Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

[Wild Bill]

Its true Wild Bill, we as individuals do not have much control over what energy sources our houses use, its been determined on a higher level based on costs, availability of resources, and many other considerations. These rising energy costs lately have made a difference to all of us, this year I am having a "staycation" on my time off because gas and other costs related to gas prices are too high. That is the first point, those energy costs are rising with or without a tax from Dion, we are going to have to change how we use these resources regardless of whether the tax is imposed.

But you can do lots to reduce your energy consumption.

Please, I'm a techie. I make my living servicing electronics. I've worked in CSA certified labs that tested construction methods and materials.

I did all those things you mentioned that I either could do or could afford years ago, just to try to get my utilities bills lower.

Got any other ideas?

To be fair, NO government plan can ever be beneficial to everybody. The question for Dion is just what percentage of the population will perceive a gain, loss, or "revenue neutral".

I'm sorry, but the more I hear about Dion's NewGST the more I believe that he's just another academic who has never lived in the "real world". I wouldn't be surprised if he needs someone to read his email.

[Wilber]

If my choices are:

1. Take twenty give back 10 (government plan)

2. Take twenty and give back none (energy sector)

I choose 1.

The energy sector takes its twenty regardless of what the government does. The government wants to take twenty more and give you back ten which means you are now out thirty instead of twenty. Do you have trouble with arithmetic?

[peter_puck]

I have Dalton McGuinty and his Liberals running my province and its sources of electricity. So far all he's done is stick a "smart meter" on my house, which I am being charged for as a long term extra payment on my bill. This means that when his staggered electricity rates kick in this winter I have to decide if after starting my washing machine before I go to bed if I should set my alarm to get up in the middle of the night to put the clothes in my dryer or if I should leave them in the machine and dry them the following night.

Now, just exactly how do I do what you are suggesting? How would I do it fast enough to avoid being penalized by the NewGST from Dion?

Specific solutions would be appreciated.

You can buy timmers for a few bucks. Hook up your dryer/washer/dishwasher etc to these and you would save a lot on your electricity. You use much cheaper/cleaner power. What is wrong with that ?

Once these meters are in place, people will invent other devices to save power. Many commerical buildings have airconditioners that run at night and save the cold in the form of ice for daytime hours. They do this because they already have smart meters. This idea has not appeared in people's homes because their is no incentive.

If I had electric heat, I could use it to head a barrel of water at night, then the barrel could heat the house in the daytime. This would be easy to do (its already done in greenhouses).

You could get a hot water heater to drive up the temperature a few degrees at night so it does not have to click on in the daytime. Your freezer could drop the temperature a couple degrees just before the rates change.

Dehumidifiers could run at night.

You have a market based approach where people pay for the power they actually use. You prevent millions of dollars from leaving the province. You reduce the cost of peak power for companies (since less of it is used). This will make business more competitive. Your power is much cleaner (peak power is usually gas or col - off peak is nuclear or hydro)

What is there not to like ?

[Riverwind]

If I had electric heat, I could use it to head a barrel of water at night, then the barrel could heat the house in the daytime. This would be easy to do (its already done in greenhouses).

....

What is there not to like ?

These approaches sound clever but you end up using more energy than you would otherwise because converting energy to different forms results in large losses. This would not make a difference if optimizing the output of the existing pwoer stations was the only objective, however, these approaches will end up burning more fuel and emitting more CO2.

[jbg]

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

Hasn't that factor increased quite a bit on its lonesome this past year?

[Wilber]

If I had electric heat, I could use it to head a barrel of water at night, then the barrel could heat the house in the daytime. This would be easy to do (its already done in greenhouses).

You could get a hot water heater to drive up the temperature a few degrees at night so it does not have to click on in the daytime. Your freezer could drop the temperature a couple degrees just before the rates change.

Dehumidifiers could run at night.

Riverwind is right, it may be cheaper but what you are really doing is consuming energy at times when you don't need it, thereby increasing energy losses, your consumption and emissions.

[Bryan]

How does a timer on your dryer save you any money? The clothes need to be dried, it takes as long as it takes, and the dryer automatically shuts off when the clothes are dry (even if there is more time left). How does delaying when the cycle starts make any difference to the energy consumption?

[Wilber]

How does a timer on your dryer save you any money? The clothes need to be dried, it takes as long as it takes, and the dryer automatically shuts off when the clothes are dry (even if there is more time left). How does delaying when the cycle starts make any difference to the energy consumption?

I think he means that by drying his clothes at off peak times when energy is cheaper, he will save money. Of course he will still use the same amount of energy, which will produce the same amount of emissions.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Wilber

[segnosaur]

I think he means that by drying his clothes at off peak times when energy is cheaper, he will save money. Of course he will still use the same amount of energy, which will produce the same amount of emissions.

Actually, that may not be true...

You see, nuclear reactors take a long time to start up and shut down. Therefore, they are usually left to run at full power all the time (including night). For this reason, they are used to handle 'base load'. On the other hand, gas-fired plants can greatly vary output, depending on the circumstances, so they are used during the middle of the day when demands are highest.

As a result, any electricity you use in the middle of the day may cause more carbon emissions than electricity you use at night.

Note however that I said it may cause more carbon emissions... after all, coal is also used in part to handle base load, whereas hydroelectric may handle both base load and peak loads.

[Riverwind]

You see, nuclear reactors take a long time to start up and shut down. Therefore, they are usually left to run at full power all the time (including night). For this reason, they are used to handle 'base load'.

This logic would only work if there is nuke capacity in Ontario that is not used because the night time baseload is too low to use it.

[Wilber]

Actually, that may not be true...

You see, nuclear reactors take a long time to start up and shut down. Therefore, they are usually left to run at full power all the time (including night). For this reason, they are used to handle 'base load'. On the other hand, gas-fired plants can greatly vary output, depending on the circumstances, so they are used during the middle of the day when demands are highest.

As a result, any electricity you use in the middle of the day may cause more carbon emissions than electricity you use at night.

Note however that I said it may cause more carbon emissions... after all, coal is also used in part to handle base load, whereas hydroelectric may handle both base load and peak loads.

No, it may not be true, it would depend on how a particular utility priced its power.

[segnosaur]

This logic would only work if there is nuke capacity in Ontario that is not used because the night time baseload is too low to use it.

Actually, its even more complex than that... Coal powered generators also cannot vary their output significantly, so they are used largely for base load. On the other hand, Hydro power is used for both peak and base load. (I kind of gave a simplified statement earlier since I didn't want to get into all the messy details.)

That's why I specifically said it may result in additional emissions... it is a complex system of inputs/outputs. Its probably a general rule of thumb that electrical power used at night results in fewer emissions, but there are possibly exceptions.

[segnosaur]

No, it may not be true, it would depend on how a particular utility priced its power.

Why exactly is price relevant?

Whether a utility generates its electricity from coal, gas, nuclear or hydro has more to do with the characteristics of each type of generator rather than the cost.

[segnosaur]

I've already stated this multiple times in the past, but I'll do so again... try single person, no family, with an income between 40k-50k, living in Ontario. Result? tax rebate of between $300 and $350.

As for my 'costs'... I'm using natural gas,...add $228 to $266 or so per year to my costs... However, since I'm located in Ontario, electrical rate payers here will also end up paying approximately $1 billion for hydro (according to Dalton McGuinty). Divide that by 4.39 million households, gives a total electrical usage of approximately $227 per household.

Even with the income tax cut, I end up paying between $100 and $200 more out of my pocket than I get back.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.

So does that mean that now you are admitting that I (or anyone else in similar circumstances) indeed would end up getting shafted by the Liberal Green plan? And since I am getting shafted, don't you think I'm justified in opposing the Green Plan?

And if the argument is that I should save on my electricity by buying more efficient appliances, my question is, how? I've already bought the most efficient ones I could afford; with the government taking hundreds of dollars more from me than before, I will be even less able to afford new appliances. Even if I wait until my appliances wear out naturally and need to be replaced, the fact that I'm loosing so much money means that I may even have to buy less efficient appliances than I did before.

I've always stated that this was a big flaw in the Liberal plan... they offer these broad based tax cuts, but the cuts aren't targeted at the people that would actually make the best use of them. As an end result, the people who would need to buy more efficient appliances don't get enough to help them out, and people who live in provinces with natural supplies of hydro (rather than coal/gas generators) have no need to buy new appliances because all of a sudden they've got this big tax cut, and don't really have to worry as much about the carbon tax.

If the government wanted to encourage people to buy more efficient products, perhaps they should have given tax breaks to people buying more efficient products... the higher the efficiency, the greater the savings, to even out the price difference.

[madmax]

So does that mean that now you are admitting that I (or anyone else in similar circumstances) indeed would end up getting shafted by the Liberal Green plan? And since I am getting shafted, don't you think I'm justified in opposing the Green Plan?

. As an end result, the people who would need to buy more efficient appliances don't get enough to help them out, and people who live in provinces with natural supplies of hydro (rather than coal/gas generators) have no need to buy new appliances because all of a sudden they've got this big tax cut, and don't really have to worry as much about the carbon tax.

If the government wanted to encourage people to buy more efficient products, perhaps they should have given tax breaks to people buying more efficient products... the higher the efficiency, the greater the savings, to even out the price difference.

You might be interested in this.

http://www.pewclimate.org/press_room/opini..._miamih07122007

As Congress moves closer to enacting a ''cap-and-trade'' program aimed at limiting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, a number of commentators are touting a carbon tax as a preferable policy. Their key arguments in support of such a tax: 1) it would be simpler; and 2) the European Union has tried the cap-and-trade approach, and it has failed.

Both arguments are wrong.

Under a cap-and-trade program, the government sets an overall emissions cap and issues tradable allowances that grant businesses the right to emit a set amount. Those who can reduce their emissions more cheaply are able to sell extra allowances to others who would otherwise have to pay more to comply. Because of this market-based approach, a cap-and-trade system helps assure that you can achieve your overall cap at the lowest possible cost. Cap-and-trade is the basis of the U.S. effort to control acid rain pollution, which has achieved greater reductions at lower costs than anyone anticipated.

Under a carbon tax, emitters are required to pay a tax for every ton of pollution they emit. Neither system is inherently more complex than the other. Both require monitoring and enforcement -- to determine taxable emissions and to guarantee payment in the case of a tax, or to ensure that allowances match overall emissions in the case of cap-and-trade. Both approaches also must address the question of how to distribute costs and benefits. For cap-and-trade, that means figuring out how to distribute and/or auction emission allowances; under a tax, it means figuring out who pays and what to do with the revenue.

FYI

[jdobbin]

You might be interested in this.

Eileen Claussen is not opposed to the carbon tax. She just believes it won't get through Congress whereas cap and trade will.

In Canada, because of the provinces, we are going to see it is a lot harder to get cap and trade than it is to get a carbon tax. Some provinces are that opposed to it.

A carbon tax will cover 75% of emissions in Canada. Dion has not said he is opposed to a cap and trade program and Liberals have suggested, it is one of the best ways to get the 25% remainder of emissions in the system.

Layton has failed to say how his cap and trade program is going to work with provinces strongly opposed and who have the biggest emitters.

[stevoh]

Please, I'm a techie. I make my living servicing electronics. I've worked in CSA certified labs that tested construction methods and materials.

I did all those things you mentioned that I either could do or could afford years ago, just to try to get my utilities bills lower.

Got any other ideas?

To be fair, NO government plan can ever be beneficial to everybody. The question for Dion is just what percentage of the population will perceive a gain, loss, or "revenue neutral".

I'm sorry, but the more I hear about Dion's NewGST the more I believe that he's just another academic who has never lived in the "real world". I wouldn't be surprised if he needs someone to read his email.

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

[stevoh]

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.

So does that mean that now you are admitting that I (or anyone else in similar circumstances) indeed would end up getting shafted by the Liberal Green plan? And since I am getting shafted, don't you think I'm justified in opposing the Green Plan?

Nope, its simply means I understand the logic when it comes to the balance between the tax break you get, and your energy costs.

And if the argument is that I should save on my electricity by buying more efficient appliances, my question is, how? I've already bought the most efficient ones I could afford; with the government taking hundreds of dollars more from me than before, I will be even less able to afford new appliances. Even if I wait until my appliances wear out naturally and need to be replaced, the fact that I'm loosing so much money means that I may even have to buy less efficient appliances than I did before.

I would hope that, wherever you work, you would see a raise of more than 200 dollars over the lifetime of those appliances, to cover the difference:

I end up paying between $100 and $200 more out of my pocket than I get back.

I've always stated that this was a big flaw in the Liberal plan... they offer these broad based tax cuts, but the cuts aren't targeted at the people that would actually make the best use of them. As an end result, the people who would need to buy more efficient appliances don't get enough to help them out, and people who live in provinces with natural supplies of hydro (rather than coal/gas generators) have no need to buy new appliances because all of a sudden they've got this big tax cut, and don't really have to worry as much about the carbon tax.

The lowest income earners get the biggest tax break. It would seem to me that they would also be the ones who would need the most help buying a new appliance.

If the government wanted to encourage people to buy more efficient products, perhaps they should have given tax breaks to people buying more efficient products... the higher the efficiency, the greater the savings, to even out the price difference.

So are you suggesting that the carbon tax should remain, but instead of a tax break for all Canadians, the money should be pooled and used to reduce the cost of energy efficient products?

Edited July 31, 2008 by stevoh

[Alta4ever]

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

If you really wanted to save energy you could turn off the computer and live without it.

[stevoh]

If you really wanted to save energy you could turn off the computer and live without it.

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

[Alta4ever]

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

What ever happened to saving the enviornment. If you used less we would produce less.

[Wild Bill]

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

Sorry, you covered pretty well the obvious ones. That was my point. If I knew of any more that were possible in my financial situation with an older home I would have already done them, just to cut down the bills.

Unless I sell my house I don't see how I could do much to escape Dion's carbon tax. If his tax were to be implemented, I don't see how that would have a positive impact on the resale value of an older home.

I'm not attacking the idea of trying to reduce one's carbon footprint. I'm just trying to illustrate that it's hardly a new idea from Dion. We've been hearing these conservation tips since the 70's. We've also been experiencing higher utility bills since the same time.

So far I've heard a lot of his supporters tell me that there are a lot of things I could and should be doing.

I guess things are new for these folks but it's old hat to me. Their suggestions are meant to be taken as reasons not to fear increased costs from a carbon tax. For me at least, they will have to do much, much better.

[GostHacked]

I used to be able to hang up my clothes to dry. I had a washer in my last place, but no dryer.

I had a roomate (my cousin) for about a year. After 6 months of high electric bills, I decided to have things you are not using shut off. Just by shutting the computers off for most of the day alone, cut the electric bill in half.

When we started to make a concious effort, we drastically reduced the energy consumption which translated into lower utility bills.

Don't need to be a CSA techie to understand that.

Now that I am in a different place, my utilities are included in my rent. However, I still have the good habit of shutting things off if I am not using them.

QUOTE(Alta4ever @ Jul 31 2008, 01:11 PM)

If you really wanted to save energy you could turn off the computer and live without it.

--

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

So you like pissing your money away? Which at the same time is pissing oil away?

[stevoh]

Sorry, you covered pretty well the obvious ones. That was my point. If I knew of any more that were possible in my financial situation with an older home I would have already done them, just to cut down the bills.

Unless I sell my house I don't see how I could do much to escape Dion's carbon tax. If his tax were to be implemented, I don't see how that would have a positive impact on the resale value of an older home.

I'm not attacking the idea of trying to reduce one's carbon footprint. I'm just trying to illustrate that it's hardly a new idea from Dion. We've been hearing these conservation tips since the 70's. We've also been experiencing higher utility bills since the same time.

So far I've heard a lot of his supporters tell me that there are a lot of things I could and should be doing.

I guess things are new for these folks but it's old hat to me. Their suggestions are meant to be taken as reasons not to fear increased costs from a carbon tax. For me at least, they will have to do much, much better.

First off, good for you for reducing your energy consumption, these days its a good idea regardless of what new taxes may be coming our way.

Secondly, have you taken a look at the real impact of the energy changes, ie, your tax break in correspondence to the increase in energy bills? It might not be as bad as you think.

And finally what would you do otherwise to encourage the following?

1. reduce consumption of carbon producing fuels.

2. increase use of renewable energy sources.

[stevoh]

So you like pissing your money away? Which at the same time is pissing oil away?

Nah, that was an asinine response to an equally asinine post.