generally true but it's slightly misleading to say it that way because I completely agree with you that the one endgame isn't whether or not the stuff is local, it's how polluting the stuff is.

"Perfectly cleanly grown on the other side of the planet and brought here using the cleanest energy possible" = good, not bad.

"Grown right here with a huge carbon footprint" = bad, not good.

[milomilo]

I would actually disagree that it is usually more efficient to grow locally. That would only be the case if we only ate what the surrounding environment is naturally capable of growing, but of course the modern human has access to a much greater variety of food. It would be highly inefficient for us Canadians to grow bananas locally, just as it's probably more efficient for us to grow cereal crops in Canada vs elsewhere. So we grow things where it is most efficient to do so and ship it, and given how cheap most food is it seems likely that this is a not actually that carbon intensive in the grand scheme of things.

I don't think we should be ashamed of using the world economy to improve our selection of food, there wouldn't be much point of modern technology if we didn't use it to improve our lives.

[kool maudit]

Side note, but I think US cars have really caught up over the past 10-15 years. I rented an Opel Insignia recently, which is sold as a Buick Regal in Canada, and it was really nice. I preferred it to the 325i I rented previously.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Doug

I don't buy the argument that an SUV or AWD is of much benefit when driving winter roads in the city. Unless you have an AT Walker, you aren't going to get anywhere faster than anyone else because the roads gridlock.

True. But in my experience the real advantage of a bigger vehicle is on backlanes, residential streets and side streets that tend to be among the last to get plowed (at least in Winnipeg). If you're going to get stuck, odds are it will be in that setting as opposed to on a main drag.

Also, the suspensions of big SUVs tend to smooth out the potholes and the crazy ice bumps we tend to get around this time of year. As opposed to sporty cars which accentuate them.

Originally Posted by Doug

I have 6 kids and have never had a vehicle larger than a subcompact. In the rare instance, the whole family goes somewhere together we take 2 cars. Kids can sit 3 across on the back. If they fight, that is their problem. The other advantages of having less space are more efficient packing and less clean up. We go beach camping most weekends and I shutter to think how much extra work would be required to lug around anything more than essentials. The same logic applies to flying. If you go carry on only, there is much less packing, unpacking and laundry required.

That's impressive. I have 2 kids so I'm sure I could get by with a subcompact for 90% of my drives, but I admit it's nice to have the SUV for those other times when the extra space is useful.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well, except we live in a global economy where it's cheap, efficient and easy to move food around, there's been no need for everybody to live close to the food production for well over a century. It must be pretty hard to get locally grown food for much of the year in Quebec, Ontario or anywhere else in Canada too, it should be noted.

I doubt a carbon price at the levels recommended by economists will have a huge impact on what we see in the grocery stores. It will likely make the most egregiously wasteful items of food noticeably less affordable while the majority of the selection stays the same. Of course, that's the point - let the market find what is wasteful, don't arbitrarily have the government dictate that local = good, imported = bad.

But that cheapness, efficiency and easiness is based on ready availability of cheap fossil fuels.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But that cheapness, efficiency and easiness is based on ready availability of cheap fossil fuels.

Exactly. Which also enables us to drive less efficient vehicles without significant financial penalty

I fueled up the 4Runner last night at 93.9 cents/L. It could be double that and I wouldn't bat an eye.

Triple that I might start to think about it a little.

[Acajack]

I haven't had a very small car in a long time, but I've had everything from a minivan to an SUV to sedans and station wagons in the past 15 years or so.

AWD SUVs are somewhat better in the snow than sedans but for my purposes I've never found the difference to be that huge. (I always have winter tires on them as they are required by law here in Quebec, but never studs.)

The way you hear some people talk about their AWD SUVs you'd think driving in the snow with one is like driving on a sunny summer day.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Exactly. Which also enables us to drive less efficient vehicles without significant financial penalty

I fueled up the 4Runner last night at 93.9 cents/L. It could be double that and I wouldn't bat an eye.

Triple that I might start to think about it a little.

I'm sure there are at least a few people out there who would be willing and able to pay a thousand bucks a tank. But if gas suddenly doubled in cost you can bet that a significant number of people would be rethinking their habits.