Are the Liberals damaging Green party chances...?

segnosaur · July 25, 2008

A lot of economists including Paul Volcker believe the carbon tax is the way to go if you want to see reductions in meaningful emissions.

As I've said many times before... "prove by authority" is no proof at all.

Paul Volcker is not posting here. I cannot challenge him to validate his analysis. For all I know he has no proof to back up his claims. If you can't justify your stance on issues using actual original data without running off and saying "Some economist said X", then why exactly are you posting here?

That $15 is going to be a little low if the true cost of ethanol is a lot higher than 5%.

Well, if the increase is actually 25%, that means an extra $75 in food expenses, still far less than what the Liberal's green plan is going to cost me.

Not only that, but according to the U.S. department of energy, the use of ethanol has helped keep gas prices lower than they would have otherwise (by approximately $.20-.30/gallon). My car gets around 30 mpg. I drive approximately 14000 miles/year. Over the course of the year, I use up around 466 gallons of gas. Even if I use the low value for the department of energy estimates, I'm saving $93/year. (Of course this is the U.S. where they have lower gas prices already... in Canada, I may end up saving more, because of the multiplier effect of our GST.)

What does this mean? Well, the overall effect on my pocket book by the ethanol plan (even if you assume the food expenses are 5 times higher than estimated) is that I actually GET BACK $18/year.

http://www.doe.gov/6335.htm

I still think that for many people, the reductions in taxes and reduction in exposure to the carbon tax will result less hardship than what your example is.

You might think that, but then you'd be thinking wrong. Your basing your arguments on basically half truths and total lack of evidence.

You see, the problem here (which I've already explained before), is that the proposed tax cuts by the Liberals are aimed at the entire country, even in Quebec where they generate so much of their electricity by hydro. Someone in Quebec will benefit, quite handily, but not because they're actually making an effort to save energy or use alternatives. They just lucked out. People in many other parts of the country get royally screwed, only they may not realize it because they haven't actually looked at what the numbers mean to them personally. If the tax cuts were directed at parts of the country that are currently forced to use fossil fuels due to a lack of alternatives, then maybe the green shift plan would have some merit.

Of course, this isn't going to drive me into bankrupcy. Its a small annoyance having to pay more for no reason. But its not going to do anything to make me save energy, since I've already taken steps to minimize my energy usage.

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

As I've said many times before... "prove by authority" is no proof at all.
Paul Volcker is not posting here. I cannot challenge him to validate his analysis. For all I know he has no proof to back up his claims. If you can't justify your stance on issues using actual original data without running off and saying "Some economist said X", then why exactly are you posting here?

By that same account then, I haven't seen your proof indicating that a carbon tax won't reduce consumption more sharply than what we have seen to date.

Well, if the increase is actually 25%, that means an extra $75 in food expenses, still far less than what the Liberal's green plan is going to cost me.

And if the number is actually 75% as we first heard in the Guardian's peek at the WTO report, then we are looking at a figure that is close to the Liberal plan but covers but an aspect of the government's overall plan.

Hopefully, we will see some info from the Gallagher report this week to see what the British study says on price increases.

One thing is certain, more information is needed because the early estimates of what the price increase would be are woefully low according to some preliminary data from several sources.

Not only that, but according to the U.S. department of energy, the use of ethanol has helped keep gas prices lower than they would have otherwise (by approximately $.20-.30/gallon). My car gets around 30 mpg. I drive approximately 14000 miles/year. Over the course of the year, I use up around 466 gallons of gas. Even if I use the low value for the department of energy estimates, I'm saving $93/year. (Of course this is the U.S. where they have lower gas prices already... in Canada, I may end up saving more, because of the multiplier effect of our GST.)

The problem is that ethanol gives poorer mileage. It is a less efficient energy to use and the figures that are cited in Canada and the U.S. are not for blended gas. Everything will need to be recalculated because you just don't get as much mileage with a tank of blended gas. My mileage has dropped this year with the change even though my car is in new and well maintained.

What does this mean? Well, the overall effect on my pocket book by the ethanol plan (even if you assume the food expenses are 5 times higher than estimated) is that I actually GET BACK $18/year.

If your mileage stays the same as it did prior to blended gas. The drop off has been pretty substantial in my car which has one of the better mileages of vehicles out there.

You might think that, but then you'd be thinking wrong. Your basing your arguments on basically half truths and total lack of evidence.

And I still haven't seen evidence that certain people are going to get whacked more than others.

As McCallum points out.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...scriminate.aspx

These numbers derive from the fact that Saskatchewan and Alberta account for about 40% of carbon emissions but just 13% of the population. The nonsense arises from equating 40% of emissions with 40% of taxes paid by families, in which case Saskatchewan and Alberta families would indeed be paying almost five times as much as other Canadians.
If, at one extreme, producers pass all of the carbon tax on to consumers, then the 40% figure is irrelevant. In terms of who pays the tax, it matters not who emits — it matters only who consumes. And consumption patterns on the Prairies are not radically different from the rest of Canada.

If, at the other extreme, producers pass none of the carbon tax on to consumers, then it becomes true that the owners of emitting companies based in Saskatchewan and Alberta pay 40% of the tax. But that’s vastly different from saying that families in these provinces pay 40% of the tax, given that very substantial numbers of these owners are based in other provinces and countries.

This all seems like the same hysteria that was seen during the CFCs debate.

Edited July 25, 2008 by jdobbin

Riverwind · July 25, 2008

This all seems like the same hysteria that was seen during the CFCs debate.

The technology to eliminate CFCs existed even if it was more expensive and their were transition costs. We simply cannot eliminate CO2 production given the technology we have today no matter how much you tax it. Edited July 25, 2008 by Riverwind

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

The technology to eliminate CFCs existed even if it was more expensive and their were transition costs. We simply cannot eliminate CO2 production given the technology we have today no matter how much you tax it.

The hysteria in regards to CFCs was that they could not be eliminated, that it was too expensive and that it really wasn't a problem.

The CFC deniers have simply moved on to carbon emissions now.

Riverwind · July 25, 2008

The hysteria in regards to CFCs was that they could not be eliminated, that it was too expensive and that it really wasn't a problem.

Even your own sources don't back up your claims and you know that. The complaints about CFCs were related to the cost - not about whether replacements existed. In fact, most of the CFC manufactures supported the ban because they saw it as an opportunity to increase sales selling the replacements.

In any case, we need to emit CO2 to live. No amount of taxation will change that.

segnosaur · July 25, 2008

By that same account then, I haven't seen your proof indicating that a carbon tax won't reduce consumption more sharply than what we have seen to date.

I have no need to give proof.

It isn't me that's trying to put forward a set of policies. It is you (or at least the Liberal party that you seem to support). Since you're making the claim 'this is necessary', then its up to you to provide proof.

Kind of like being an athiest... I do not need to prove that there is no god... the assumption is that, since there's no proof either way, that no god exists. If a Christian/Muslim/Raelian wants me to believe in a higher power, then its up to them to provide the evidence.

Of course, I could point out that I've already established that emissions are dropping without a carbon tax. I've pointed out the existance of supply/demand curves and explained their relevance in another thread. That's a lot more proof than you've ever given.

You can't even answer a simple question... do you really think there are business men sitting around who have decided they'll earn less profit because they want to waste energy?

And if the number is actually 75% as we first heard in the Guardian's peek at the WTO report, then we are looking at a figure that is close to the Liberal plan but covers but an aspect of the government's overall plan.
Hopefully, we will see some info from the Gallagher report this week to see what the British study says on price increases.

I wouldn't count on it...given the fact that the president of the world bank has already taken steps to distance the organization from the report, and pretty much every report has numbers that are far lower than the 75%. (At this point we don't even know if that 75% refers to the cost of all food, or just certain items based on corn or soy, or if he even took into account the greater efficiency in the use of byproducts that could occur in the U.S.).

The problem is that ethanol gives poorer mileage. It is a less efficient energy to use and the figures that are cited in Canada and the U.S. are not for blended gas. Everything will need to be recalculated because you just don't get as much mileage with a tank of blended gas. My mileage has dropped this year with the change even though my car is in new and well maintained.

Ethanol does give poorer mileage, but the drop is not that great.

From: http://autorepair.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/aa102100a_2.htm

Ethanol contains 97% of the energy that pure gasoline has. But because the combustion efficiency is increased, the slight reduction in energy content is compensated for. Most users will not notice the decrease, if any, and many people have reported an increase in fuel milage.

From: http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/otherfuels/...05_07_final.pdf (remember, this is an oil lobby group, so you wouldn't expect them to be pro-ethanol)

Recent data published by the Coordinating Research Council on a fleet of 12 California-certified model year 2001-2003 cars and light trucks suggests that the fuel economy penalty for 10% by volume ethanol blend is on the order 1.4%.

From: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs...97/1035/OPINION

Iowa State University Professor Larry Johnson estimates that E10 delivers 96.4 percent of the miles per gallon of gasoline...

Lets assume the worst case scenario of the references given... that you loose 4% efficiency. Instead of getting $93/year in savings, I end up only getting $89 back. If my food expenses have gone up $75 (basically 5 times more than the CD Howe estimates), I'm still ending up with $14 more in my pocket.

Heck, even if food prices have gone up $225 per capita (bascially, 75% instead of 5%), I end up loosing $136, but that's STILL less than the amount I'd be out under the Liberal green shift plan.

Of course, I could point out some of the other benefits of using Ethanol... reduction in CO, benzene and hydrocarbon emissions (which, in theory, can also contribute to global warming).

If your mileage stays the same as it did prior to blended gas. The drop off has been pretty substantial in my car which has one of the better mileages of vehicles out there.

I really have no idea why your car has seen its gas mileage decrease. Did you ever think that it could have some cause other than the use of ethanol? (I have no idea where you live, or where you fill up, or what type of car you drive; remember, some provinces have been mandating the use of ethanol for years, and some service stations have already been adding it to their gas.)

And I still haven't seen evidence that certain people are going to get whacked more than others.

I GAVE you an example... myself.

I pointed out the amount I'd be paying in carbon tax (based on where I live and my type of fuel), and how much of a tax cut I'd expect to get back based on the green plan. I found that I'd be paying more than I'd be getting back, with no potential 'efficiencies' for saving money.

I've already published the figures... twice... on this forum. At no point have you or any other fan of the Liberals ever pointed out any sort of problem with my calculations.

As McCallum points out.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...scriminate.aspx

McCallum's argument fails when he suggests And consumption patterns on the Prairies are not radically different from the rest of Canada..

The problem with that argument, as I've stated many times before, is that electricity consumed in the prairies is going to be generated via fossil fuels, whereas electricity consumed in Quebec (or Newfoundland) is going to be generated by hydro.

The fact that there is a difference in the ability to generate electricity via hydro (based only on geographic 'luck') does mean that people in different provinces are going to be affected differently. If you actually read the article and used some logic, you would have identified that. (I've pointed out that problem more than once).

This all seems like the same hysteria that was seen during the CFCs debate.

You know, sometimes people overemphasize dangers and/or risks. On the other hand, sometimes such concerns are warranted (gun registry anyone?)

I've always said right from the start... this 'green shift' may not necessarily bankrupt me or cause serious harm, but that doesn't mean that even a bill with minor flaws (and no redeeming characteristics) should be supported.

Riverwind · July 25, 2008

I've always said right from the start... this 'green shift' may not necessarily bankrupt me or cause serious harm, but that doesn't mean that even a bill with minor flaws (and no redeeming characteristics) should be supported.

Once a carbon tax gets put in place the government will be dependent on the revenues. This means that we will never be able to rid of it even if the climate alarmists are proven to be wrong in the next 10 years or so. For that reason it is bad policy until we have better evidence that CO2 induced warming is likely to be harmful.

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

Even your own sources don't back up your claims and you know that. The complaints about CFCs were related to the cost - not about whether replacements existed. In fact, most of the CFC manufactures supported the ban because they saw it as an opportunity to increase sales selling the replacements.

Talk about a bogus argument. The manufacturers supported it? Show me which companies supported it.

They were the one whipping up opposition in Montreal and not just on cost. Dupont led the charge.

In any case, we need to emit CO2 to live. No amount of taxation will change that.

Another misdirection. It is the escalating rise of man-made CO2 that has been shown to increase warming.

Now, I know the right wing doesn't believe that, just as many of them didn't believe smoking was harmful or that Darwin was correct or that CFCs damaged the ozone but to resort to the CO2 is needed to live oversimplifies the balance that is thrown our of whack by the burning of fossil fuels at the level it is happening now.

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

Of course, I could point out that I've already established that emissions are dropping without a carbon tax. I've pointed out the existance of supply/demand curves and explained their relevance in another thread. That's a lot more proof than you've ever given.

And I have indicated that the Canadian figures are minor drops given the 1990 objectives. The market can explain some of the drops but there was also regulatory and investment changes introduced by the federal, provincial and local governments that accounted for the decreases as well.

You can't even answer a simple question... do you really think there are business men sitting around who have decided they'll earn less profit because they want to waste energy?

If carbon burning fuels are the least wasteful energy to burn, what business would give it up?

This is why a price for carbon is set up to encourage alternatives. The government has decided that carbon burning on such a scale is bad. It is the nature of a consumption tax to set a price for this.

I wouldn't count on it...given the fact that the president of the world bank has already taken steps to distance the organization from the report, and pretty much every report has numbers that are far lower than the 75%. (At this point we don't even know if that 75% refers to the cost of all food, or just certain items based on corn or soy, or if he even took into account the greater efficiency in the use of byproducts that could occur in the U.S.).

I guess we'll see where they and some of the other reports stand. It certainly isn't 5%. Most of the other reports are quoting 25 to 35% which is a huge increase for a program that is supposed to reduce emissions.

Ethanol does give poorer mileage, but the drop is not that great.

My Mazda and Toyota, both very new cars, are getting 5 to 6% less fuel efficiency. It is certainly noticeable to me that they are not getting as good mileage.

Lets assume the worst case scenario of the references given... that you loose 4% efficiency. Instead of getting $93/year in savings, I end up only getting $89 back. If my food expenses have gone up $75 (basically 5 times more than the CD Howe estimates), I'm still ending up with $14 more in my pocket.

I assume you have only one car.

Heck, even if food prices have gone up $225 per capita (bascially, 75% instead of 5%), I end up loosing $136, but that's STILL less than the amount I'd be out under the Liberal green shift plan.

The Green Shift is an entire program aimed at carbon whereas ethanol is just one aspect of a large program.

Of course, I could point out some of the other benefits of using Ethanol... reduction in CO, benzene and hydrocarbon emissions (which, in theory, can also contribute to global warming).

Only in the burning of it. The production and transportation costs use up just as much energy that produce emissions as they reduce. Not exactly a desired effect.

I really have no idea why your car has seen its gas mileage decrease. Did you ever think that it could have some cause other than the use of ethanol? (I have no idea where you live, or where you fill up, or what type of car you drive; remember, some provinces have been mandating the use of ethanol for years, and some service stations have already been adding it to their gas.)

Mandated use just started in Manitoba. It is why so many people have noticed anywhere from 5 to 7% drop. It has been a little higher for some people using E85.

I GAVE you an example... myself.

I'm afraid I don't consider a couple of hundred bucks getting whacked.

McCallum's argument fails when he suggests And consumption patterns on the Prairies are not radically different from the rest of Canada..
The problem with that argument, as I've stated many times before, is that electricity consumed in the prairies is going to be generated via fossil fuels, whereas electricity consumed in Quebec (or Newfoundland) is going to be generated by hydro.

There are still ways for business and consumers to reduce that exposure to the carbon tax. Alberta and Saskatchewan are not going to get dinged 40% of the charges all on their own.

The fact that there is a difference in the ability to generate electricity via hydro (based only on geographic 'luck') does mean that people in different provinces are going to be affected differently. If you actually read the article and used some logic, you would have identified that. (I've pointed out that problem more than once).

I still don't see where people are going to get whacked to the point where they are freezing in the dark like some on the right say in these forums. I don't see where they are going to be on the hook for thousands of dollars each year either. Even in your case, you say it is a $200 difference.

I think Albertans lost more than that in income from the changes to the income trusts.

You know, sometimes people overemphasize dangers and/or risks. On the other hand, sometimes such concerns are warranted (gun registry anyone?)

I've always said right from the start... this 'green shift' may not necessarily bankrupt me or cause serious harm, but that doesn't mean that even a bill with minor flaws (and no redeeming characteristics) should be supported.

Whereas I believe a tax on consumption of a product determined to be harmful helps reduce its usage.

Riverwind · July 25, 2008

Talk about a bogus argument. The manufacturers supported it? Show me which companies supported it.

I gave you a report before that supports my claim. It indicated clearly that Dupont was the only company that was kicking up the fuss at the end. The main reason was alternatives existed which gave the CFC manufacturers market opportunities. However, they did fuss until they were confident that feasible alternatives existed. If you want to emulate the CFC approach then regulation must wait until after viable alternatives have been developed.

Another misdirection. It is the escalating rise of man-made CO2 that has been shown to increase warming.

Actually, it has not. There is a hypothesis that rising CO2 will lead to some warming but we have no experimental results that demonstrate how much warming will occur and whether this warming will be significant.

to resort to the CO2 is needed to live oversimplifies the balance that is thrown our of whack by the burning of fossil fuels at the level it is happening now.

There will be 9 billion people to feed in 30 years. They only way to feed those people is to provide massive amounts of energy. We have no technology that can replace fossil fuels at the scale required. Any CO2 regulation must take into account the lack of technology and set modest goals. That means industry specific regulation makes sense but carbon taxes are dumb. Edited July 25, 2008 by Riverwind

noahbody · July 25, 2008

You know, sometimes people overemphasize dangers and/or risks. On the other hand, sometimes such concerns are warranted (gun registry anyone?)

Funny, I was just thinking this morning that a good tag for the Green Shift would be "Brought to you by the same people who thought the long gun registry was a good idea." I can't wait til Dion bombs a shopping mall with live turkeys.

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

Funny, I was just thinking this morning that a good tag for the Green Shift would be "Brought to you by the same people who thought the long gun registry was a good idea." I can't wait til Dion bombs a shopping mall with live turkeys.

I didn't write the quoted section.

I certainly didn't think the gun registry was money-wise when it was announced but now it is accessed by the police 5000 times a day. Seems that a tool that gets that amount of use should remain as long as the costs are under control which the Auditor says is now true.

The Tories want to remove a tool the police use. Why?

segnosaur · July 25, 2008

(On required ethanol content in fuel)
Why exactly do you keep labeling this a 'Tory policy'? Its been pointed out to you in the past that the ethanol policy has been supported by members of several parties (including the Federal liberals, and various provincial parties including the Ontario NDP.)

I've already pointed out that I think the Liberals are wrong.

Except you repeatedly refer to it as as the policy by the conservative party. Anyone who read your posts and nothing else would end up thinking that electing the Liberals would somehow change things.

Its deceptive. A lie by omission. More in keeping with Michael Moore rather than honest political discourse.

It would be like me saying "Harper is against eating babies". That is true. I'm also pretty sure that Dion is against eating babies too... but if I only mention Harper being against it, it gives a false sense of the truth. Do you really think such deceptions are a good way to make you and the Liberals seem virtuous?

And before you return to that argument about how the carbon tax would 'replace' the excise tax, remember that at least part of the excise taxes go to highway maintenance/policing/etc. Removing the excise tax means that these items aren't going to be paid for through tax revenue, since the 'carbon tax' is meant to offset the tax cuts.

The excise tax was going into general revenues and very little if any was used for highway construction.

The fact that the excise tax was going into general revenue is irrelevant. In fact, I can't really think of too many examples where certain taxes are specifically earmarked for particular projects.

Even if the excise tax does go into general revenue, a portion of it does find its way into building or maintaining our transportation system, either directly (e.g. federal employees that deal with various road issues), or indirectly through transfers to provinces (who usually have a more direct role in actually building and maintaining roads, not to mention policing). If the excise tax is replaced with the 'carbon tax', then people aren't really paying for their use of the public road network. i.e. you have a public 'good' that is being consumed that the users are not paying for.

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

I gave you a report before that supports my claim. It indicated clearly that Dupont was the only company that was kicking up the fuss at the end. The main reason was alternatives existed which gave the CFC manufacturers market opportunities.

They were not the only company making a fuss. Cite the companies that were supportive.

However, they did fuss until they were confident that feasible alternatives existed. If you want to emulate the CFC approach then regulation must wait until after viable alternatives have been developed.

There are other alternative energies to use in many cases.

Actually, it has not. There is a hypothesis that rising CO2 will lead to some warming but we have no experimental results that demonstrate how much warming will occur and whether this warming will be significant.

This is where the consensus of scientists kicks in and the phony lists that the deniers use is not a consensus.

There will be 9 billion people to feed in 30 years. They only way to feed those people is to provide massive amounts of energy. We have no technology that can replace fossil fuels at the scale required. Any CO2 regulation must take into account the lack of technology and set modest goals. That means industry specific regulation makes sense but carbon taxes are dumb.

According to you and the deniers. Many more people such as Paul Volcker and the CEO of Duke Energy are now saying carbon taxes are the way to go. I wonder how long we'll see some on the right wing become converts.

segnosaur · July 25, 2008

I certainly didn't think the gun registry was money-wise when it was announced but now it is accessed by the police 5000 times a day. Seems that a tool that gets that amount of use should remain...

I'd be careful about claims about the number of times the registry is used. After all, many of those checks are routine, and there is no guarantee that the police actually use the information when they actually enter someone's house, etc. I rather suspect most police treat every situation as one where firearms could be involved.

... as long as the costs are under control which the Auditor says is now true.
The Tories want to remove a tool the police use. Why?

Because even if costs are 'under control', the costs are not actually zero (and whatever they are paying into the registry could be better spent in other areas)

Because there are still inaccuracies in the system which limits its usefulness and, if someone puts too much trust in the system could end up in trouble?

Because many people are worried about such information being lost/stolen?

Because the registry may not be effective?

From: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...84-53957b01a6a0

The auditor general's report also found that there is a lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of the gun registry, or to prove that it is meeting its stated goal of improving public safety.

It wasn't my intention to derail this thread by specifically targeting the Liberals and their spending. I probably could have also pointed to cost overruns in the U.S. military. Heck, even the Canadian military has had some unexpected bills (such as unexpected cost increases for its latest helicopter purchases). I just picked the gun registry because A: it was Canadian, and most people could identify with it, and B: it gives one of the best examples of expenses being out of line of original estimates. (I still remember, back when the Liberals first suggested it would 'only' cost $35 million, that some friends of mine thought it was crazy when I suggested the costs could be many times that.)

The point was... sometimes people are wrong with their predictions, and sometimes they're right.

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

I've already pointed out that I think the Liberals are wrong.
Except you repeatedly refer to it as as the policy by the conservative party. Anyone who read your posts and nothing else would end up thinking that electing the Liberals would somehow change things.

Its deceptive. A lie by omission. More in keeping with Michael Moore rather than honest political discourse.

It is the Tory policy. They initiated the legislation. They had it as their policy. The voted to support it and it is now the law of the land.

I've criticized the Liberals and NDP provincially for supporting it but the right wing keeps trying to distance itself from the decision they themselves introduced and supported.

I have given no indication that a vote for the Liberals means the decision would be reversed. An omission would mean that I didn't mention anything about the Liberal support which is totally untrue. I strongly oppose the move as wrongheaded.

It would be like me saying "Harper is against eating babies". That is true. I'm also pretty sure that Dion is against eating babies too... but if I only mention Harper being against it, it gives a false sense of the truth. Do you really think such deceptions are a good way to make you and the Liberals seem virtuous?

Please. I've mentioned for a long time that I think the ethanol bill is more of a farm support bill than anything else. I find it unnecessary in a time of rising commodities.

The rest of your commentary is baiting of the worst kind.

The excise tax was going into general revenues and very little if any was used for highway construction.

The fact that the excise tax was going into general revenue is irrelevant. In fact, I can't really think of too many examples where certain taxes are specifically earmarked for particular projects.

Initially, the excise tax was there to end the deficit. It is why the Tories said they would drop it in 2005 when they were running for office. It is one of the promises that Harper says he doesn't intend to keep because he has done enough with a 2% drop in GST.

Even if the excise tax does go into general revenue, a portion of it does find its way into building or maintaining our transportation system, either directly (e.g. federal employees that deal with various road issues), or indirectly through transfers to provinces (who usually have a more direct role in actually building and maintaining roads, not to mention policing). If the excise tax is replaced with the 'carbon tax', then people aren't really paying for their use of the public road network. i.e. you have a public 'good' that is being consumed that the users are not paying for.

I'm sure a portion does go to roads. The last estimate I heard was that it was a very small portion though.

Paul Martin actually was the first PM to set aside a portion of the gas tax to the municipalities for actual earmarked infrastructure. Harper wisely kept the policy. That set aside didn't come from the excise tax though.

The excise becoming a carbon tax simply re-categorizes the tax without changing it.

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

I'd be careful about claims about the number of times the registry is used. After all, many of those checks are routine, and there is no guarantee that the police actually use the information when they actually enter someone's house, etc. I rather suspect most police treat every situation as one where firearms could be involved.

The last I saw written on the subject was the police chiefs saying they supported continued use of the registry.

Because even if costs are 'under control', the costs are not actually zero (and whatever they are paying into the registry could be better spent in other areas)

I never supported the registry because of the very reason that it would likely have a heavy administrative start up cost and perhaps a fair sized budget thereafter.

However, I am very much interested in hearing if the police believe it is now an effective tool. The Harper government does not seem to want to ask that and instead, just continue to give an annual amnesty.

Bryan · July 25, 2008

This is where the consensus of scientists kicks in and the phony lists that the deniers use is not a consensus.

Consensus is not science. Nor is it evidence of fact. A lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it.

Riverwind · July 25, 2008

They were not the only company making a fuss. Cite the companies that were supportive.

It is the report I linked to earlier.

There are other alternative energies to use in many cases.

Nuclear is the only option available but regulatory hurdles means that it cannot be deployed at the pace required. Wind and solar are completely uneconomical without massive subsidies and that is not likley to change any time soon.

This is where the consensus of scientists kicks in and the phony lists that the deniers use is not a consensus.

I don't care how many scientists claim that they *believe* that the models are accurate predictors of the future. I want to see real empirical evidence that these models actually do predict the future with reasonable accuracy. So far that evidence does not exist. Until then any discussion of major policy changes is premature. I suspect you are someone who would have been a sucker for BreX - after all there was a "consensus" that they had found lots of gold the only problem is no one actually asked the promoters to prove that they had the gold they claimed.

I wonder how long we'll see some on the right wing become converts.

Carbon taxes are the lesser evil compared to cap and trade. People who reject the notion that CO2 is something to be concerned about may be pragmatic and choose to promote carbon taxes over cap and trade. Edited July 25, 2008 by Riverwind

segnosaur · July 25, 2008

And I have indicated that the Canadian figures are minor drops given the 1990 objectives. The market can explain some of the drops but there was also regulatory and investment changes introduced by the federal, provincial and local governments that accounted for the decreases as well.

We have also seen similar drops in Carbon emissions in the U.S. The fact that emissions have gone down in both countries (while at the same time population has gone up) suggests quite strongly that people and businesses are interested in finding efficiencies, without the carbon tax.

If carbon burning fuels are the least wasteful energy to burn, what business would give it up?

Problem with your argument is that you're assuming there are alternatives. There are not. If a company wants to make money, it will have to use energy (as efficiently as possible, but still use it). Once they've already reached their peak efficiency, the only way they can get further savings is by actually cutting production (and thus loosing jobs).

Guess you'd be happy with that wouldn't you.

So, once again, what businesses are actually sitting around deliberately trying to reduce profits by not cutting energy usage?

Ethanol does give poorer mileage, but the drop is not that great.

My Mazda and Toyota, both very new cars, are getting 5 to 6% less fuel efficiency. It is certainly noticeable to me that they are not getting as good mileage.

Well, you'll have to excuse me, but I'm more likely to believe multiple experts from a wide variety of reputable sources rather than one anonymous poster who doesn't even seem to understand basic economics.

Maybe your cars aren't getting less efficiency, but you just think they are because higher gas prices keep you from filling up as often, or because your driving habits have changed slightly. (Higher gas prices might keep someone from taking long road trips on vacation, which would mean a higher portion of their driving involves in-city commuting, which would give a lower mileage.) Unless you are driving the exact same distance you were before, on the exact same roads, with the exact same traffic patterns, your claim is nothing more than an unverified anecdote.

Or maybe your car actually is getting less efficiency but its because they're a year older (and thus may be out of tune.) Or maybe Mazda's do have a greater drop in mileage with ethanol. (After all, the studies I've referred to looked at several cars, so they were looking at fleet averages rather than just your car.)

Heck, even if you're right and you have seen your mileage go down by 5-6%, you'd still save money. (If I applied that much of a decrease to my driving situation, I'd save between $87-88 per year in gas, still more than I would be paying for the food increase... and that's assuming a worst case scenario; i.e. assuming the low end of the estimate for the effects of ethanol on gas prices as well as underestimating my gas usage).

I assume you have only one car.

Yes, I do... Of course, if I was in a 2 car family, there would likely be more actual driving done (and thus more money saved). Of course, with the extra person you'd also have a higher food budget, so things would likely balance out.

Back to the original point though...

The idea that ethanol production is going to drive up the cost of of Canadian's living expenses appears to be incorrect. The total amount of increase is likely very small and in many cases is offset by savings from gas price decreases. And even if food prices DO go up, it could be less than the cost of the Liberal 'green plan'.

Only in the burning of it. The production and transportation costs use up just as much energy that produce emissions as they reduce.

Not exactly. I've already provided a reference to show that the overall savings is around 25%. (i.e. if you use/burn 1 Mj of energy to produce and transport the corn, you end up with 1.25 units of energy.) This is not a very good return on investment, but it still means you are ahead of the game, if only slightly. (And as I've said before, the byproduct of the fermentation process can be used as cattle feed, eliminating the need to grow food specifically for livestock.)

(On people suffering under the Liberal green plan)
I GAVE you an example... myself.

I pointed out the amount I'd be paying in carbon tax (based on where I live and my type of fuel), and how much of a tax cut I'd expect to get back based on the green plan. I found that I'd be paying more than I'd be getting back, with no potential 'efficiencies' for saving money.

I'm afraid I don't consider a couple of hundred bucks getting whacked.

First of all, are you at least admitting that I (and many others) will be negatively affected by the carbon tax?

Secondly, nice to see you're so well off that a 'couple of hundred bucks' is nothing to you, but it does mean something to me. I'm already doing my best to provide for myself. That 'couple of hundred bucks' would have been my groceries for most of the month. Its the cost to go visit my elderly parents, twice. Why do you hate my parents?

There are still ways for business and consumers to reduce that exposure to the carbon tax.

Except, as I demonstrated in the other thread, the Liberal tax cuts would not likely be enough (at least in my case) to offset the cost of new appliances that would be more efficient than my existing ones.

Whereas I believe a tax on consumption of a product determined to be harmful helps reduce its usage.

That might work for something where a product usage is completely voluntary (such as cigarettes), or where there are alternatives. However, given our current level of technology though, there are no significant alternatives. Most significant sources of hydro have been tapped, Wind and solar are, currently, not economically viable (even with the carbon tax). Nuclear is definitely an option, and Ontario is currently building new reactors, but they will probably take a decade to come on line, and it won't totally eliminate the need for electrical generation from fossil fuels.

Wild Bill · July 25, 2008

The last I saw written on the subject was the police chiefs saying they supported continued use of the registry.

Does this point really matter? Police chiefs support any and all laws and tools as possible aids to their jobs. They couldn't care less if a tool is cost-effective. That's not their problem. If the gun registry was useful one time in 10,000 that's a plus for them.

Suppose a check shows no record of a gun in a house. That just means that there likely is no LEGAL gun in the house! The police on scene still would have no choice but to treat the situation as a possible firearm available. After all, criminals are notoriously lax about registering their guns.

I mean, police chiefs seem to believe they are actually effective in waging the war on drugs! They would never call for legalization. They just ask for bigger clubs in the form of more laws. As if it makes any difference.

I read an article today stating how the human mind evolved to accept anecdotal evidence and that scientific thinking is only a few hundred years old. If the police chiefs support the gun registry then I can well believe it.

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

It is the report I linked to earlier.

There were several companies that were opposed at the Montreal. Union Carbide, Dow Chemical and even General Motors expressed strong opposition.

It was revealed that Dupont had actually stopped researching for alternatives for CFCs in 1981 and helped fund opposition campaigns throughout the world to stop the ban on CFCs. This didn't go over very well with Congress or the President during hearings when it became obvious who was stalling work on alternatives.

It was only after the countries went ahead with the Protocol that companies came on board including Dupont. 500 companies formed an alliance and began building CFC-free factories around the world. The catastrophe that had been predicted by a few people who said that people round the world would be denied air conditioning or would die of starvation because of no frozen food didn't come to pass.

Nuclear is the only option available but regulatory hurdles means that it cannot be deployed at the pace required. Wind and solar are completely uneconomical without massive subsidies and that is not likley to change any time soon.

Funny, McCain and T. Boone Pickens disagree.

I don't care how many scientists claim that they *believe* that the models are accurate predictors of the future. I want to see real empirical evidence that these models actually do predict the future with reasonable accuracy. So far that evidence does not exist. Until then any discussion of major policy changes is premature. I suspect you are someone who would have been a sucker for BreX - after all there was a "consensus" that they had found lots of gold the only problem is no one actually asked the promoters to prove that they had the gold they claimed.

There is that insulting tone we have come to expect from the right wing again. Will you give it a rest?

Carbon taxes are the lesser evil compared to cap and trade. People who reject the notion that CO2 is something to be concerned about may be pragmatic and choose to promote carbon taxes over cap and trade.

If it is the pragmatic choice, why not embrace it?

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

Does this point really matter? Police chiefs support any and all laws and tools as possible aids to their jobs. They couldn't care less if a tool is cost-effective. That's not their problem. If the gun registry was useful one time in 10,000 that's a plus for them.

I think it does matter if the police believe it is effective. The Tories don't seem to be interested in the least in finding out.

I haven't seen a report from the Auditor on the subject in the last two years either which I think could shed some light on the subject.

Bryan · July 25, 2008

If it is the pragmatic choice, why not embrace it?

The pragmatic choice would be to defer until the alarmists can provide factual evidence for their claims.

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

We have also seen similar drops in Carbon emissions in the U.S. The fact that emissions have gone down in both countries (while at the same time population has gone up) suggests quite strongly that people and businesses are interested in finding efficiencies, without the carbon tax.

We have seen marginal drops in both countries while at the same time there has been regulatory changes and legislation introduced in a number of states and provinces to decrease emissions.

Problem with your argument is that you're assuming there are alternatives. There are not. If a company wants to make money, it will have to use energy (as efficiently as possible, but still use it). Once they've already reached their peak efficiency, the only way they can get further savings is by actually cutting production (and thus loosing jobs).

This is the same argument we heard with CFCs. There are alternatives and where there are none, the Liberals among others, have said a cap and trade program will be effective.

Guess you'd be happy with that wouldn't you.

Seems to me that I've said, investment in green alternatives would create jobs, not destroy the economy.

So, once again, what businesses are actually sitting around deliberately trying to reduce profits by not cutting energy usage?

I'm sure many are cutting energy use but if carbon is the best deal, they use that over all other energy sources.

Well, you'll have to excuse me, but I'm more likely to believe multiple experts from a wide variety of reputable sources rather than one anonymous poster who doesn't even seem to understand basic economics.

Ah, the insulting right wing tone again.

I'm one of the few people who isn't anonymous here. Perhaps you would like to come out from the shadows yourself.

Maybe your cars aren't getting less efficiency, but you just think they are because higher gas prices keep you from filling up as often, or because your driving habits have changed slightly. (Higher gas prices might keep someone from taking long road trips on vacation, which would mean a higher portion of their driving involves in-city commuting, which would give a lower mileage.) Unless you are driving the exact same distance you were before, on the exact same roads, with the exact same traffic patterns, your claim is nothing more than an unverified anecdote.

Just like your anecdote about how you are going to get whacked by the carbon tax?

do[/i] have a greater drop in mileage with ethanol. (After all, the studies I've referred to looked at several cars, so they were looking at fleet averages rather than just your car.)

I haven't done much different in terms of driving and the cars are both well maintained. I was able to gauge the mileage change fairly quick since the ethanol mandate is very new in Manitoba. Before, it was a choice. Now, it is the law. All gas is blended.

Heck, even if you're right and you have seen your mileage go down by 5-6%, you'd still save money. (If I applied that much of a decrease to my driving situation, I'd save between $87-88 per year in gas, still more than I would be paying for the food increase... and that's assuming a worst case scenario; i.e. assuming the low end of the estimate for the effects of ethanol on gas prices as well as underestimating my gas usage).

It is still money I'd rather not spend for a program that seems entirely unnecessary given that it may in fact increase emissions rather than reduces them.

The idea that ethanol production is going to drive up the cost of of Canadian's living expenses appears to be incorrect. The total amount of increase is likely very small and in many cases is offset by savings from gas price decreases. And even if food prices DO go up, it could be less than the cost of the Liberal 'green plan'.

The problem is that the ethanol plan is one small component of the government's present green plan. It is not the whole thing even according to Baird.

The Liberal plan covers 75$ of emissions in Canada.

Not exactly. I've already provided a reference to show that the overall savings is around 25%. (i.e. if you use/burn 1 Mj of energy to produce and transport the corn, you end up with 1.25 units of energy.) This is not a very good return on investment, but it still means you are ahead of the game, if only slightly. (And as I've said before, the byproduct of the fermentation process can be used as cattle feed, eliminating the need to grow food specifically for livestock.)

As a green plan, a slight improvement if that doesn't seem to worth all the trouble. And if food prices do seem to be much, much higher as a result, it seems even less worth it.

First of all, are you at least admitting that I (and many others) will be negatively affected by the carbon tax?

Hard to say since you are anonymous poster.

Secondly, nice to see you're so well off that a 'couple of hundred bucks' is nothing to you, but it does mean something to me. I'm already doing my best to provide for myself. That 'couple of hundred bucks' would have been my groceries for most of the month. Its the cost to go visit my elderly parents, twice. Why do you hate my parents?

Ah, nice. Glad to see the tone is still there.

If a couple of hundred bucks means a lot, you should hate the Tories for how they changes the income trust. Cost a lot of people a whole lot more than a couple of hundred bucks.

Except, as I demonstrated in the other thread, the Liberal tax cuts would not likely be enough (at least in my case) to offset the cost of new appliances that would be more efficient than my existing ones.

Since we are doubting anonymous posters, I don't know what we know anything of your case.

That might work for something where a product usage is completely voluntary (such as cigarettes), or where there are alternatives. However, given our current level of technology though, there are no significant alternatives. Most significant sources of hydro have been tapped, Wind and solar are, currently, not economically viable (even with the carbon tax). Nuclear is definitely an option, and Ontario is currently building new reactors, but they will probably take a decade to come on line, and it won't totally eliminate the need for electrical generation from fossil fuels.

I believe alternatives are there. I'd go so far as to say the government of Ontario would probably do well to build thermal heating for homes to curb its energy needs and reduce emissions.