Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

[stevoh]

Not everyone can afford to buy a new furnace (roughly $4,500 installed), and new high efficiency hotwater box ($3500-$4000 installed), and high efficiency appliances washer dryer fridge, and stove ($5000 to $10,000).

How many people can afford all of this? Not to mention these will all be needed to be replaced before the you've saved enough in energy savings to pay for them. YOu might be lucky if the savings pay for the debt servicing that would be required. Welcome to the Green Shaft Tax grab.

You are living in a dream world, can you afford $20,000 tomorrow to save a few pennies in taxes? You can bet the the liberals know that most middle class Canadians won't be able to afford to upgrade and will be stuck paying the tax. A tax that will increase as energy prices do.

This will do nothing but drive up inflation and push more lower middle class families into poverty.

This tax was not devised to save the planet it was devised to provide a slush fund for a Dion/liberal government. Talk about your smoke and mirrors.

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

[Alta4ever]

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

I suggest you talk to a plumber and Hvac specialist to find out how much these things really cost retrofitted into your home.

If you want high efficiency you pay for it. A Bosh washer dry set around 2500-3000, a high efficiency fridge is around $2000, not to mention the stove another $$800-$2000, a freezer is $500-$1000.

You must not be buyng the top of the line high efficiency appicances, just the mid range. I just went through all of this after doing a lot of shopping around and research.

Most middle class families won't beable to afford this or service the debt for it, they will be stuck paying more taxes getting the Green Shaft from Dion.

[stevoh]

I suggest you talk to a plumber and Hvac specialist to find out how much these things really cost retrofitted into your home.

If you want high efficiency you pay for it. A Bosh washer dry set around 2500-3000, a high efficiency fridge is around $2000, not to mention the stove another $$800-$2000, a freezer is $500-$1000.

You must not be buyng the top of the line high efficiency appicances, just the mid range. I just went through all of this after doing a lot of shopping around and research.

Most middle class families won't beable to afford this or service the debt for it, they will be stuck paying more taxes getting the Green Shaft from Dion.

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.

[stevoh]

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.

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.

[segnosaur]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[stevoh]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[madmax]

Primarily, this is an income redistribution plan designed to take money away from the middle class and give it to the poor.

It does neither. This is a great way to market the failure of the policy to the CPC type of voter. It is wealth redistribution, and those higher up the food chain are getting a break, and the burden is falling on the middle class and below. The tax will be used to lower the burden of the well off. That said, they LPC claim that this revenue neutral program will be used to fund all sorts of programs that they failed to implement with the revenues generated from the GST. This is because of the tax cuts of the 90s.

It is a shaft, and there is good reason to doubt everything put forth. But just as easily as this could be the cureall to end all poverty, it could well be the miracle of tax reduction for the wealthy.

But anyone can realize the math doesn't work. Nor does the plan.

And the fact that it does nothing for the environment, as demonstrated earlier in this thread, means that this Green Shift has nothing "Green" about it.

I find it interesting to see the debate strictly about the tax, and who benefits and who loses.

It is a perfect LPC policy as it sounds nice and does nothing.

Perhaps there are many well off segments who will benefit greatly from the income tax cut, and perhaps there will be more hospitals built, nurseries and world peace.

All from the miracle of a tax shift.

And pigs can fly.

[Wilber]

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.

You picked a lousy example, there is no such thing as an energy star rated clothes drier because they are just electric heaters with a fan and there is little difference in their efficiency, only their capacity. However there can be a big difference in the efficiency of washing machines.

[Riverwind]

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.

Which is why the revenue neutral claim is deceptive.

Before Tax: Capital Cost: A, Energy Cost B, Taxes: C

After Tax: Capital Cost: A+X, Energy Cost B+Y, Taxes C-Z

It is only revenue neutral if X+Y = Z

People who spend the money on X will emit less carbon but the had to spend the money on capital so they are further behind than they would have been before the tax.

[stevoh]

Which is why the revenue neutral claim is deceptive.

Before Tax: Capital Cost: A, Energy Cost B, Taxes: C

After Tax: Capital Cost: A+X, Energy Cost B+Y, Taxes C-Z

It is only revenue neutral if X+Y = Z

People who spend the money on X will emit less carbon but the had to spend the money on capital so they are further behind than they would have been before the tax.

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?)

[stevoh]

You picked a lousy example, there is no such thing as an energy star rated clothes drier because they are just electric heaters with a fan and there is little difference in their efficiency, only their capacity. However there can be a big difference in the efficiency of washing machines.

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.

[Riverwind]

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.

There is no guarantee that Y will go down enough to make up Z + X which would mean they are always end up losing.

A concrete example:

Y = $500/month; Z = -$300/month (net $200/month loss because of the tax).

X = $200/month over lifetime of asset but Y drops to $250/month (50% efficiency improvement).

X+Y = $450 which means you are still $150/month worse off than you were before the tax.

If you want less abstract numbers:

Cost of new vehicle: $4000/year for 10 years (including interest)

Gas consumption goes down by 10L/100km (SUV to Prius) @ 20000 km/year @ $1.50/liter = $3000/year

A tax reduction of $1000/year would allow you to break even on the vehicle purchase if gas was the only carbon tax you paid. However, increases in electricity, food and heat will push you even further behind. The only people who will be further ahead will be poor people who are already living a fairly low carbon lifestyle.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Riverwind

[Wilber]

Its only a lousy example because it doesn't support your theory.

I didn't expound a theory. It was a lousy example because there is no such thing as an Energy Star clothes drier.

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.

Perhaps you should have read some of the customer reviews of the cheap one. True, you don't have to buy the fanciest stainless machine to get something that works well but not paying for good quality is usually false economy if it is for something that you use a lot. Once you get into more efficient machines, you end up spending more for each further increase in efficiency.

[jbg]

Oh look here is the same comment again from another liberal.

Nothing but another tax for wealth transfer programs. Hopefully may will stop drinking the liberal kool-aid and see this cash grab for what it is.

Beacon Herald Article (link)

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion unveiled his Green Shift platform recently which calls for a carbon tax. When asked if an election can be won or lost on one issue, Mr. Rae said the plan makes the tax system more progressive and could reduce poverty by 30 per cent and child poverty by 50 per cent with a child tax credit.

This, like Kyoto or the NEP, is a method of government stealing from its people to aggrandize itself.

[Wilber]

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion unveiled his Green Shift platform recently which calls for a carbon tax. When asked if an election can be won or lost on one issue, Mr. Rae said the plan makes the tax system more progressive and could reduce poverty by 30 per cent and child poverty by 50 per cent with a child tax credit.

There's the rub. All this spending to "eliminate poverty" is going to take a ton of money. If the "carbon tax" does actually make people reduce their consumption of fossil fuels, the money generated by this tax will steadily decrease inhibiting their ability to "eliminate poverty" rendering the "revenue neutral" claim to the bin of political hypocrisy because the money will still have to come from somewhere. Which means the government will still depend on carbon consumption to fund these programs or raise the money somewhere else. Green Shift my backside unless you are just referring to the colour of our old dollar bills.

[jbg]

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.

Is someone going to give the "beer and popcorn" set the money to replace their furnact every five years?

[jbg]

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.

Unless the higher energy prices have driven the price of the more efficient new furnace higher.

[segnosaur]

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.

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.)

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.

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

Edited July 21, 2008 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

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

Again, a very bad example...

The more expensive washer has a different finish (for some reason, appliances with a stainless steel finish are more expensive), has electronic controls, and is by a company that many believe produces more reliable products.

As for capacity, it certainly is important. As I pointed out in another post, efficiency ratings are based on handling a standard sized load... on a large washer, your kind of 'wasting' its capacity. Using a larger capacity washer is more energy efficient in the long run, its just that there's no guarantee that a person would save enough energy to justify the added expense before the machine would need to be replaced.

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.

While you are right, you're also irrelevant. If people want brand X, with a certain capacity and/or set of features, getting an energy efficient version of that item is almost always going to cost more than a less efficient version.

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.

No, you can't. Or at least not very often, if you actually care about the actual features of the appliance you're buying.

[stevoh]

I didn't expound a theory. It was a lousy example because there is no such thing as an Energy Star clothes drier.

Perhaps you should have read some of the customer reviews of the cheap one. True, you don't have to buy the fanciest stainless machine to get something that works well but not paying for good quality is usually false economy if it is for something that you use a lot. Once you get into more efficient machines, you end up spending more for each further increase in efficiency.

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

[stevoh]

Again, a very bad example...

The more expensive washer has a different finish (for some reason, appliances with a stainless steel finish are more expensive), has electronic controls, and is by a company that many believe produces more reliable products.

As for capacity, it certainly is important. As I pointed out in another post, efficiency ratings are based on handling a standard sized load... on a large washer, your kind of 'wasting' its capacity. Using a larger capacity washer is more energy efficient in the long run, its just that there's no guarantee that a person would save enough energy to justify the added expense before the machine would need to be replaced.

While you are right, you're also irrelevant. If people want brand X, with a certain capacity and/or set of features, getting an energy efficient version of that item is almost always going to cost more than a less efficient version.

No, you can't. Or at least not very often, if you actually care about the actual features of the appliance you're buying.

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.

[segnosaur]

Price is based more on brand and features than efficiency.

First of all, I've already demonstrated how your claims of efficiency on lower cost items is flawed. (Basically, you're misusing the quoted energy usage.)

Secondly, while brand names do factor into prices, brand is also related to quality. Buying a cheaper (but possibly more efficient) brand won't be any more efficient in the long run if the item must be replaced sooner.

You can get a highly efficient good machine at mid price levels.

But the most efficient versions will usually cost more. About the only way that you can find versions that are cheaper and more energy efficient is by giving up features that you may actually need, or by buying a version thats will require replacement earlier than expected.

Your argument is like saying my Honda Civic is better at hauling fright as a Mac Truck because it happens to use less gas, without considering that usually a Mac Truck is needed because of its extra capacity.

[stevoh]

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.)

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.

[stevoh]

First of all, I've already demonstrated how your claims of efficiency on lower cost items is flawed. (Basically, you're misusing the quoted energy usage.)

Secondly, while brand names do factor into prices, brand is also related to quality. Buying a cheaper (but possibly more efficient) brand won't be any more efficient in the long run if the item must be replaced sooner.

But the most efficient versions will usually cost more. About the only way that you can find versions that are cheaper and more energy efficient is by giving up features that you may actually need, or by buying a version thats will require replacement earlier than expected.

Your argument is like saying my Honda Civic is better at hauling fright as a Mac Truck because it happens to use less gas, without considering that usually a Mac Truck is needed because of its extra capacity.

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.

[segnosaur]

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.

What a retarded statement... really, it is.

First of all, I notice that you've totally ignored the fact that your claims of 'efficiency' are basically due to you misusing energy use statistics. I suggest you actually spend some time researching the links I provided. Having a lower kwh/yr rating does NOT mean an item is more efficient in real life usage. Even the government admits that. Educate yourself.

Secondly, while your mid range washer may have 'features'... they may not have the features you require. Compare apples to apples, not apples to turds. Having a really energy efficient washer is not going to be of any benefit if it's not big enough to wash the clothes that I have.

Edited July 21, 2008 by segnosaur