stevoh

I did, I understand, I still see the energy ratings as a good indicator of efficiency, even if there are other factors. I always know when I am getting a point across when the other side resorts to name calling and ridicule. When you can't rely on your intelligence, the insults come out. If you can't figure out the difference between features influencing cost, and energy efficiency influencing costs I can't help you. I am arguing that features influence cost far more than energy efficiency. Try and understand that.

It certainly indicates a general trend. In other words, if you by a washer that has half the energy rating of another washer, you can reasonably be assured that it will be more efficient. Then its the features you require that are costing more, not the energy efficiency rating. You can buy a mid level appliance that is as energy efficient as the high end models.

What is so hard to understand here? I know other features push up the price. I know capacity pushes up the price. I know that, depending on your needs, you may have other considerations when buying a new machine. But here is the main point, and I just don't know how to make it any clearer. Energy efficiency in various appliances is not THE major factor when determining price, features, brand, and finish are. So you can get an energy efficient machine, just as efficient as a high end machine, at mid level prices. You argument is like saying I must buy a porche for my daily commute when all I need is a honda civic.

Right, and if those things are important, then spend more on them. My point is soley this. You can buy mid range machines with excellent energy efficiency ratings.

Of course you can. Its not like the mid range washers don't have any features. Ten minutes at any major retailers appliance section can show you that.

Price is based more on brand and features than efficiency. You can get a highly efficient good machine at mid price levels.

Its only a lousy example because it doesn't support your theory. Here is another: Front load washer, 699, 142 KW/y http://www.sears.ca/gp/product/B000MGO58A/...odeid=396506011 Front load washer, 2999!, 142 KW/y (yes, it does have 1 cubic foot greater capacity, but I have to wonder if thats worth over 2 grand!) http://www.sears.ca/gp/product/B001AFZT6O/...odeid=396506011 In summary, energy efficiency is only one small component of price, features, materials and brand name have far more to do with pricing than energy efficiency. If you are willing to put in the effort, you can purchase mid level machines that are every bit as efficient as high level ones.

The immediate effect of capital investment in energy efficient technology would reduce B. Those energy savings over time take care of X, how fast depends on level of efficiency improvement. And if you take A+X+C and subtract the investment made in B+Y-Z+7, then the obvious answer is 94. HA! (Is friday over yet?)

Then you'd be wrong. An oil furnace that is 70% efficient may not be worth replacing when oil is $50 dollars, but will definitely be worth replacing when its $150. You would think. But its not true. Its worth doing research first. This clothes dryer, 599 dollars, uses 938 KW per year of power. http://www.sears.ca/gp/product/B000FMTBDU/...odeid=398502011 This dryer, at a whopping 2999.99 (on sale even), uses more power, 942 KW per year. http://www.sears.ca/gp/product/B001AFXVKU/...searsBrand=core So the premise that more cost means better efficiency is not necessarily true.

Waste is related to cost. The more expensive something is, the less likely we are to waste it. The same goes for business. Efficiencies which formerly made no sense from a financial perspective suddenly do when the fuel price goes up significantly.

Well then, at least be realistic. A middle class family hard up for bucks is not going to be spending money on top of the line products. And you can get energy efficient appliances that do not cost a fortune, our washer dryer set is energy star efficient, and cost 1299 for both.

Where are you buying your appliances? I suggest you shop around.

I don't have Canadian statistics, but I know from the US that the average age of furnaces in peoples houses is 17 years. A furnace that old generally has around 75% efficiency. New furnaces are 95% or greater in efficiency. So, its looks like most people would benefit from a new furnace, the higher the costs go, the faster the efficiency will pay for itself. So, I don't believe your premise that "Most people have already taken as many steps as possible", they haven't.

I think it also implies where the money is going to. Revenue neutral implies that the money being recieved by the tax is being given back to Canadians. Rather than being used to fund a new program that has little direct effect on most of us. So, if it was being used to fund carbon capture schemes (like the 2 billion alberta has put aside for that purpose), it is not revenue neutral as most of us would not see any financial benefit. However, if it offers 15.5 billion dollars in tax breaks to Canadians, which it does, then is called revenue neutral. I agree that its a bit of a "catch phrase", but when you look into the details, I can see a difference.

Ok, then I don't understand something. I thought that the tax was going to be on carbon producing fossil fuels, with the exception of gasoline. So, if my house is heated by natural gas, then my natural gas cost will increase due to the carbon tax. And, because I am wealthy, I will not see a decrease in my income tax. So, so far, the only way my taxes went up is the cost of natural gas. Ok, all of that makes sense. But if I decrease my consumption of natural gas (which is the point of this tax after all), then wouldn't I see a reduction in my overall expenditures as well as reducing emissions? Basically, I don't see what you mean by "amount of CO2 you emit does not mean much". If I use less, I emit less, and I spend less. Isn't that the point?

I don't think you understand what revenue neutral means. Even if ALL of the tax cuts go to poor people, its still revenue neutral if the money coming in equals the money going out. Just because you don't agree with where the money is coming from doesn't mean it isn't revenue neutral.

Its amazing that we have to spend 2 billion trying to replicate something that the vast majority of plants do every day. Pine trees are one of the best sources of carbon sequestering we have in the plant kingdom. This leads me to two thoughts. First, pine trees can be used to capture the carbon, and buried so that the carbon does not get re-released (deep enough to prevent decay from releasing it into the atmosphere). An large fossil fuel powered power generation plant (1000 MW) can produce around 8 million tons of CO2 per year. If we were to plant the equivalent quantity of pine trees to absorb that CO2, we would need about 6 million trees. Forestry companies typically thin pines to about 300 an acre a few years after the initial planting, so we would need about 32 square miles of pine trees (20000 acre = 31.25 mi²) to compensate for the CO2 released by the power generation plant. Secondly, forestry companies have been successful at developing "super trees" that grow significantly faster than native species. Surely its worth spending some money on looking into creating a tree that is equally adept at capturing carbon. The two billion is being spent on mechanical solutions to carbon sequestering. Why not look to nature and improve on what already exists?

It looks like its going to be an interesting debate. I am interested in seeing how succesful they are at keeping it scientific, rather than political.

Yes, saying someone else should take the lead is an excuse. Taking it yourself is anything but.

Showing the lead is an excuse? That makes no sense at all. Those showing the lead are the only ones who aren't making excuses. I do think the elementary school jibe of "well, they do it too" is complete nonsense, because if china and india suddenly agreed to various control measures, the US (if under the power of republicans) would harumph and hah and talk and find yet another excuse. I don't for a moment believe George Bush would actually suddenly become concerned with the environment if India and China changed their ways. And notice the countries that are used, China and India. These are the two countries that are apparently the reason the republicans aren't going to do anything. And yet, while behind china, the european union is ahead of india when it comes to emissions. Why didn't they say they won't do anything until the EU does anything? Because the EU is already doing something. And they want countries that aren't to make action impossible. If they really were interested in making change but frustrated with world participation, then they would join the EU (the one area that has actually HAS taken the lead), rather than pointing to polluters they know are least likely to change as the reason for doing nothing. I wish I could have applied your logic to my homework years ago. "I am not going to do it until Joey Johnson does it". My mother would have shut that down in a second, and told me "no excuses, get to work". And she would be right.

I think that describes Harpers 2050 50% reduction very well. But, as much as I think Dion has not been an effective leader of the liberals (duh) I do think that he actually believes in his green shift plan, and that it will make a difference. You are free to disagree that his plan will make a difference, but he has always been about the environment, and this is consistent with that. I think part of Dion's public perception problem IS that he is all about the environment, a one trick pony, as it were. I also believe in getting your own house in order before asking others to do the same. Canada's emissions have been reducing for the last while, if we can keep that up, we can not only feel strong in our position when we ask other countries to also reduce their emissions, we can tell them HOW to do it.

Hypocracy is asking china and india to reduce emmissions while we have not done so ourselves.

Harper has promise a 50% decrease in emissions by 2050! In other words, let someone else take care of it. If he had also promised a 1.2% reduction every year starting now, which would get him that 50% I would be all for it (although the steps to get there would be a good deal harder than a green shift). But 50% of what? In 42 years? Give me a break. What's next, a 50% tax break by 2050?

Harper? Quiet and courteous? Wow, I have seen bias before, but this borders on blindness.

While I think the carbon tax is basically pointless given the cost increase of gas over the recent months, it still amazes me that I have heard so much more squawking about a 2.4 cent increase just because its from the government, but so much less complaining about a 60 cent increase in the last year. If you are going out of business due to high gas prices, its not because of a 2.4 cent increase, its because of a 60 cent increase.