Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

[Riverwind]

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.

If the increase in energy costs is small compared to the tax breaks then it unlikely that any investments in energy saving devices would pay for themselves.

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.

The development of technologies that can replace the existing energy sources at a compariable cost and reliability.

[segnosaur]

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.

Wait a second... You agree that I end up paying more than other people, you agree (or at least don't give any suggestion otherwise) that the Liberal plan itself will help buy new appliances, but you say I'm not getting shafted?

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:

Ummm... did you ever hear of the term 'inflation'? Even if I get a pay raise, that money is not likely to be available to cover new purchases. Its going to be used to cover price increases in food, clothing, and any other necessities that will see their price rise over time.

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.

First of all, as I've said before, those low income earners don't exactly have much incentive to buy new appliances. Yes, they may have to pay a carbon tax, but they've already benefited so much from the income tax cuts that they're already further ahead.

Secondly, I need help to buy appliances too. My finances are tight.

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?

No, I'm suggesting that, if it were possible to do easily, that the government cut the GST (or whatever manufacturing taxes may still exist) on products that were more energy efficient.

Edited July 31, 2008 by segnosaur

[stevoh]

The development of technologies that can replace the existing energy sources at a compariable cost and reliability.

I agree with this. While I am not opposed to a carbon tax, I view it as an acceleration of what is already happening with energy prices, the long term solution to this issue is cost viable alternatives.

If the increase in energy costs is small compared to the tax breaks then it unlikely that any investments in energy saving devices would pay for themselves.

Doesn't that have more to do with the existing cost of energy than the increase?

[Alta4ever]

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

This coming from from someone who has named themself after a jackass character.

IF you were really concerned about the enviornement and really wanted to do something you would only use the computer for necessary use, not wasting energy on forums and what not.

You have fallen for a classic liberal feel good policy. Really the carbon tax will do nothing but add more tax dollars to government coffers.

If you really wanted to do something you would limit your energy usage instead of expecting the government to solve the problem for you through taxation or cap and trade schemes that do nothing to stop usage, they just shift the burden responsiblity to someone else. So you can feel better about yourself while you sip away on that latte.

[Riverwind]

Doesn't that have more to do with the existing cost of energy than the increase?

If the existing cost of energy was enough then people would have already invested in these technologies. The carbon tax is supposed to raise the cost energy enough to make it cost effective to invest in new equipment but my calculations tell me that it will not be enough and people will find it cheaper to pay the higher taxes resulting in no net reduction in emissions. If you want to reduce emissions you have to make sure that people choose energy efficient options when they buy equipment for other reasons. This objective can be accomplished move effectively with regulations.

[stevoh]

Wait a second... You agree that I end up paying more than other people, you agree (or at least don't give any suggestion otherwise) that the Liberal plan itself will help buy new appliances, but you say I'm not getting shafted?

You have effectively debated (once I got past the name calling and decided to ignore it) and made me change my mind about the cost of replacing appliances. I think the tax break will help buy new appliances for some of us (like me), but for some, you will have to rely on your income source if they need replacing.

Ummm... did you ever hear of the term 'inflation'? Even if I get a pay raise, that money is not likely to be available to cover new purchases. Its going to be used to cover price increases in food, clothing, and any other necessities that will see their price rise over time.

Not sure where you work, but so far, my raises have been well above the inflation rate. Isn't it less than 3%? Thats a pretty lousy raise.

First of all, as I've said before, those low income earners don't exactly have much incentive to buy new appliances. Yes, they may have to pay a carbon tax, but they've already benefited so much from the income tax cuts that they're already further ahead.

People who earn less than you are further ahead than you? In that case I would reduce your income to the lowest level and start spending all that extra cash.

Secondly, I need help to buy appliances too. My finances are tight.

I would suggest that if a budget is tight due to energy costs, then the increases in the market prices(home heating oil especially) have far more to do with your tight finances than the carbon tax will.

No, I'm suggesting that, if it were possible to do easily, that the government cut the GST (or whatever manufacturing taxes may still exist) on products that were more energy efficient.

Where would the money come from to make up for the GST loss?

[stevoh]

This coming from from someone who has named themself after a jackass character.

IF you were really concerned about the enviornement and really wanted to do something you would only use the computer for necessary use, not wasting energy on forums and what not.

You have fallen for a classic liberal feel good policy. Really the carbon tax will do nothing but add more tax dollars to government coffers.

If you really wanted to do something you would limit your energy usage instead of expecting the government to solve the problem for you through taxation or cap and trade schemes that do nothing to stop usage, they just shift the burden responsiblity to someone else. So you can feel better about yourself while you sip away on that latte.

Right now, as we speak, I am peddling a small stationary bicycle that generates sufficient energy to both power my computer, and to power the small flickering twisty light I have on the ceiling of my yurt. I have tossed my sandles off and am resting my bamboo socked feet on the reclaimed wood of my desk. I have some left over cus-cus and salmon salad in the fridge, I think I will smoke a giant joint and tuck into that tasty tucker right now.

[Wild Bill]

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.

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.

Well, you're assuming I agree with your premises. I'm afraid I don't. I disagree with David Suzuki. I'm one of those he feels should be thrown in jail.

I don't believe that carbon is a problem or a threat. I also don't believe that I have any control over what energy sources the McGuinty government here in Ontario intends to use.

I also don't believe in "peak oil"

Back in the 70's when the first oil panic occurred there was a lot of techie articles and speculation about how to handle the crisis. At that time the common belief was that man's effect on the environment was about to trigger another ice age. Meanwhile the American government was implementing plans like 55 mph speed limits in an attempt to reduce consumption.

There was serious talk about drastically increasing taxes on gasoline to encourage research into alternate energy sources and modes of transportation. I wish I could remember the author of one of the best that I read. His name escapes me after 30 years but his words have stayed.

He took a more objective view by stating that historical evidence suggested that all such attempts, particularly those from governments, to stimulate innovation through artificially increasing costs were doomed to failure. It seems to be human nature to simply adjust by the minimum amount necessary until we hit the point where a resource is almost gone!

At that time and ONLY at that time it becomes a crisis and our societies concentrate our resources and efforts en masse. He had confidence that Man was smart enough to always come up with a solution, but only when he absolutely had to.

He posited that the difference between leaving things alone until they got "scary" instead of taxing the bejesus to impose an artificial pressure is that if oil was going to run out in 200 years we would have perhaps 180 painless years. Then the pain would force a solution.

Using artificial taxation methods only means that we will have 200 years of pain before we finally do what we were going to do anyway.

His thinking jived much better with what I had already learned about human nature.

I truly believe that much of today's green thinking is simple "ego-boo", where people are more interested in a warm feeling of participating than in actually identifying if a problem is real and within our power to affect in a positive way.

If I was pressed for a suggestion I might say that we should never have bailed on new nuclear power plants. Still, it's not too late. I would agree that we should have bailed on AEC built plants. They have a history that shows they can't be trusted to be on time and within budget. That's not really a good reason not to build nukes. Lots of other companies have a GOOD history! Why not buy from them?

[stevoh]

Well, you're assuming I agree with your premises. I'm afraid I don't. I disagree with David Suzuki. I'm one of those he feels should be thrown in jail.

I don't believe that carbon is a problem or a threat. I also don't believe that I have any control over what energy sources the McGuinty government here in Ontario intends to use.

I also don't believe in "peak oil"

Back in the 70's when the first oil panic occurred there was a lot of techie articles and speculation about how to handle the crisis. At that time the common belief was that man's effect on the environment was about to trigger another ice age. Meanwhile the American government was implementing plans like 55 mph speed limits in an attempt to reduce consumption.

There was serious talk about drastically increasing taxes on gasoline to encourage research into alternate energy sources and modes of transportation. I wish I could remember the author of one of the best that I read. His name escapes me after 30 years but his words have stayed.

He took a more objective view by stating that historical evidence suggested that all such attempts, particularly those from governments, to stimulate innovation through artificially increasing costs were doomed to failure. It seems to be human nature to simply adjust by the minimum amount necessary until we hit the point where a resource is almost gone!

At that time and ONLY at that time it becomes a crisis and our societies concentrate our resources and efforts en masse. He had confidence that Man was smart enough to always come up with a solution, but only when he absolutely had to.

He posited that the difference between leaving things alone until they got "scary" instead of taxing the bejesus to impose an artificial pressure is that if oil was going to run out in 200 years we would have perhaps 180 painless years. Then the pain would force a solution.

Using artificial taxation methods only means that we will have 200 years of pain before we finally do what we were going to do anyway.

His thinking jived much better with what I had already learned about human nature.

I truly believe that much of today's green thinking is simple "ego-boo", where people are more interested in a warm feeling of participating than in actually identifying if a problem is real and within our power to affect in a positive way.

If I was pressed for a suggestion I might say that we should never have bailed on new nuclear power plants. Still, it's not too late. I would agree that we should have bailed on AEC built plants. They have a history that shows they can't be trusted to be on time and within budget. That's not really a good reason not to build nukes. Lots of other companies have a GOOD history! Why not buy from them?

Totally interesting post. I mean, there is no point getting into all kinds of details, we stand on two very different sides of the environmental fence. But I enjoy the insight none the less.

This is particularly fascinating:

He took a more objective view by stating that historical evidence suggested that all such attempts, particularly those from governments, to stimulate innovation through artificially increasing costs were doomed to failure. It seems to be human nature to simply adjust by the minimum amount necessary until we hit the point where a resource is almost gone!

Will speak more to this later.

[jbg]

Well, you're assuming I agree with your premises. I'm afraid I don't. I disagree with David Suzuki. I'm one of those he feels should be thrown in jail.

*************************

I truly believe that much of today's green thinking is simple "ego-boo", where people are more interested in a warm feeling of participating than in actually identifying if a problem is real and within our power to affect in a positive way.

I have excerpted your post, but I totally agree with it. His view that people who don't agree with him belong in jail is a symptom of his "command and control" mentality.

Count me as one extreme leftist who disagrees with him and agrees with you.

[noahbody]

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

You mean propping up the Canadian economy, health care and our social programs don't you? Don't you value these things? Without oil, Canada won't be able to pay its bills. If you think we'll just be able to replace the revenue with another source, you're naive.

Hopefully, we never have to look back and say we gave up everything we valued for no reason. That's the danger of hopping on the alternative energy bandwagon. It will make our economy obsolete.

The debate should still be whether the 'evidence' of man-made global warming warrants drastic action. The worst case scenario is that man will have to adapt, which it will likely need to from natural warming and shifting regardless, judging from the past.

Just in case, it might be a good idea to build the world's largest tower in the NWT to house those displaced. That way, it can serve as a monument of stupidity should this scare go down in history like the ice age scare of the past.

[peter_puck]

quote(peter_puck @ Jul 29 2008, 04:42 PM)

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).

....

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.

YOu do not "Convert energy to different forms" by heating up a barrel of water (as opposed to a conventional heating system). You create thermal energy and just store it for a while.

Lets throw those laws of physics aside for a second and pretend you did have "large losses" in heating up a barrel. What form of energy would these loses take ? THERMAL!

Edited August 1, 2008 by peter_puck

[peter_puck]

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.

I doubt any of the schemes would really increase emissions. Power used at 4am tends to be nuclear or hydro. Power used at 3pm on a hot sunday is most likely coal or gas.

Some of the schemes may use a little more energy. Hot water tanks slowly loose energy. Houses lose heat.

But as I pointed out to RiverWind, the thermal mass (heating barrels) idea would not cost extra energy.

Running up the airconditioner a little would probably use less total energy as well. The house would slowly lose "cold" at night when you didn't need it, but, the airconditioner would opperate more effeciently because there is less of a temperature gradient at 3am than 3pm.

(the cost to cool a house by a degree depends on the difference between the temperature inside and the temperature outside. At night this temperature should be less). This is the same principle as making sure your airconditioner is in the shade). I suppose we would need a HVAC person to tell us for sure if improved operating would make up for the "cold loss".

If you used thermal mass or some sort of phase change system, it should actually be more effecient.

The timmers I mentioned would not consume much energy at all (they could even be mechanical). The device you put on the timmer needs to be consumed anyway.

You also have to look at the effeciency of the generation as well. At peak hours on peak days, energy is inported from the United States (big ugly coal plants in Ohio) and from local gas and coal plants.

Power imported from other countries (or provinces) has to travel a long distance. That is ineffecient (power lines are not superconductors - they do loose energy). The plants also have to be turned on and off - that is ineffecient as well.

You also have the capital costs to construct plants that do not operate at full capacity for most of day/year. By using power on a more steady basis, we would need fewer gas/coal plants.

From the http://www.ieso.ca/

Ontario has 11MW of Nuclear (Wikipedia lists 15MW)

8MW of Hydro

6.2 MW COAL

5 MW of OIL/GAS

(less than 1 MW of wind/bio/solar/etc)

The minimum usage was about 14 MW last nigh (which would be a fair bit higher than normal because it was hot last night)

That would mean, that, even on a hot night, for a period, we would not have needed any emmision producing power. Only Nuclear and Hydro.

Edited August 1, 2008 by peter_puck

[Wilber]

quote(peter_puck @ Jul 29 2008, 04:42 PM)

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 do not "Convert energy to different forms" by heating up a barrel of water (as opposed to a conventional heating system). You create thermal energy and just store it for a while.

Lets throw those laws of physics aside for a second and pretend you did have "large losses" in heating up a barrel. What form of energy would these loses take ? THERMAL!

There is no way of heating anything that is 100% efficient. Even if the water still contained 70% of the energy you used to heat it come morning, the other 30% was putting heat into your house at a time you didn't want it. In other words, wasted.

[peter_puck]

There is no way of heating anything that is 100% efficient. Even if the water still contained 70% of the energy you used to heat it come morning, the other 30% was putting heat into your house at a time you didn't want it. In other words, wasted.

This senario already assumes that I am heating my house with electricity. If I put an electrical heating coil in a sealed barrel, it will be much more effecient than 70% (go check out an electric hot water heater).

Since my house needs more heat at night than in the daytime, I am not really that concerned about heat leakage out of my barrel. If I need to store lots of heat for the day, I would also need lots for the night, because it is colder at night. If everything was property insulated, I would probably have to run a second heater for the house because the leakage would just not heat an entire house at night.

[Wilber]

This senario already assumes that I am heating my house with electricity. If I put an electrical heating coil in a sealed barrel, it will be much more effecient than 70% (go check out an electric hot water heater).

Since my house needs more heat at night than in the daytime, I am not really that concerned about heat leakage out of my barrel. If I need to store lots of heat for the day, I would also need lots for the night, because it is colder at night. If everything was property insulated, I would probably have to run a second heater for the house because the leakage would just not heat an entire house at night.

Do you leave your hot water heater turned up if you go away for a month? Anyway, I can see that you might save money depending on how your electricity is priced at different times of the day but it does nothing to reduce your total consumption or CO2 emissions. The opposite if anything.

[stevoh]

If the existing cost of energy was enough then people would have already invested in these technologies. The carbon tax is supposed to raise the cost energy enough to make it cost effective to invest in new equipment but my calculations tell me that it will not be enough and people will find it cheaper to pay the higher taxes resulting in no net reduction in emissions. If you want to reduce emissions you have to make sure that people choose energy efficient options when they buy equipment for other reasons. This objective can be accomplished move effectively with regulations.

Well, to me, the carbon tax accelerates a process that is occuring already, that is, fossil fuels becoming more expensive making non carbon based fuel sources a more attractive alternative. As technology improves and becomes more efficient/cheaper there will come a "tipping point", where non-carbon based energy sources become financially attractive alternatives. That is when we will transition from people buying energy efficient products for political/environmental beliefs to financial reasons. I am hoping that that change will happen in my lifetime.

True, the amount of effect that the carbon tax is going to have on energy prices, in most cases, is not enough to make the investment in an energy efficient appliance pay for itself over time. However, if you have to replace one anyway, then these higher energy prices should make efficiency a higher priority. And that is the whole point, increase the importance of the efficiency of the product.

The carbon tax isn't the whole solution, it is a small part of the equation that will eventually make energy efficiency a primary product purchase consideration, rather than a "feel good" one.

Edited August 1, 2008 by stevoh

[Wilber]

The carbon tax isn't the whole solution, it is a small part of the equation that will eventually make energy efficiency a primary product purchase consideration, rather than a "feel good" one.

It really isn't any part of the solution, the market has dictated that energy efficiency already is a primary part of the purchase consideration. Just look at what is selling and what isn't. The carbon tax is merely an excuse for the government to indulge in wealth transfer and as such is just as likely to be part of the problem.

[Riverwind]

Well, to me, the carbon tax accelerates a process that is occurring already, that is, fossil fuels becoming more expensive making non carbon based fuel sources a more attractive alternative.

Actually, it may be counter productive in the long run if it is too small to change behaviors on its own yet it is large enough to convince people that they have made enough sacrifices to stop AGW. i.e. the carbon tax could turn into a government sponsored version of papal indulgences that allow people to keep doing what they have always been doing with a clear conscious. Edited August 1, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

He took a more objective view by stating that historical evidence suggested that all such attempts, particularly those from governments, to stimulate innovation through artificially increasing costs were doomed to failure. It seems to be human nature to simply adjust by the minimum amount necessary until we hit the point where a resource is almost gone!

One reason this argument falls apart is choice. As one resource becomes scarce, its cost rises. If our only choice to generated energy was oil, then yes, over time, we would use that resource more and more efficiently as we are forced to.

However, we have multiple energy generation choices. And the reason we (most of us) have historically chosen one choice over another is simply cost. As the cost of one rises, other alternatives become more attractive. Technological innovation is encouraged as cost analysis reveals new opportunities in the market for the adaptation of new energy sources. As long as we have multiple choices for energy generation, we will never get to that "desperate" final stage where one specific resouce is almost gone. We will have already changed.

Another reason this argument falls apart is the stated correlation between artificially increasing prices by government and innovation. This implies that market forces on prices will encourage innovation, as we know they do. But government mandated ones won't. However, the market does not typically care WHY a price has increased, it only cares that it HAS. Consumer choice is dictated by final product cost, not by how that cost was generated. So, there is no difference between market forces soley encouraging innovation, or a combination of government AND market forces encouraging that innovation, as the costs rise in both cases.

It doesn't matter if the increase in costs comes from market sources, or government sources. The increase in costs alone is enough to make innovation in alternatives or improving those alternatives a worthwhile investement.

[Riverwind]

It doesn't matter if the increase in costs comes from market sources, or government sources. The increase in costs alone is enough to make innovation in alternatives or improving those alternatives a worthwhile investement.

There is a huge difference between a government mandated price increase and a market supply related increase. The former is is subject to smuggling, fraud and political manipulation which requires a huge effort to prevent and the latter is entirely self policing. In addition, government mandated price increases encourage economic activity to move to juristictions that have looser regulations which undermines the objectives of the policy.

As an example: I read a blurb about how NA steel manufacturers are getting a boost from high oil prices because the cost of shipping steel from China makes locally produced product more competitive. A positive market outcome that could never be achieved with government regulation.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

There is a huge difference between a government mandated price increase and a market supply related increase. The former is is subject to smuggling, fraud and political manipulation which requires a huge effort to prevent and the latter is entirely self policing.

Market forces are entirely self policing? Goverment has to step in all the time to ensure monopolies, price fixing and all manner of other attempts to undermine the free market and establish singular product dominance are prevented.

Smuggling occurs because you can purchase one product in one area, and sell it at a much higher price in another area. It is "smuggled" because their are either laws or taxes that prevent straight transferal, or the product is illegal. It doesn't matter if the reason for the price difference is government regulation, the legality of the product (a subset of government regulations), or other market forces (ie. produced locally).

Fraud and political manipulation are consistently used to attempt to manipulate market forces as well, think pork barrel politics.

In addition, government mandated price increases encourage economic activity to move to juristictions that have looser regulations which undermines the objectives of the policy.

You either need a consumer base for a product set that cannot be moved (ie, energy providers to homes) or you would need regulation (ie, taxes) on any imports of the product from outside of the area to maintain the objectives of the policy.

As an example: I read a blurb about how NA steel manufacturers are getting a boost from high oil prices because the cost of shipping steel from China makes locally produced product more competitive. A positive market outcome that could never be achieved with government regulation.

If China artifically increased the price of their energy sources, then the same outcome would have been achieved. The source of the increase doesn't matter. The increase itself does.

[Riverwind]

Market forces are entirely self policing?

Regulations are like paper currencies and create opportunities for rule breakers - opportunities that do not exist when an hard commodity is sold on the market (i.e. you cannot create new gold with a photocopier).

Smuggling occurs because you can purchase one product in one area, and sell it at a much higher price in another area. It is "smuggled" because their are either laws or taxes that prevent straight transferal, or the product is illegal.

If a good manufactured in Canada is more expensive because of carbon taxes then it will be imported from the US. If it is taxed at the border then you have a market for smuggling if the price differential is high enough. We see this all the time with tobacco.

If China artifically increased the price of their energy sources, then the same outcome would have been achieved. The source of the increase doesn't matter. The increase itself does.

We are talking about the real world. China will not impose any price on carbon for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, we already have enough problems trying to make sure the Chinese government enforces its existing laws on things like copyright so it is naive to assume that China would properly regulate any carbon price that they agreed to impose. Edited August 1, 2008 by Riverwind

[Wild Bill]

One reason this argument falls apart is choice. As one resource becomes scarce, its cost rises. If our only choice to generated energy was oil, then yes, over time, we would use that resource more and more efficiently as we are forced to.

However, we have multiple energy generation choices. And the reason we (most of us) have historically chosen one choice over another is simply cost. As the cost of one rises, other alternatives become more attractive. Technological innovation is encouraged as cost analysis reveals new opportunities in the market for the adaptation of new energy sources. As long as we have multiple choices for energy generation, we will never get to that "desperate" final stage where one specific resouce is almost gone. We will have already changed.

Another reason this argument falls apart is the stated correlation between artificially increasing prices by government and innovation. This implies that market forces on prices will encourage innovation, as we know they do. But government mandated ones won't. However, the market does not typically care WHY a price has increased, it only cares that it HAS. Consumer choice is dictated by final product cost, not by how that cost was generated. So, there is no difference between market forces soley encouraging innovation, or a combination of government AND market forces encouraging that innovation, as the costs rise in both cases.

It doesn't matter if the increase in costs comes from market sources, or government sources. The increase in costs alone is enough to make innovation in alternatives or improving those alternatives a worthwhile investement.

Well, it seems to me that you're making unsubstantiated premises again. Where are these alternatives you're talking about? How practical is it for a consumer to make a switch? You're asking for a big leap of faith.

Isn't this where we started?

I think I'm typical in that I have an older home and very little disposable income. Not that much credit headroom left, for that matter. My choices for heating are oil, gas and electricity. ALL of them steadily become more and more expensive!

So if your argument is that I should switch to an alternative, tell me what that alternative would be!

Yes, markets only care that a choice has become more expensive. If there's no cheaper alternative, so what? The typical home owner has only so many lamp sockets to fill with those new compact flourescent lamps. What's more, any electrician can do the simple math to show that the lighting portion of your household bill is mice nuts in comparison to any appliance with a motor or a heating element.

Unless you can show that there are indeed cheaper market sources I believe YOUR argument falls apart! If you can name me a few I will cheerfully concede.

Again, this is where we came in. I'm a techie. Show me something. Don't ask for my faith.

Edited August 2, 2008 by Wild Bill

[stevoh]

Regulations are like paper currencies and create opportunities for rule breakers - opportunities that do not exist when an hard commodity is sold on the market (i.e. you cannot create new gold with a photocopier).

That doesn't counter the fact that markets are manipulated and are not entirely self policing.

If a good manufactured in Canada is more expensive because of carbon taxes then it will be imported from the US. If it is taxed at the border then you have a market for smuggling if the price differential is high enough. We see this all the time with tobacco.

As you have yourself stated, the difference is modest. The global energy price increases are having far more influence than a carbon tax will.

We are talking about the real world. China will not impose any price on carbon for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, we already have enough problems trying to make sure the Chinese government enforces its existing laws on things like copyright so it is naive to assume that China would properly regulate any carbon price that they agreed to impose.

My point was that the price increase counts, not the source of the price increase.