segnosaur

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're making two major assumptions that are likely incorrect... 1) that savings through efficiency would be the only reason a company would want to replace its equipment. It is not. All equipment must eventually be replaced anyways, if for no other reason than it will eventually break down. Even without any sort of carbon tax, a company would likely end up replacing older (and possibly less efficient) items with new ones anyways as the old items break down or become outdated 2) You are also assuming that the tax cuts offered by the Liberal green shift plan would be enough to compensate for the purchase of new equipment. However, I've already given an example of how the amortization period of new purchases would be so long that the tax cuts would be ineffective in helping a person purchase new, more efficient devices. If you really wanted to encourage people to upgrade to new, more efficient devices, a tax cut directed at the purchase of new appliances, etc. would probably be a lot more useful and effective. (Heck, even a GST cut would probably do more to allow people to upgrade to a new furnace/washer/dryer than the liberal plans would.) 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. Ok, first of all, you're right... I probably should have qualified things by saying that given products of comparable features, capacities, and quality of manufacture, products that feature energy saving designs are usually more expensive. (your example isn't a good comparison, since the more expensive machine has features that the less expensive machine doesn't... such as electronic controls, larger capacity, etc.) Secondly, you are badly misusing the energuide ratings. If you go to the government's energuide web site, they point out that you can only use energuide to compare energy usage of items of the same capacity. When they do the tests, they compare the energy usage to dry a common standard sized load. It doesn't take into account any savings that you have by using a larger capacity device. If you always dry one pair of pants, one shirt and one pair of socks, the cheaper, smaller dryer may be more efficient. But if you need to dry 2 pairs of pants and 2 shirts, you're going to be better off running the larger dryer once rather than the small dryer twice (even if the larger dryer uses a little more energy per cycle.) From: http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/equipment/engli...ew=N&Text=N ...It shows how much energy appliances consume in a year of normal service and makes it easy to compare the energy efficiency of each model to others of the same size and class. http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/equipment/engli...ew=N&Text=N (A description of how the tests are actually run.) If you want to compare energy efficiencies, consider: - High efficiency gas furnaces typically cost between $300 and $1000 more than standard furnaces - A front load washer is much more efficient than a top load washer (since it takes less water)... at Sears, a GE front load washer costs over $200 more than a top load washer of approximately the same capacity (3.8c.f. vs. 3.5c.f. same finish, both with electronic controls, etc.), and uses about 1/3 of the energy. - The most efficient design for a fridge has the freezer at the bottom. Its not easy finding comparible fridges, but Sears has both at top and bottom freezer fridge by GE, of similar capacities (17.9 vs. 20.2) and similar finishes. The bottom-freezer fridge costs over $1200, and has an energy rating of 455 kwh/yr. The top-freezer version is over $400 cheaper, but uses 482kwh/yr. (I've done everything I can to keep as many features as consistent between the 2 of them.) - Natural gas clothes dryers are more energy efficient than electric dryers. However, they usually cost more than electrical dryers. (They also require more work for installation.) http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/renoho/re.../refash_018.cfm http://www.sears.ca/gp/product/B0018TSQKS/...odeid=396506011 http://www.sears.ca/gp/product/B000YYQ01U/...odeid=396506011 http://www.sears.ca/gp/product/B000F9ASPS/...odeid=396510011 http://www.sears.ca/gp/product/B001AJ2UQ2/...odeid=396510011 http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infoso...s_Section06.cfm

Once again... Do you really think there are companies that sit around thinking "We can increase our profits if we cut energy costs, but we think our shareholders are already getting enough dividends"? Whether oil is $50 or $150, I rather suspect that most businessmen are greedy enough to want money going into their own pockets rather than into the pockets of their energy supplier. Energy efficiency is related to price... if you spend less money getting a mid-range product, your energy usage won't be as low as it could be, and you'll end up getting burned by the carbon tax. So, either you spend a lot of money getting something high priced (which would take you forever to pay off with those Liberal green plan tax cuts), or you spend less money and end up making up the difference with extra taxes.

Is it a rethorical statement? Or a cute way to pull in unconfirmed unsubstantiated opinion? Are you saying that our society is near 100% (of technically possible) efficiency in using that particular fuel? No, what I'm saying is that there are few (or no) energy savings that can reasonably be made with our current level of technology. Yes, there may be some people who go for 'joyrides'. There may be people who forget to turn their thermostat down when they leave the house. But if the recent increases in energy costs haven't convinced them to reduce their costs, I doubt an extra carbon tax will have an effect. Well, how about simple basic human greed? Do you really think there are people out there who are deliberately wasting gas or oil? Do you think that there are companies out there who, given a choice between using more energy and increasing profits, will say "I think profits are high enough, lets burn more gas. We don't need to, we just don't want our shareholders getting any more. And of course, there's also the fact that our carbon emissions actually peaked a few years ago and have been going down recently, even without a carbon tax. If emissions have been going down, then efficiencies are being found and exploited.

Well, lets see... Your '95% efficiency' refers to a new high efficiency furnaces... a new mid-range furnace would be still be only 78-82% efficient. The problem is, high efficiency furnaces also cost more (around $1000) than less efficient furnaces. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/energy/consumertips.html Lets see... Installing a high efficiency will cost around $3000. In my case, the Liberal tax cuts would only give me back around $350/year, only around 12% of the total cost of that new furnace. Even if I applied every dollar of my tax cut into buying a new furnace (something that wouldn't be realistic, since I'll also be paying more for electricity and various products), it would still take more than 8 years to pay for this new high-efficiency furnace. And in fact in most cases the tax cuts don't come anywhere near paying for the price of a new furnace. So, in the vast majority of cases the Liberal tax cuts wouldn't really assist people in buying high-efficiency furnaces. If they couldn't afford to buy a new furnace before, they likely couldn't afford to buy one now.

Ya know, I do believe there is a certain logic to reforming our drug laws (and I would not object if our laws were liberalized). However, this article is perhaps the biggest load of hypocritical material that could have been written on this subject. The author makes references suggesting that such laws are making "Canada into an overt police state". Fair enough... drug laws can be seen as interfering with the way a person wants to run their life. Yet he has also been on record supporting the NDP, a party which also likes to interfere with the way people live their lives (although the NDP favor economic interference). If you are going to cry "freedom", then perhaps he should consider his entire set of political beliefs... You can't say "I'm all for freedom" if you are going to also support a party (the NDP) which seeks to limit you economic freedom.

As I (and others) have pointed out, the corresponding tax decreases won't necessarily get applied to people who can or will reduce their fossil fuel usage. For example, people in Quebec will benefit from the tax decreases, even though much of their energy us derived from Hydro. So, in theory, a Quebecer can use their tax rebate to keep their El Camino idling in their driveway 24/7, and still be better off than someone in Ontario. Actually, the Liberal plan includes special tax cuts for both rural and northern residents. So yes, the government is (or would be) subsidizing energy for these people.

The problem with your argument is that you're assuming that there is actually room to reduce the consumption of natural gas. People already had an incentive to reduce their consumption... its called their utility bill. Many (possibly even most) people have already taken as many steps as possible to reduce their use of natural gas. Putting an additional tax on the price of fossil fuel (even if there is a corresponding cut in income tax) isn't going to really do much to cut the fuel consumption of people who have already lowered their thermostats to the lowest comfortable temperature. Unfortunately, fans of the Liberal plan don't seem to understand that concept... they keep chanting "incentive" with no logic or thought behind it, in an attempt to drown out the fact that all the 'incentive' isn't going to be beneficial if natural gas usage is already near its lowest possible point.

Ummm.... why exactly are you calling it "Harper's" ethanol plan when: - The increase in ethanol content was supported by the Federal Liberals. E.g. from: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...b6-1fb545222cf7 Last month, the Conservative government, with the help of Liberal Party support, was able to push through a bill that forces retail gas pumps across the country to contain at least five per cent ethanol by 2010.) (And yes, I do know that some Liberals have stated opposition to the use of Ethanol, but the Liberal party web site still lists the production of ethanol http://www.liberal.ca/rural_e.aspx) - Similar policies on ethanol content (in fact some of them even stricter) are in place by many of the provinces (e.g. Sask, Manitoba, and Ontario - Its a global market, and many other countries in the world have ethanol plans Not that I necessarily agree with or disagree with plans to increase the use of Ethanol, but if you're going to blame any party, perhaps you should look at all the supporters instead of just picking and choosing. If we were smart, we'd lower taxes on imported ethanol (After all, there is substantial ethanol produced in parts of the world where ethanol is produced from things like sugarcane, which are not staple foods) and encourage the development of ethanol from agricultural waste.

OK, You must one of those people who think that the world was made yesterday. Or at least when you were born. Uhhh... no... Actually, I'm pretty well versed in history, science, etc. Its because of such background knowledge that I've learned not to depend too much on particular technological developments. First of all, there is no guarantee that sequestration will ever be viable, regardless of costs. If I remember correctly, there are less than half a dozen pilot projects in the world, and there's no guarantee those pilot projects will actually show success, and even if they are successful, there's no guarantee that the technology will be applicable in all locations. Frankly, I think its a bit much to demand companies do things that are actually impossible. (This is not the same as scrubber technology, where we know the technology works.) Secondly, as I've pointed out earlier in the thread, sequestion has additional problems... it increases energy consumption, and may lead to the release of other chemicals. I've already admitted oil prices may not remain as high as they are... Yes, oil prices (in relative terms) were higher in the past... and guess what? When they were high then, consumption decreased. Because regardless of the number and size of reserves available, and regardless of any improvements in efficiency in extracting oil, there will always be a fixed supply. Always. Even if the earth were hollow and its core fulled with crude, whatever is there, is there. Even if, by some miracle, we all of a sudden double our resources, it doesn't help us much because oil demands tend to increase exponentially. (Not to mention that any oil discovered is not likely to be the nice light crude coming from Saudi Arabia, but more difficult and expensive to process Shale or oil sands.) Because they now have the incentive to do even better. Once again... why wouldn't they already have done everything they can to limit their consumption? Difference is, even before we started mandating the removal of SO2 from we knew it was technically possible (even if it was expensive). With carbon emissions, we currently don't know. No it doesn't pollute because it's using clear hydro energy (in your own example). I already explained the problem with your argument. If factory A is in ontario, it may be powered (in part) by coal/gas generated electricty. (Ontario just does not have the hydro reserves to generate any more from hydro.) If factory B is in Quebec, it is powered by hydro. When you slap on a carbon tax, you'll make Factory A cost more that Factory B, even if factory A is more efficient. What you should be doing, if you were truly interested in cutting carbon emissions, is forcing factory B to be just as efficient as factory A, and then having them ship the 'extra' electricity to Ontario so we can cut our fossil fuel consumption. To NOT do so makes things unfair to Factory A... they've done all they can to cut back electrical usage, but suffer not because they're wasteful, but simply because of where they are. Developing new technology can take decades to actually see results. So, what you're saying is that companies should be willing to suffer and put up with all sorts of inequities for a decade or 2, just in case some sort of green tax actually pans out? So unfairness is OK as long as it might be temporary? You know, I kind of find it ironic... you criticize me for trying to see the future by claiming that oil supplies are ultimately fixed, yet you yourself are basing your claims on the possibility of future technological advancement (something that is even more random and unpredictable than the discovery of oil fields.) Why would anyone do that? We want more clean energy. We also want more conservation of the energy that we have now. That comment was about "suspicions". I can't help with your feelings, uncertainties and worries, sorry. Given the number of promises broken at ALL levels of government, by ALL political parties when they gain power, why exactly do you think my concerns are unjustified? I never said the 'poor mother' didn't need help. I said that if the purpose of the bill was to help poor people, then it should be presented as such. It has a lot to do with wealth transfer... it contains all sorts of tax credits and cuts that will end up providing more money to the poor that originally comes from the wealthy, regardless of how much the poor person does to cut back on their energy usage. OK, good start. That won't ever happen in Canada, already. Your right, it wouldn't happen... I recognize that it would be politically disadvantageous to the Liberals (and probably any other political party that would try it). But, you see, I'm kind of funny... I would actually see a policy that was unfair or promoted some sort of disparity eliminated, instead of simply accepted saying "its unfair, but it will help us get elected". Not sure why exactly it would be that difficult... we already have people submitting other receipts that in theory have the same potential for fraud. Whatever mechanisms we have for checking the validity of T4s, charitable receipts, etc. would be extended to checking utility bill receipts. Hey, not that I think it will ever happen. (Frankly, I'd prefer that we skip the carbon tax all together). But as long as we are going to tinker with the tax system to deal with energy concerns, why not try to do it so that its as fair as possible? Wouldn't it be better to have something which is fairer (even if we have to hire a couple of more income tax auditors to do spot checks) than to do something which is unfair but cheap?

There are both advantages and disadvantages to electricity. Yes, it has the advantage that it can be generated using multiple methods, and electrical motors can be very efficient. It does suffer from a few disadvantages: - Current battery technology limits recharging time and maximum range; a car burning gas can get its tank refilled in minutes rather than hours. - Batteries have their own environmental problems... containing some pretty bad heavy metals. Granted, there ARE programs to encourage people to return/recycle car batteries, but there's no guarantee that all batteries will end up being recycled - For most people, it relies on a (possibly fragile) electrical grid, which seems to already be having troubles at peak loads Of course, I could also point out that there is no way that electricity could replace fossil fuels in all areas, especially in certain industrial processes, air transportation, etc. I have no real objections to greater use of electricity. Ultimately, it might be one of the keys to fixing our energy problems. But, I don't like making predictions... nobody really knows what the optimum solution is. There is a danger if the government tries to 'force' a solution... there is no guarantee that they've selected the optimum solution, and if they force us into one technology (e.g. electricity) it becomes very difficult to change directions after significant money has been spent on infrastructure. What could compete with electricity? How about hydrogen... granted you have that whole 'exploding blimp' thing to live down (and storage is currently a problem), but it has the advantage of offering faster "refilling" times. And no need to add capacity to an already overburdened electrical grid What about biotech? Some companies claim they've managed to genetically engineer organisms to produce either ethanol, or even raw crude oil directly. Granted, it may not help the air quality in urban centers, but our infrastructure wouldn't have to change (i.e. we could continue using existing gas stations), and the bacteria or algae could be fed agricultural waste. In theory, we could spend massive amounts of money developing electric cars, upgrading our hydro grid, building 'excess' nuclear plants, and setting up a network of electric 'filling' stations, only to find some egghead in a lab somewhere has found a way to turn farts into pure high octane gasoline, in which case all of our efforts were wasted. But you're ignoring the fact that utilities are often forced to generate electricity from fossil fuels (because at this point they have no choice; not all provinces have adequate hydro resources, and people are irrationally fearful of nuclear). If we can get more people to conserve electricity, that means we can reduce the amount we need to generate from coal, oil or natural gas.

Minor quibble. Companies only have an incentive to reduce energy consumption if the cost of the efficiency measures is less than the cost of energy wasted. For example, turning off all computers at night would save most companies money but they don't do that because the cost of doing so is greater than the savings. Increase the cost of electricity by a large enough increment and those economics would change. That is true... the energy savings would have to justify whatever costs when in to providing those savings. Still, with oil sitting at over $100/barrel, we've pretty much reached a point when reducing energy consumption is a driving force. (Perhaps back in the 80s when demand wasn't as high and prices were lower such an incentive might have been more convincing.) To be honest, I'm not sure why computers are left on... I've worked in several offices, and the only place where I've had to leave my computer on is where my computer was doubling as a server for other users.

Probably not. But then why should I? Ummm.... because this is a forum for debate, not a forum for posting political ads? Because doing so might actually convince people of the benefits of your opinion and get them to change their ideas? I think all I've asked if for civility. Respect the forum if nothing else. Dear Mr. Kettle.... I have to have a discussion about you concerning your current color. Signed... The Pot. This is a forum for debate.... your lack of willingness to actually do so shows you have little respect for the forum yourself. So you resort to insults. Well, explaining my points in a logical fashion, with supporting evidence, has gotten nothing useful from you now, has it? So why should it matter? Continued personalizing. Why do you do it? Already explained... at this point in the 'debate', you deserve no respect. So I will give you none. If you are actually able demonstrate a willingness to debate, I will respect you. The intensity is not likely to drop soon. Ummmm... you DO realize that under the Liberal plan there is no guarantee that emissions will decrease either, don't you? Taxing something does not necessarily mean that demand is eliminated (especially when you are dealing with some inflexible basics like home heating). Even if the Liberal's carbon plan manages to make companies more efficient (probably won't, since they've probably eliminated all inefficiencies), carbon emissions will probably end up rising eventually simply because increases in GDP and population demand it. If a company is already operating at peak efficiency, adding a tax won't make them more efficient. And if the company grows, they may even emit more carbon... unless of course you want to prevent them from growing. Is that your plan? Keep carbon emissions down by keeping people from working? Incremental changes at the moment. Helpful yes, but not the major advancement to lend itself to a solution. Some are starting to wonder if the energy expended and the emissions produced to get this oil are worth it. I'd prefer if the carbon emissions from this energy were taxed instead. There are several threads out there. Some started on the topic of climate change and like a lot of threads meandered into what the Greens were suggesting as a policy as well as the Tories and the NDP. At this point, anyone looking for them would have to dig. Well, excuse me if I don't have hours upon hours of free time on my hands to go digging through threads that have died months ago to find something that may or may not be worth commenting on. And yet one someone presents their thoughts here, people often ask for citation to back their claim. Citing someone else's opinion is not backing up your claim (unless of course that other person has actually gone through the effort to provide his original research.) The only think that you could prove by pointing out references to Drummond is that Drummond himself held those opinions (something not in dispute). You're still lacking the evidence about why such opinions are valid (keeping in mind the fact that experts are not always right). And that tax would just add to the bill thereby increasing the incentive for industry and consumers to reduce crabon use further. Once again, they have the incentive already.... they are already likely at their optimum energy usage. Trying to add a carbon tax is a little like trying to give someone consecutive life sentences, or giving someone the death penalty twice.... they already have the incentive to behave correctly with the first penalty. So, please explain... do you honestly think there are companies out there who, given a choice, would willfully use 10 gallons of gas to build a product when they could build it with only 5 gallons? Do you really think businesses and people are that stupid?

I've read through the plan, and I don't recall seeing anything in there about how the carbon tax plan would be administered. However, even if you don't have a separate administrative body, you will still need people working for the government to monitor compliance on an ongoing basis, update computer systems to account for the new tax, etc. And keep in mind that the Liberals suggested they would get the auditor general to oversee the program to ensure it is revenue neutral... those auditors won't be working for free; either we'll need more of them, or we'll end up with less oversight on other programs. Granted, I don't think its going to be a major cost (and that's why I didn't bother putting it as one of the flaws... like it needs any more of those)... but it will likely add to the number of people who work for the government.

You certainly meant something like this: "none of the Liberal fan boys on this thread seem to actually be able to think logically". You're right, indeed I said that. Of course, keep in mind that until that point, there had been few responses (at least of any usable content) to any of my arguments. Pretty much all we've been seeing for the past few pages is jdobbin repeating the same tired "my favorite economist said...". Never addressed any of the issues that I brought up. At least you got a good start... and if you're able to at least attempt to engage in debate (i.e. actually deal with issues I raise) I'll actually treat you with respect. Hey, at least it will be based on your own thoughts and knowledge, and hopefully you'll be willing and able to actually defend those views yourself. As long as you do 2 things: acknowledge data that might be presented which contradict your views (assuming they come from a reputable source), and deal with actual issues raised or questions posed. Like I said in an earlier posting... I can respect people who have different opinions than mine. What I can't respect is people who are unable or unwilling to put forward logical arguments.

While people are comparing benefits that people get in the U.S. or Canada, remember that simply looking at total cash received may be misleading. For example, you'll have different tax rates (including sales taxes), different costs of living, additional tax credits, etc. Not sure which country is most generous myself, I just know it would be far too confusing to try to figure it out. Its true... the Liberals made the right decision a few years ago to reform or pension plan, instead of having current benefits paid from current income, they went to bascially a large investment plan. The U.S. system is a little more risky... Bush tried to reform it a few years ago (by allowing people to invest part of their SS into certain investments), but his attempts failed. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/01/...ain670710.shtml http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/post.pdf

This is as clueless as it gets. You know, you might want to talk to jdobbin about how being insulting is bad. (Sarcasm intended). I am not denying that many companies would be happy to pollute in order to improve profits. But here's the problem with your argument... When you are dealing with toxic chemicals and other pollutants, there usually are technology methods that can capture the unwanted chemicals.... scrubbers can capture sulfur dioxide, heavy metal trace elements can be removed chemically, etc. (These often require 'extra' steps during processing, and companies are often forced to do these steps, because of the extra costs.) However, when you are dealing with CO2, there are currently no such steps capable of doing excess carbon removal. (Perhaps in the future carbon sequestration might be an option, but that's not viable right now, and may never be.) So, basically, there's a much more direct link between energy input->carbon emissions. Double the amount of oil used, you usually double green house gases. So to summarize: - Cutting fossil fuel usage helps both reduce costs (the goal of the company), and reduces emissions (the side benefit) - Cutting the release of other chemicals increases costs, and thus may require extra incentives for companies to comply. Problems with your argument... Oil is not cheap, nor will it ever really be cheap again. Coal may be temporarily cheaper, but it too will eventually rise in price. Fossil fuels are a limited resource. If you take your standard microeconomic supply and demand curve, and fix the supply, as demand increases (as it is, even if its just due to simple economic and population growth). We've long past hit the price point where alternatives (such as biogenetic solutions) will be given serious considerations. As for your claim that "Companies interested in improving efficiency will save."... what makes you think they aren't already efficient? Why exactly do you think a company would burn 10 gallons of gas to make a product when they could do so with 5 gallons? Do you really think there are CEOs who, when they get told "We can use less energy and increase profits" actually respond by saying "No, I think we earn enough as it is. We don't need any more profits". Of course, it's way above our heads to grasp that there won't be a single fix for all problems in the world. The plan addresses the problem of raising carbon emissions. Energy efficiency is another, probably as important, but different part of the successful strategy to combat climat change. I never said there would be a single fix to the problem. You made the claim that 'addresses the problem of carbon emissions'... but by ignoring fungibility it doesn't completely address the problem. Instead, it creates a disparity based only on geographic location, something that should be ignored. (Basically, its saying "We'll encourage efficiency in factory A, but factory B can pollute as much as it wants.) Addressing the problem would have been easy enough as adding a cost per kw/h to all electrical consumption or generation. I'm not going to address your phobias, for that there's medical help. But most certainly, it won't be neutral for every taxpayer. Taxpayers what use a lot of carbon heavy services will have to pay for it. ... Sure, regional differences could be an issue. Wait a second... first of all, you accuse me of having a 'phobia' over unfair distribution of tax relief... Then, you turn around and admit "regional differences could be an issue". Don't you think that's a bit, well, hypocritical? By admitting that regional differences could be an issue, you're admitting that my concerns are valid. Or are you of the opinion that even though some people are going to get unfairly screwed simply because of where they live or their social standing, they should just accept it? False dichotomy. Just because someone doesn't support the Liberal plan does not necessarily mean that they are in favor of doing nothing. In previous posts, I've given some things that the government should be doing... encouraging more nuclear plants, stricter regulations on fleet mileage, more investment in basic R&D into biotech, fusion, changes in zoning laws for municipalities, etc. Yes I've read the plan already. Yes, there are allowances for those on low income... if I remember, there are even child tax credits in there too... But this is not supposed to be a policy on "transfer of wealth from rich&middle class to poor". Its supposed to be an environmental policy. If you think such a transfer is a laudable goal, fine... we can debate it on that basis. But it should not be presented as an 'environmental' policy. Fungible. That would be a nice solution, only practically unworkable due to its complexity (e.g. auditing actual energy use for each individual consumer - how'd that happen? Wouldn't have to be that complex. For starters, target higher tax cuts at provinces like Ontario/Alberta who, because of their geography, have to use fossil fuels, give lower tax cuts to Quebec. If you want to be more radical, offer rebates (similar to the bus pass tax rebates of the Tories) based on utility bills, but with a cap... It wouldn't be a perfect solution, but we'd at least see fewer people benefiting not because of their energy efficiency but because of where they live.

He didn't say that. I never claimed he did. Try to follow this while I try to explain it once again..... I pointed out how Liberals here aren't actually able or competent enough to address the obvious flaws in the proposed Carbon tax scheme. (Kind of like the way you seem to be avoiding addressing the flaws). YOU were the one who made the claim that this would be talked about this this summer. YOU. Not Dion. YOU made the claim. I took the quote from one of YOUR posts. If you're pointing out that Dion and the rest of the Liberals don't think there are flaws, then your suggestion that such flaws would have been discussed is, well, deceptive, a cop out. Please.... do me a favour... Just admit, you have no willingness or ability to actually address the actual flaws in the Liberal plan. That will save me a bunch of time, m'kay? That's probably a product of partisanship. Don't think I said anything like that. Actually, that is pretty much what you said. You keep bringing up the tory plan (or at least what you THINK the tory plan is), instead of talking about the Liberal plan. Here's a question... can you actually go one post in this thread without either a: complaining about the tories, or B: relying on an expert? There's that right wing penchant for insults and nastiness. Once again, I'm not right wing. May be nasty though. But here's the thing... do you think someone who is as evasive as you have been, who has shown no interest in doing anything other than saying "tories are bad... my expert is a god, etc." deserves any better? You want me to treat you with respect? Try actually debating. At the time when I debunked him, you made no effort to put in any sort of counter claim. You rely on "experts", you ignore any and all counter evidence when presented. You may disagree that he's been debunked, but I've seen nothing to suggest my analysis is wrong. Really poor debating on your part, wouldn't you say? Once again... Drummond is not posting here. You are. Please try using your own logical an analytical abilities. Simply saying "Drummond said..." is of no use, because we do not have the ability to question him. And if you're not able to actually use your own analysis abilities, then please let me know. I think you asked for the Shell reference. Yes I did. That's because I know people often take quotes out of context. But you forget the other issue.... shell said that a carbon tax is necessary in order to reduce emissions. Emissions have gone down over the past several years without a carbon tax. Their 'claim' is debunked by the facts. Please explain why. I think you indicated that companies who decreased their emissions by reducing their energy costs would see profits rise. Yes, I was referring to energy usage. sequestrian was an issue which is irrelevant to this discussion. Yes, carbon emissions could rise when production rises. It might also rise as populations increase, as GDP increases, etc. Companies will be as efficient as possible, with or without the carbon tax. The title of the thread contains "carbon tax plan". Therefore, its reasonable to assume that this thread is going to discuss the carbon tax plan. If you are referring to some other bill or legislation that was passed, then you should state that. I'm not a mind reader. You tendency to insults aside, I tend not to insult people I respect, even if I disagree with them. Your lack of ability to deal with flaws without resorting to "tories are bad, my economist is a god..." gives me no reason to respect you. Yet you've given pretty much no actual reason for this disagreement. This is supposedly a forum for debate. If you are unwilling to actually state real logical reasons for your disagreement please let me know. What is that? Amazing. Its a real logical argument on your side. Hurray! Let me mark that down on my calendar. Think you can keep doing that? Ok, now that that's out of the way... let me point out a few things... - Yes, emissions are way over 1990 levels... however, in that time, we have also seen: A: growth in our economy, B: growth in our population, and C: relatively cheap energy prices for much of that time. Now, we won't be seeing cheap energy again for a long long time... As for factor A and B, the only way you could reduce the impact of those factors is to get rid of people, or cut back on our economy. I could also point out certain technical improvements that didn't come into play until recently: cf bulbs, improved efficiency of certain motors/generators, new industrial processes, etc. There is only a finite supply of oil. Things like tarsands are likely to be used anyways, so the energy used in its extraction is going to be used anyways. Really? The only thread I remember seeing was the one about their ads against the Liberal plan. But that thread seemed to start more of a "bash the tories" thread, and seemed rather uninteresting. Perhaps you can point me to where one such thread is. Again, that's called Proof by Authority. For those of us who are skeptics, we don't exactly consider those as "evidence". Hey, maybe you can get him to start posting here and I can ask him all these questions directly. First of all... keep in mind that part of his paper points out how if they don't get agreement, it will substantially drive up the costs. Secondly, I'm not claiming I support or believe him... I was simply using that to show how, if you're going to rely on "experts", you should be aware that not all "experts" are going to support your opinion. And ending up simply repeating "my expert said this... " "mine said that..." does nobody any good. And once again, we have it. Its called the gas bill. And the electricity bill. Still waiting to hear why a company wouldn't already have cut down all possible power expenditures without the carbon tax, but will once a carbon tax is implemented.

Well, since none of the Liberal fan boys on this thread seem to actually be able to think logically, I thought I'd summarize all the problems with the Liberal plan. Granted, its stuff we've seen before, and I'm sure people like jdobbin will stick their fingers in their ears and go "La la la...", but the flaws in the Liberal plan should be repeated... Flaw 1: Its unnecessary Companies (and people) already have have an incentive to reduce costs. Its called greed. Companies LIKE to earn profits. Gives their shareholders dividends, and executives nice big fat bonuses. Even without a carbon tax, companies will still try to reduce their energy usage as a way to cut costs. (Individual consumers tend to do the same). Here's the thing: Not one stinking liberal has ever managed to give one tiny little reason why that isn't a flaw. All they do is say "Oh, but someone else said..." Pretty pathetic "proof" if you ask me, especially when actual numbers show otherwise. Flaw 2: It ignores the concept of "fungible" According to the plan, only fossil fuel usage will be taxed. (Quebec, in large part, gets a free ride over its massive hydroelectric resources.) But here's the thing... electricity is a fungible commodity... your coffee maker is just as happy using a kw/h from a coal-fired plant as it is from a hydroelectric plant. Because hydro usage won't be taxed, your average Quebec can waste as much power as they want without being affected by the 'penalty'. But here's the problem... if a unit of power is wasted in Quebec (even if its from a 'clean' source), that means power must be generated elsewhere via fossil fuels (in areas of the country that aren't as blessed with hydroelectric resources). If you think that taxing energy consumption is beneficial (its not, but if you support the Liberal plan you probably do), then you should support taxing all electrical consumption, as long as any power is generated anywhere in the North American grid system via fossil fuels. Flaw 3: The claims of revenue neutrality are suspect Of course, with this flaw, you always have the basic argument "politicians are liars". The Liberals suggest that perhaps the auditor general could monitor things. But the auditor general would have no real authority to change tax rates should the plan not really be revenue neutral. So what is the point? Furthermore, if this plan does end up bringing in more money than planned, the Liberals could always increase spending, and claim "its revenue neutral... we're just giving the money back to Canadians by building a new Canoe Museum and setting up a new sponsorship program in Quebec". But here's the bigger problem.... even if it is neutral for the government, it does not mean that it will be neutral for each and every taxpayer. Some taxpayers will end up paying more, even if they do their best to cut energy usage, while other taxpayers will benefit even if their energy usage goes up. For example, in my case, I live in Ontario... I will end up paying more for my electricity, for my heat, and for products that use energy in their production. I have already taken steps to reduce my costs... I use a timed thermostat, keep the temperature low in the winter, use cf bulbs... but because of my income I'm not going to see much benefit from personal tax cuts. Now, consider someone from Quebec... because they get their electricity from hydroelectric projects, they won't be as effected by the carbon tax; however, they will still benefit from income tax cuts (even if they do nothing to cut their energy usage). They can take their tax savings and use it to keep their El Camino idling in their driveway 24/7. So, why should I support a tax plan that will benefit people who do nothing to help the environment, yet punish people who've already done all they can? If you want me to support the carbon tax plan, get them to target income tax cuts based on people's current usage, so that those people who are already doing all they can to reduce energy will at least see some benefit. Flaw 4: It ignores discretionary vs. compulsory usage There are people who do things that are wasteful... they drive big cars when they could walk, they live a lifestyle (e.g. out of the city, when they have to unnecessarily commute) that contributes to unnecessary carbon emissions. People could (in theory) cut back on such expenditures. On the other hand, there are also energy usage which is inflexible... you need to keep your house heated to a certain minimum temperature, you need to have lights on in the evening. If you're going to impose a tax to discourage usage, you should be targeting such taxes at people who are using energy unnecessarily, as opposed to those consuming only energy that would truly be deemed necessary. Why should a single mom have to pay the same carbon tax rate to heat up a body of baby formula that some rich guy pays to drive his SUV to work? The Liberal plan makes no such distinction... people who have already use the minimum they could possibly use will still end up paying a carbon tax, while people who do truly waist gas don't pay any sort of extra penalty for their excesses.

You're right, we don't have a verdict right now... Hopefully it will be resolved soon. However, keep in mind that they've really only been around for a few decades, and for the most part have only recently begun to get noticed. There may not be many skeletons in their closet simply because the closet isn't that old. So, while we don't have a 'guilty verdict' yet, we're stuck looking at what little evidence we do have, and for better or worse, it points in the direction of 'guilty'. Did Mcleans call for immediate harm against muslims? Did they tell people to beat them up, or burn down their houses? Unless they did, I do think it fits into the realm of 'hurt feelings'. Well, there is a difference here... To the best of my knowledge, Mcleans did not publish anything that wasn't actually factual (yes, they were publishing stuff that was partly based on opinion, but nothing they posted was actually inaccurate). Zundel is a holocaust denier, as such he is presenting inaccurate data as 'facts'. There is also a difference in degrees... the Styen article was mostly a discussion about birth rates and the effect on society. Nothing in that (when taken as a whole) is really that 'dangerious'. Keegstra was actually requiring his students to reproduce his views. Yes, lower court decisions do get overturned. But then, it still brings up the question about why we need human rights commissions in the first place. After all, going through any legal proceeding (whether it be a real court or human rights commission) can be expensive... you may need legal representation, you may need to take time off work, etc. Why add yet another 'layer' to the legal system where a person will have to defend themselves? Add to that the fact that human rights commissions do not have the same 'filters' that the court system has. Usually, cases that appear in front of a real judge have been investigated by the police for merit, and the crown prosecutor at least thinks there's a case. With a human rights commission, pretty much anyone can launch their own case.

Tell me, is that any worse than your average Liberal or NDPer, claiming that the conservatives don't care about the poor or about the environment, just because they don't subscribe to the same set of policies? Just out of curiosity, what exactly is your definition of a "cowboy"? Keep in mind that while California is one of the more liberal-oriented states, they still are in the U.S., and as such they'd probably still end up being far to the political right of B.C. in many ways (remember, this is the state that elected Arnold.) And remember, BC voters have elected relatively right-wing parties in the past. And in the last federal election, the conservatives did win more ridings than both the Liberals and the NDP. If BC were so different from conservative-dominated Alberta, why have not the green party or NDP decimated the opposition?

Wait a second here.... When I originally claimed that 'Liberals' here were not interested in acknowledging or addressing flaws, you claimed that (and I quote) "Seems to me that Dion will be talking about this policy all summer including areas that might have some flaws." Now you say that Dion didn't say the tax itself was flawed. Guess what? It was the carbon tax itself I was pointing out the flaws with!!! Why in satan's green earth would you waste time suggesting that he would be talking about the policy but with no possibility he'd be dealing with flaws? (Is it just another way for you to avoid dealing with the serious inadequacies in his plan, by trying to divert attention) Intensity based emissions seems to be the Tory fallback on not meeting emissions caps. Ah, there we go... once again, rather than deal with serious flaws in your understanding of reality, you decide to simply play "attack the conservatives"... By your argument, we should worship Dion if he ever comes up with a policy for eating kittens, just in case Harper strangles puppies... without ever considering the thought that perhaps both policies might just be wrong. Well, good for him. Do you want a cookie? Except for 2 possible little details: Drummond does not post here, YOU do. It may be his opinion that its a good idea, but I cannot challenge him. I can however, challenge you. Are you so intellectually lazy that you cannot actually do your own research without having opinions spoon fed to you? And you've already mentioned Drummond, and I've already dealt with him in a previous post. Go back and read the previous posts. You'll see where I've at least partially debunked his claims in this area. Once again, Shell executives do not post here, you do. I cannot debate people who don't post here. Why are you bothering to post at all if you can't actually look at the base facts without resorting to "My favorite expert said...." Well, once again, I am not responsible, nor do I care what the Tory plan is at this point. Secondly, remember it was YOU who mentioned the issue the first time in this thread, where you were talking about sequestration, and how it wasn't going to increase profits. If you didn't think it was part of the Liberal plan, why did you even bring it up? The present excise tax on gas becomes a carbon tax instead. Gas was already taxed more heavily than other carbon products. Once again, more irrelevancies. Yes, the excise tax becomes a carbon tax... but it doesn't change. Total tax does not go up, nor does it go down. To the consumer, the status quo will be maintained. Therefore the dynamics do not change. People will not be buying more or less gas because of changes in the tax rate. . That's is certainly obvious from your replies. You want my respect? You want the chance to change my opinion? (Hey, it does happen). Then actually deal with the actual criticisms I pointed out. Not once in your last post have you done that... instead, you have A: repeating stuff that's already been debunked, B: resorted to "Tories are bad", C: resorted misleading or irrelevanted statements in an attempt to hide the fact that your opinions are based on partisanship rather than facts. Lets go back to square one... without talking about how evil the tory policies are, and without trying to get your favorite economist elected pope, explain why, while we don't have a carbon tax, that carbon emissions have been decreasing in Canada for the past few years (despite the fact that GDP has increased). And after you're done with that, please explain why a company would choose to use more energy than it needs to, when cutting fossil fuel usage would help both increase profits AND cut down carbon emissions. And please do so without resorting to "Tories are bad", or "My favorite economist said...". Read the title of the thread... its "Dion's Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax plan. Nothing in there about "Tory carbon plan" or even "NDP carbon plan". Thus, you'd expect people to talk about the Liberal plan here. If someone starts a "Tory's carbon plan" thread, I might post there. Might even have some of my own criticisms. Reality speaking here.... They haven't been going up. At least not in the past couple of years. I've posted a link to Statscan that shows just that happening. Here's a suggestion... stop trying to suck up to Drummond et al, and actually look at the data. Believe it or not, there are people who actually manage to think on their own. Of course, seeing as how you seem to worship experts, consider this: Yale University economist William Nordhaus (who, by the way does believe in global warming, and considers it a serious threat) has written a paper pointing out significant flaws in all the carbon emission plans in western economies (including the Liberal carbon tax)... namely, while they may cause short term reductions, ultimately we end up with the same total emissions at the end of the century. Now, keep in mind that that's an economist from Yale university, not some oil industry executive. You'd figure people from Yale have a pretty good handle on what they're doing. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/Business

Impressive little car, but you need to keep a few things in mind: - Its quite possible that some of the technology in the car wasn't available until recently. (Things like Battery technology have improved over the past few years, as have new lightweight composites) - Those electric cars may not necessarily be saving us much energy. The electricity that initially powers it may be coming from fossil-fuel power plants. (They did give a rating of 80mpg... however, I'm not sure if that's with just the internal engine powering doing the recharge, or if it also includes whatever initial charge the car had.) - Would you really be in favour of removing some of the safety requirements to allow cars to be lighter/smaller? (Even if you mandated all new cars to be similarly small, there will still be an adjustment period when small cars have to exist with current large cars). How many deaths would you find acceptable? - Electric cars have their own unique problems... the batteries often contain some very nasty chemicals that have to be disposed of very carefully Still, its a neat car, and frankly, I'd love to see more of these sorts of things on the road.

Seems to me that Dion will be talking about this policy all summer including areas that might have some flaws. Or did you not read that? First of all, I was referring specifically to the Liberals (or their supporters) on this board, those that support the Liberal plan (for example, YOU). I don't have the ability to talk to Dion or any of the top liberals directly... I do have the ability to question you directly though. Secondly, let me get this straight... is Dion himself acknowleging that there may be flaws in the plan? Guess I missed that when I actually read the green plan itself (and yes, I did actually read it right from the Liberal web site, not some right-wing interpretation of it). But if the Liberal party itself is saying its flawed, then why do you seem to be so eager to praise their plan when these flaws are presented? After all, Dion himself may say "You know, this was a bad idea". And I'm talking about seller (ie: the producers) reducing their emissions during production. Emissions during the production of fossil fuels makes up a very small part of our emissions (as of 2006, only about 9%.) Its only about 1/3 of that of emissions from transportation (cars/trucks/etc.) And while emissions from the production process have risen in the past 2 decades, so has production (simply we're selling more of the material). In the same time frame, our exports of crude oil and other products have risen over 100%. You create/sell more of a product, you may end up emitting more, even if your overall efficiency is improved. Ultimately, worrying about emissions during production is a very tiny part of the problem. It was explained to you that a carbon tax is not necessary because industries already have an incentive to cut energy consumption to avoid naturally high energy bills, even without such a carbon tax. If you really think that there is some energy consuming company who doesn't like increasing its profits, please point them out. I know exactly what you are trying to do... by trying to talk about 'sellers liking high prices', you're trying to divert attention so you won't have to acknowledge that particular flaw in the Liberal program... that its unnecessary. First of all, you haven't provided a reference. Some people actually like to back up their claims with, you know, evidence. Secondly, if that's what Shell is claiming, they've already been proven wrong. As I've already stated, carbon emissions have been going down for a couple of years. Yet there is no carbon tax. (And, our GDP has increased in that time, so you can't blame the emission cuts on economic downturns). So,, Shell's predictions are already proven wrong by actual facts. And yet that is the policy that is being promoted. Promoted by who? You were the one that brought up sequestration when I pointed out that cutting energy costs will both improve profits and reduce emissions. Is bringing up Sequestration just another in your long line of ways of avoiding that fact that reducing energy usage BOTH reduces profits AND reduces emissions? I disagree. The difference is, my claims are actually based on actual facts and evidence... you know, like all the links I've posted in this thread since the start. Yours seem to be based on... what, partisanship and wishful thinking? Does rather confuse me how you can disagree, since the Liberal plan doesn't change the price of gas... how exactly can not changing the price of gas actually change the dynamics? Not difficult? I think that has to be an understatement. It will not be an easy policy to sell at all. Really? You're the one that seems to be playing up all the Liberal friendly polls that deal with the environment. First of all, why is it necessary to have a 'superior' program in order to point out the worthless flaws in the Liberal plan? Secondly, the fact that parties don't reveal all the details of their intentions is nothing new. I could point out how Dion has criticized the Conservatives for their GST cuts, but last time I heard he hasn't said whether he'd go back and increase the GST. What makes you think I'm personalizing? I simply don't respect you. And this has nothing to do with your viewpoint. My lack of respect has more to do with your inability to deal with actual points raised in a clear and honest fashion, without resorting to "Tories are bad", or making claims with no evidence, or doing whatever you need to avoid the issue. In the past I've had very good, long debates with people I've disagreed with... I'd present my evidence, they'd present theirs. But in many of those cases, I've ended up respecting the people; they acknowledge my points, present real evidence countering my claims, etc. In the end I may disagree with them, but I can at least see where their opinions come from (and hey, I may have ended up learning something.) With you, not so much... how often have you simply resorted to talking about Harper (even though its specifically the Liberal plan)? How often have you avoided dealing with the fact that companies are reducing their carbon emissions already (as shown both in evidence and in theory), by coming up with some bogus claim without providing evidence? Yet, for some strange reason I keep continuing...

They may come. However, I'm of the opinion that 'those who make the claims are responsible for providing evidence'. Granted, he may or may not accept the evidence, but its still a good idea to provide it. And if they do end up making counter claims without their own supporting evidence, then at least you can say you're on the moral high ground. First of all, I'm not exactly 'right wing' myself... I've got rather libertarian views (although currently the conservatives are the party that I feel best represent those views, that may not always be the case.) Secondly, its unfortunate but lets face it, there are plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum that have let blind partisanship cloud their judgement. Frankly, I'd rather have a good online debate with someone who's got a well defined viewpoint and is able to defend it with integrity than deal with someone who may share the same viewpoint as me but does so through deception, lies, etc.

You know, it wouldn't kill you to post a link to a reliable source for this. I'm not the original poster, but I'll take a stab at this: A complaint to police alleges that federal human-rights investigators used an unwitting woman's wireless Internet connection to log on to white supremacist websites and make postings to chat groups. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/04...5186701-cp.html The state does no such thing. The basis of the Maclean's complaint was that the article would expose Muslims to hatred and contempt, not hurt feelings. Again, I'm not the original poster, but please note that he put the phrase 'hurt feelings' within quotes. To me, that indicates that he's not suggesting that only feelings were involved, but that there was no actual direct threats presented in the Maclean's article that would result in physical harm... hatred and contempt, while unfortunate (especially if the reasons are unfounded), are still along the same lines as 'hurt feelings'. Even if the phrase 'hurt feelings' is slightly inaccurate, its a useful shorthand. Such as? If you go to the web site of the BC Human rights tribunal, you can find all sorts of decisions that were appealed to the real court system, and eventually overturned. (Not all such appeals were successful, but a fair number were.) The fact that you get these overturned decisions suggests that these tribunals are not following the rules that we would expect from our justice system. http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/judicial_...f_decisions.htm For example:, in http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/06/...006BCSC1201.htm the judge ruled: In my view, the discretion of the Tribunal, in the instant case, was exercised arbitrarily in the sense that it was not based on reasoned argument. It was not based on reasoned argument because the Tribunal did not hear any argument at all (from either side) on the factors which formed the basis for the exercise of its discretion Or from: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/07/...007bcsc1767.htm Thus I conclude the tribunal member committed an error of law in finding arguable relevance to the information sought at this stage of the process... These are just a couple of examples (there are a few more in the list of appeals I referred to earlier), but they show that at least the BC human rights tribunals aren't basing their decisions on the same rules of evidence that we would expect a court to use.