stevoh

Nah, I prefer to prop up Alberta's economy by creating demand for all that oil.

Nope, its simply means I understand the logic when it comes to the balance between the tax break you get, and your energy costs. I would hope that, wherever you work, you would see a raise of more than 200 dollars over the lifetime of those appliances, to cover the difference: The lowest income earners get the biggest tax break. It would seem to me that they would also be the ones who would need the most help buying a new appliance. So are you suggesting that the carbon tax should remain, but instead of a tax break for all Canadians, the money should be pooled and used to reduce the cost of energy efficient products?

As a CSA techie, perhaps you could share some further energy saving ideas with the rest of us? I am sure you have lots I haven't thought of.

True. Until the darn things break down and then you have to replace them anyway. Then its time to do some careful calculation to decide what model has the best balance of efficiency, features, and capacity for your needs. With rising energy costs, the value of efficiency over other features will become more important.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.

Its true Wild Bill, we as individuals do not have much control over what energy sources our houses use, its been determined on a higher level based on costs, availability of resources, and many other considerations. These rising energy costs lately have made a difference to all of us, this year I am having a "staycation" on my time off because gas and other costs related to gas prices are too high. That is the first point, those energy costs are rising with or without a tax from Dion, we are going to have to change how we use these resources regardless of whether the tax is imposed. Also understand that you will be seeing at least a 1000 dollar tax break, more if you have kids or a lower income, to offset the higher energy costs. If only the energy sector would do the same! So the hit to you may not be as large as you may think, take a look at a previous post about heating with home heating oil and natural gas, in all likelyhood those costs will not increase more than your tax break. However, other indirect energy costs such as shipping and storing goods may also rise, so you may end up spending more than your tax break takes in. The changes you make to your energy usage are going to be financially rewarding regardless of whether the carbon tax comes in, so its not a bad idea to look at conserving energy regardless. To answer your question directly, there is not much you can do about changing your energy source, other than voting in a government that is strongly focussed on providing alternative energy. But you can do lots to reduce your energy consumption. I am not sure what type of clothes dryer you have, but lots of appliances these days have a "delay" feature on them, that allows you to set the time the appliance starts its cycle. Same with dishwashers and washing machines. If you have electric heat, only turn on the rooms that you are actually occupying. An electronic thermostat (about 40 bucks) can make that much easier, set it once and let it take care of itself. Its been discussed extensively here, but if you have an old appliance (more than 10 years say) take a look at its energy consumption. Write that down, and compare that value to the current energy rating of new appliances. If you see a significant difference (say 40% or more) in energy usage, then it may pay off to buy the more efficient current appliance and save energy that way. I have natural gas heat, and my wife and I are taking a two pronged approach. First off, our furnace is over 30 years old, so a new furnace, even a mid priced model, is going to save us some money off of our gas bill. Secondly, and this is where our thinking is a bit outside of the box, we are going to reduce the number of rooms our furnace heats. There are four main rooms we spend most of our time in, our bedroom, the kids bedroom, the living room, and the kitchen. Our furnace currently heats lots of other areas, the entire basement, the office, our spare room, etc. We are only occasionally in those rooms and so are going to rely on electric heat in each room if we need to heat them. So, we are replacing our furnace that can heat 2000 square feet with a high efficiency model that is only going to heat 1000 square feet, the space we spend most of our time in. Beyond the cost of installing the new furnace, the cost of closing off specific ducts so that only four have heat is not that high (less than 500 we were quoted). So, not only are we going to have a furnace that is more efficient, we are going to have one with half of the output, which will make a real difference in our 60 to 120 dollars a month natural gas bill. I don't know enough about your situation to make specific heating recomendations, but you probably get the idea. And these are a good idea regardless of whether or not the carbon tax comes into effect, saving money is a good idea.

I am not claiming the New York Times is biased due to the Obama piece. I believe you. Sure, they were completely fair in their choice of op ed pieces, no problem. Why does admitting bias matter so much? You are fighting pretty hard to say that the Obama piece does not indicate bias. You may be right. But why are you fighting? Why does it matter? THAT is my question. My question is not "is the new york times biased", it is "why does it matter if it is"?

If my choices are: 1. Take twenty give back 10 (government plan) 2. Take twenty and give back none (energy sector) I choose 1.

Exactly, the government is redistributing income from this tax to Canadians in the form of tax cuts. Natural gas is more efficient and produces less carbon than coal. So it will be taxed less.

The right message is, use a non fossil fuel based power generation source. No body forced alberta to build coal based energy plants. Even natural gas would have been a better idea. I know they built them because coal in alberta is cheap. Well, with energy prices and carbon tax increases, perhaps that decision won't be so clear in the future. In my opinion, that is a good thing. At least an offset is present. Market based energy price increases see no financial counter measures for the consumer.

But my question is, why does it matter? I don't need to see an article by Obama to know the New York Times has a leftist bias, I just have to read the newspaper. I don't need to see a specific incident to know Fox News is biased, I just have to spend 5 minutes with Glenn Beck (and then throw up, but thats my leftist bias showing up). But they (and you) will fight tooth and nail trying to deny bias. Hey go for it, not an issue, and in this case, you might be right. But why are you fighting? Why does it matter? Why can't the New York Times, when under criticism for bias simply say "yes, we are biased, so what?"

The carbon tax is going to increase the cost of energy, so it has everything to do with the cost of energy itself.

Ok, I wasn't able to get the tool to give a tax cut of 300 dollars from the green shift site. Even at a million dollars yearly income, you will see a tax cut of $1172. How did you come up with 300 dollars? What home heating method are you using? If you are using home heating oil, then you are using over 4000 litres of home heating oil a year (more than double the canadian average). How did I calculate this? (From the green shift website) An average Canadian household uses about 1,800 litres per year in home heating oil. During the first year, the Green Shift will increase the cost of home heating oil for that household by $50 per year, or $4.20 per month. By the fourth year, the additional cost will be $203 per year or $16.95 per month. So, in your case, 203 dollars per year based on 1800 litres, you claim 500 dollars, 500/203 = 2.46. 2.46 x 1800 = 4428 litres. If you are using natural gas (as I am), then you are using almost 8 times the national average, a full 26 300 m3 per year! An average Canadian home heated with natural gas uses from 3,000 to 3,500 m3 of natural gas each year. In year one of the Green Shift, the additional cost will be from $57 to $66.50 for that household, or $4.75 to $5.54 per month. 66.50 per year based on 3500 m, you claim 500 dollars, 500/66.50 = 7.52. 7.52 * 3500 = 26300. I believe in making an informed decision, from these numbers, both the size of your tax break and the increase in home heating costs seems an exaggeration. How did you come up with these numbers?

I realize that. But I will see a tax cut. yep. I don't see how this is different however from current energy price increases where we see no return. A general rule is, those making the claims are responsible for proving it. I wasn't able to get the tool to generate a $300 tax benefit, regardless of the values entered. Well, if the point of the tax is to get people to use non carbon based energy sources, then yes it is the right message. As it applies to the individual, I don't believe that at all. Depending on your income and your fossil fuel based energy costs, you could pay more, or less. Exactly. At least with the liberal plan I see some return on the additional cost of energy. The industry based energy increases occuring right now? I simply pay more.

How much are the tax cuts supposed to be? You can calculate the amount of your own tax cut here: http://www.thegreenshift.ca/default_e.aspx I will see a reduction of 1300 dollars in my taxes per year. Or the price of a good quality mid range efficient washing machine :-P So, lets see, we either have the current scenario where energy prices are rising and none of us see any extra cash in our pockets from it (or very few of us). Or, we have a carbon tax proposal, which does put more money in our pockets. At least with the liberal government plan we see a tax break. I don't believe that Exxon is planning to cut us any cheques to help out...

So you just made an assumption about my claims, and then says its not an assumption? I am assuming that over the life of a washing machine you will not see an energy savings of more than 2000 dollars from one that is slightly less efficient. Yes, I am making an assumption. If that number seems out to you, go ahead and calculate it out. By buying a mid priced model that is close in efficiency to a top end model but considerably cheaper. Some top load washers are now approaching front load in efficiency ratings. So, back to my original premise, you can buy a mid priced model with good energy efficiency, even if you buy top load. http://products.howstuffworks.com/fisher-p...wl16-review.htm

See, now thats an interesting answer. Because, it aligns nicely with what my experience with American Media is overall. Instead of saying that the new york times has bias, you defend its choice to run the piece. Whether or not the bias of the times influenced the decision to run or not run McCains IRAQ piece, they are most definitely biased towards the left side of the political spectrum. Why can't they admit that? Why can't fox accurately state they are a right wing media group, why do they fight so hard to claim to be "fair and balanced'?

Warn you that I am adhering to your constructs? I would have thought you would be the first one to recognize them. The only reason the larger washing machine was brought up is because of your points about comparing apples to apples, equivalent efficiency to equivalent efficiency. Because it is almost 1/3 the cost and only slightly less efficient. And the same capacity. Based on the average life of a washing machine you would not see any savings by buying this model over the less expensive one. Because in a previous post that you stated " if you currently have the 1399 model", and that model is linked to the current sears site, then yes, I assume it is current. Then I would suggest one of two things. Don't buy the 1399 model now and wait until the tax comes in to see if it makes sense to buy it. Or buy it now if it already makes good sense (energy prices are rising quite well without liberal influence) due to eventual energy savings. Further investigation revealed I was wrong about that. Its true, when it comes to furnaces, efficiency is very related to price. The same does not hold true for washers however. Because, if the amount you spend on a more efficient model is not equivalent to eventual energy savings, then the purchase does not make good financial sense. Thats right, if the more efficient model over time saves more money on energy usage than it costs for that energy efficiency, then you see good return on your investment. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. As energy costs increase (government intervention or not), then, at a certain point, spending money on a new washer will save money in the long term over running an older less efficient model. Since the price of washing machines is only loosely coupled with their efficiency ratings (as opposed to furnaces), you can find a model with the capacity and features you need in the mid price range. You may see a small increase in efficiency by buying the highest price models, but that would not end up paying for itself in the long term.

Obama did the same tour, same people, as McCain has done recently. Criticize one, you criticize the other.

There has been a lot lately made of a couple of recent issues. 1. The New York Times printing an Op-Ed piece on IRAQ written by Obama, but not accepting one from McCain. 2. Fox News accepting "talking points" from the Bush administration. Both are causing howls of "unfair" and "media bias". Why don't media outlets just admit their bias and print what they believe? Why do they need to hide behind this mask of "fair and balanced" when they are so obviously leaning towards a specific point of view?

Mid range, as in middle price range. So, for a 4.2 cu foot capacity front load washer, the mid range price is around 1400. It is you that is insisting we compare apples to apples. Now that I am, all of a sudden that isn't good enough either? Of course, if I am comparing washers with the same capacity, 4.2 cu/ft, a mid range model is in the mid price range. Actually, the middle price range of these models is 2250, so the 1400 dollar one is a good deal for this capacity of washer (and for its efficiency level). Anyone who already has the 1399 model has obviously recently upgraded and would not see a return on their investment by going for an even more expensive model. That is hardly the majority of Canadians however. We don't even need to go into specifics. Basic math will tell you when you would see a return on your investment as energy prices continue to rise. Thats a good idea as well, I also have noticed the top load washer efficiency has improved greatly for some models. Not so impossible to get a more efficient washer for a reasonable sum of money, is it?

I never did misunderstand the math behind it, that is why in my original post (look again) I specifically mention the capacity difference. I did not believe a tripling of price was worth a 28% increase in efficiency. But, you see, rather than pound you and call you names for you missing that, I attempted to discuss the matter in detail and explain. And no, name calling and condescention has no place in real debate, regardless of what you think of the other person. A mid range appliance with equivalent efficiency to top end appliances is available. I don't need to review that point any further. If you look at the range of washing machines available, with identical capacity, there is a significant price range. That price range is based more on features and brand than efficiency. Just look at the 4.2 cubic foot washing machines. They range in price from 3499: http://www.sears.ca/gp/product/B001AFZT6O/...odeid=398507011 142 Kw/yr To 1399: http://www.sears.ca/gp/product/B0018MBUG2/...odeid=398507011 159 Kw/yr Yes, the more expensive model is slightly more efficient, but, is it worth more than twice the price? A person looking to replace their old top loading washing machine, who is interesting in a front loader, does not have to spend 3500 dollars to get an efficient machine, they can buy a mid level front end loader for 1399 with an efficiency within 12% of the higher priced model. So, I don't and never did feel I was proven wrong, as you can obviously buy efficient models in the mid price range. Hopefully you will understand someday the difference between rote repetition and someone remaining unconvinced by your arguments.

You know, if you weren't such a jerk about the whole thing, calling me retarded, ignorant, other pointless jabs, I might be interested in continuing this discussion with you. You obviously have some interesting points that I would like to examine further, but you surround them with such garbage that it mutes any valid points you may have. I am interested in debate, not name calling.

How does that counter my original point that it is possible to buy an energy efficient appliance in the middle price range?

Ah, I see the source of your confusion. I compared two washer with similar energy ratings, one had a 1 cubic foot higher capacity, and cost 2000 dollars more. I explained in that post (sorry if it wasn't clear) that I did not feel the extra cubic foot of capacity was worth over 2 grand. I can find numerous examples of washers with the same capacity that have similar prices but quite different efficiency ratings. Let me know if you have trouble finding this same information, if you do, I can post more links for you.