Are the Liberals damaging Green party chances...?

[eyeball]

I still call it a bogus argument about it being impossible to change.

And yet the Tory policy makes sense? Please. This is what I mean about the right wing pussy footing about the direction Harper wants to go in regards to going after big polluters.

That is not what the panel at the National Post believed. It would be nice if Baird was up front about what the costs will be if they go after polluters.

It would be even nicer if Baird was up front about why Harper is backing his carbon tax plan when he doesn't believe any of this AGW nonsense in the first place.

[Riverwind]

It would be even nicer if Baird was up front about why Harper is backing his carbon tax plan when he doesn't believe any of this AGW nonsense in the first place.

AGW is not a black and white issue. People who believe that humans are changing the climate have many different opinions on the role of CO2 and what we should do about it. Obviously, the conservative government is not endorsing your preferred policy options but that does not mean they don't 'believe any of this AGW nonsense in the first place'. Edited July 26, 2008 by Riverwind

[noahbody]

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.

The gun registry was the most idiotic idea and biggest waste of money ever. Criminals hadn't registered their handguns for 70 years. Was it likely that they register their long arms? No. So basically, we spent $2 billion to prove this. And now will keep it going at the cost of around $25 million per year, which works out to $200.000 per homicide with a registered gun. Number of lives saved: 0.

When you look at a proposed solutions like the long gun registry, it's good to ask "so what?" The police access it 5000 times a day. So what? How many times a day can the police rely on the information? Zero. Because if the registry says there are no registered guns it doesn't mean there are no guns. A criminal record check provides much more valuable information.

Green Shift shifts taxes. So what? Are shareholders going to flip the bill? No. Is Joe Consumer? Yes. And how will funding social programs help the environment?

[jdobbin]

When you look at a proposed solutions like the long gun registry, it's good to ask "so what?" The police access it 5000 times a day. So what? How many times a day can the police rely on the information? Zero. Because if the registry says there are no registered guns it doesn't mean there are no guns. A criminal record check provides much more valuable information.

I don't know. When the police say they use something as a tool everyday, I don't say "so what." I find out how they use it and whether is has been effective for them.

Green Shift shifts taxes. So what? Are shareholders going to flip the bill? No. Is Joe Consumer? Yes. And how will funding social programs help the environment?

Carbon taxes help reduce usage of carbon.

I know that right wing doesn't believe in global warming. It would help if they were honest about it.

[eyeball]

AGW is not a black and white issue. People who believe that humans are changing the climate have many different opinions on the role of CO2 and what we should do about it. Obviously, the conservative government is not endorsing your preferred policy options but that does not mean they don't 'believe any of this AGW nonsense in the first place'.

Bullshit. People who don't believe it, like you and Stephen Harper, have only one opinion, that's its bullshit. So why can't Baird and you come clean about why Harper is backing his plan? Why do Conservatives even have never mind need a plan?

[Riverwind]

Bullshit. People who don't believe it, like you and Stephen Harper, have only one opinion, that's its bullshit.

This is an example of how the environmental activists have hijacked the debate and made a reasonable discourse on action impossible. The majority of skeptics believe that human emitted CO2 is causing the planet to warm but disagree on whether the amount of warming is something to be concerned about or whether mitigation is more cost effective than adaption. The idea that warming is necessarily bad or that mitigation must be the primary policy choice is a myth spread by various activists who see migitation policies as a way to impose wealth re-distribution policies. Edited July 26, 2008 by Riverwind

[noahbody]

I know that right wing doesn't believe in global warming. It would help if they were honest about it.

Again, it's not a right wing/left wing issue, it's right brained versus left brained. Emotion tends to blind people.

[Wild Bill]

Bullshit. People who don't believe it, like you and Stephen Harper, have only one opinion, that's its bullshit. So why can't Baird and you come clean about why Harper is backing his plan? Why do Conservatives even have never mind need a plan?

It's called politics! They ALL do it! That's why they're called politicians!

Are ya new?

GW has become very popular. It has become embedded in the public consciousness as deep as astrology and UFOs.

If you want to be elected you better at least pay lip service.

After all, if you're the only atheist in a town of Baptists you'd be smart to keep your mouth shut.

[jdobbin]

Again, it's not a right wing/left wing issue, it's right brained versus left brained. Emotion tends to blind people.

Why is it the right wing generally tries to run when identified as being the ones who tend to not believe in global warming?

[Wild Bill]

Why is it the right wing generally tries to run when identified as being the ones who tend to not believe in global warming?

See my post immediately before yours!

[jdobbin]

See my post immediately before yours!

I guess we see how you feel about it when you compare it to UFOs. Think the same thing about smoking?

[Wild Bill]

I guess we see how you feel about it when you compare it to UFOs. Think the same thing about smoking?

My feelings towards it are irrelevant. The politics are the same. If the positions were reversed the Liberals would be doing the exact same thing towards any other issue that was popular yet not scientifically proven.

Don't insult the people, even when they're loopy. Not if you expect to get their vote anyway.

If the Tories "came clean" as you demand they would likely lose the next election. While that may be your hope I don't think ANY politician would be THAT stupid!

As for smoking, I'm not a smoker so my opinions are based on observation. While it's obviously an unhealthy habit I tend to think many of the dangers, particularly that of passive smoke, are deliberately trumped up as a ploy to force smokers to quit. To me, a citizen is either legally an adult or he's not, as far as governments are concerned.

I guess I'm Libertarian enough to consider the success of the anti-smoking movement in this country as a tragedy for individual rights. I would have supported owners choosing what type of customers they wished to attract with signs over the doors stating Smoking, Non-Smoking or Mixed. Those bothered by smoke could not have been better protected than that. The present system obviously is not designed to protect non-smokers but rather to force smokers to quit by removing any venue for them to practise their habit.

However, I'M not running for office! Anti-smoking is another non-scientific issue. There is nothing so popular as making your neighbour do what YOU think is good for him! Except maybe taxing him for your OWN pet hobby horse. If I appeared in a political debate about smoking I would lose the election, period and end of story. It would make no difference if I won the debate with iron-clad logic and irrefutable evidence. The majority of the public has chosen to view the issue from an anecdotal standpoint and not from considering it by scientific method.

People are the way they are and there is no point in fighting it. If you want to get their votes you sometimes have to compromise yourself. The only important factors are how much you have to compromise and how much integrity you actually had to start with.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Wild Bill

[jdobbin]

My feelings towards it are irrelevant. The politics are the same. If the positions were reversed the Liberals would be doing the exact same thing towards any other issue that was popular yet not scientifically proven.

Don't insult the people, even when they're loopy. Not if you expect to get their vote anyway.

If the Tories "came clean" as you demand they would likely lose the next election. While that may be your hope I don't think ANY politician would be THAT stupid!

I tend to think that science is a little more solid that those on the right believe. In fact, I am surprised at the level of attacks being made on scientists and how they seem to have increased in recent years.

It is one thing to be a libertarian and to say people should be guided by their own believes. However, there is usually an addendum to that which says "as long as it doesn't harm others."

In terms of smoking, the sale of the product remains legal but the science has made a convincing argument that it does harm. Subsequently, the tobacco has become more of a controlled substance.

You argue that all politicians are bad. We have seen such generalizations for many professions and beyond. You're certainly cynical enough about politics. It is a wonder you post to a forum at all when you say there is no use fighting things.

[Wild Bill]

I tend to think that science is a little more solid that those on the right believe. In fact, I am surprised at the level of attacks being made on scientists and how they seem to have increased in recent years.

It is one thing to be a libertarian and to say people should be guided by their own believes. However, there is usually an addendum to that which says "as long as it doesn't harm others."

In terms of smoking, the sale of the product remains legal but the science has made a convincing argument that it does harm. Subsequently, the tobacco has become more of a controlled substance.

You argue that all politicians are bad. We have seen such generalizations for many professions and beyond. You're certainly cynical enough about politics. It is a wonder you post to a forum at all when you say there is no use fighting things.

Smokers who smoke by themselves aren't harming others. If a restaurant chose to be non-smoking then how could anyone inside be harmed by someone smoking in a restaurant down the street?

As for tobacco being a harmful substance I would agree. So what? As I said, I've got a few Libertarian bones. Let people make their own choices. They are either free citizens or they're not. One can't pretend otherwise. I not only disapprove of but actually fear a nanny state.

Yeah, I guess I'm cynical about politics. I think that's better than being idealistic and a pollyanna. like many who blindly follow a party, Tories included. A pessimist is rarely disappointed, I guess. I try not to take it to an extreme. Just enough to keep a clear head and a strong BS filter. I find many politically correct viewpoints tend to fall apart if you think about them scientifically. Usually there is a strong hidden agenda.

It has been said that our system is the best of an imperfect bunch. I would strongly agree. There are many examples of governments that are far worse for an individual's freedom and rights. It's just that I find many people are too willing to think that our system has NO flaws! Instead of recognizing and dealing with problems they hide behind platitudes like "Aren't you lucky you're not an American?"

I don't maintain that ALL politicians are a sorry lot! I just prefer to examine them closely before I make my opinion, rather than automatically give them the benefit of the doubt according to what party they belong to.

[jdobbin]

Smokers who smoke by themselves aren't harming others. If a restaurant chose to be non-smoking then how could anyone inside be harmed by someone smoking in a restaurant down the street?

I tend to take the broad view that smokers aren't just harming themselves.

As for tobacco being a harmful substance I would agree. So what? As I said, I've got a few Libertarian bones. Let people make their own choices. They are either free citizens or they're not. One can't pretend otherwise. I not only disapprove of but actually fear a nanny state.

We don't live in a libertarian state despite the hopes of some. Free citizens made that choice too.

Yeah, I guess I'm cynical about politics. I think that's better than being idealistic and a pollyanna. like many who blindly follow a party, Tories included. A pessimist is rarely disappointed, I guess. I try not to take it to an extreme. Just enough to keep a clear head and a strong BS filter. I find many politically correct viewpoints tend to fall apart if you think about them scientifically. Usually there is a strong hidden agenda.

You can always run yourself. I did.

It has been said that our system is the best of an imperfect bunch. I would strongly agree. There are many examples of governments that are far worse for an individual's freedom and rights. It's just that I find many people are too willing to think that our system has NO flaws! Instead of recognizing and dealing with problems they hide behind platitudes like "Aren't you lucky you're not an American?"

I don't know too many who don't see flaws. What I do see is a lot of people who complain but never run themselves.

I don't maintain that ALL politicians are a sorry lot! I just prefer to examine them closely before I make my opinion, rather than automatically give them the benefit of the doubt according to what party they belong to.

I'd agree with that approach.

[noahbody]

Why is it the right wing generally tries to run when identified as being the ones who tend to not believe in global warming?

Can you name one person, left or right wing, who doesn't believe in global warming? Or do you mean global warming 'the world is coming to an end' hysteria?

Gore's mentor didn't believe that. Was he right wing?

[segnosaur]

Like I said before, you are claiming that this green plan will somehow prevent emissions, more than the effects of naturally higher gas prices. Still looking for evidence from you that that would actually happen.

The gas price as we have seen in the last week also fluctuates downwards. The carbon tax remains a fixed cost that encourages seeking non-carbon alternatives or even greater energy efficiencies.

I never denied that gas prices might fluctuate downwards (at least over short periods of time). But supplies are limited (in this case fixed), and demand is increasing. Even if oil is currently overpriced at $140/barrel, its still not likely to fall much below $100. Ever taken economics? If not, I'd suggest looking into supply and demand curves

As for alternatives, companies and labs are already working on them. Even in the U.S. (where gas is cheaper than here) we hear of companies working on things like oil-from-bacteria/algae, wind farms, etc. Whatever little 'incentive' is provided by a carbon tax isn't needed (and certainly not worth the type of tinkering with our economy that would result.)

You've already criticized ethanol to cut transportation. Wind power? Solar? Both currently depend on large subsidies. Hydro? Not only are pretty much all resources in use already, it causes its own environmental problems. About the only option is nuclear, and since the development of nuclear plants is pretty much out of the hands of your average company, its up to the provincial utilities.

Nuclear can be done by private companies. Canada's problem is that government would like provinces to use AECL. They may be able to do the job but the need is now.

I never claimed that private companies couldn't get involved in nuclear power generation (although it might be a political nightmare). But it would require very high capital costs, and I doubt a company like "Joe's Underwear Factory" would be able to afford their own CANDU.

There is plenty of hydro in Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland if the feds help with east-west transmission.

I'm not opposed to the improving east-west transmission... it would improve grid reliability, and give more flexibility to consumers and providers.

But if the goal is to reduce total CO2 emissions, an east-west transmission line would do nothing. Why? Because the Canadian grids are already linked to the U.S. grids. (Quebec sells a lot of its hydro power to the U.S.). If Quebec or Manitoba decide to sell power to Ontario (rather than the U.S.) it might reduce the amount of CO2 we emit here. But, that will also mean that in the U.S. they will have to use more coal or oil in their electrical generation to make up the difference. End result: the same amount of CO2 gets emitted globally. (And as far as I can tell, the U.S./Canada border doesn't prevent CO2 from passing from one country to another.)

About the only thing that WILL increase is the amount of smugness coming from Canada.

I actually did suggest (in another thread) that, if you believed that taxation to reduce usage was a good thing, you should also support taxing hydro consumption. At least if you reduced all electrical usage (even 'clean' hydro) it would reduce the need to use fossil fuels to fill the gap.

Ah ok, so maybe I shouldn't have called you anonymous. (I just never really cared about your real identity.) But the point is, you're still only one person, giving nothing but a personal anecdote. The same type of 'evidence' provided by faith healers and snake oil salesmen. I think I'll stick to studies from people who A: have looked at a large number of vehicles, and B: have actually done more in depth study into the issue.

I'd love to hear more independent Canadian studies on mileage done. I am still calculating it for the year but it has been consistently at the 5% level so far.

And how do you know exactly what your MPG is? Do you have a gas usage guage on your car? You just basing that on the number of times you have to fill up in a week? Do you actually count the number of KM traveled and the number of litres consumed?

As soon as the change happened, I calculated kms travelled, litres consumed and cost of the gas purchased. I haven't done anything different in terms of driving.

But wait a second... if you did your calculations as soon as the change happened then how do you know what your fuel efficiency was before the change? And are you absolutely sure that the gas stations you were filling up with weren't already adding ethanol even before they were mandated? (And did the change happen prior to the summer? If so, the fact that you'd be driving with either the windows down or the air conditioning on will harm your fuel efficiency.)

To be honest, I have no major complaint about your claims of fuel efficiency. Like I said, the studies I've seen look at fleet efficiencies. Maybe your cars are mutants. And they are withing a percent or 2 of tests.

I've wondered aloud if the difference is between grain and corn but I've never had corn ethanol so I have no way of knowing.

Actually, no, there wouldn't be. At least as far as fuel efficiency goes.

All 'alcohols' are basically just strings of carbon molecules, with hydrogen molecules (plus an oxygen molecule) attached. In fact, alcohol molecules look remarkably like the hydrocarbon molecules from oil (the difference is, the alcohol contains the extra oxygen, the oil molecules don't.)

Ethanol is basically Ethyl Alcohol, which means that its got 2 carbon atoms. (Methyl alcohol only has one carbon, butanol has 4.) But it doesn't matter how the ethanol is formed... the ethyl alcohol molecule formed by fermenting corn will be identical to the molecule formed by fermenting grains.

The only thing that might change is the economics... in many areas, corn requires more intensive crop cultivation, so I suspect (although this is just a guess) its use will impact food prices more.

Since the taxpayer also helps pay for the ethanol plant, the costs just seem to go up for the taxpayer/consumer.

You mean through subsidies? Granted, there are sometimes subsidies given, but not all ethanol plants receive such subsidies. Some are built by companies raising the capital themselves.

As I've said before... I've given all the details that you would need to verify at least the numbers in my case. Even if you don't believe that its an accurate representation of myself, the situation I gave (income, province of residence, home heating method), etc. are certainly not unusual. So at least you can say that someone matching those characteristics would be negatively affected.

I'd have to see far more evidence of those characteristics to see if that is the true outcome.

Ummm... what exactly do you need to see? I've already stated that even if you don't believe those were my particular details, none of the things that I've stated are really that outlandish. You can even go and look at the statistics yourself.

I've stated that I'm single (certainly not that unusual), have a mid-level income (so you can figure out how much tax rebate I'd get from the green plan) with a gas furnace, living in Ontario. If you don't believe its me, could you at least admit that there will be middle income single people in Ontario with a gas furnace will end up paying more than they get back? I've given the sources for my figures... have you found any problems with my calculations?

What type of thermal heating are you referring to? Geothermal? Passive solar?

Geothermal costs approximately $15-30k. Are you in favor of subsidies for that?

If it costs $500 million for a new plant, pipelines and equipment to supply a community of 50,000 people with heat, I think it is worth looking into geothermal and solar as an alternative.

Just out of curiosity, where exactly are you getting that $500 million figure from?

And you still haven't answered my question... would you be in favor of subsidies for the installation to help people install that?

[jdobbin]

Can you name one person, left or right wing, who doesn't believe in global warming? Or do you mean global warming 'the world is coming to an end' hysteria?

Harper didn't believe it until after he was elected, it seems.

It appears several posters here who associate themselves with the right don't believe it is happening. Some have said we are cooling and talked about another ice age. Others just don't believe in the science while others think nothing needs to be done.

Gore's mentor didn't believe that. Was he right wing?

Didn't believe nothing needed to be done?

[jdobbin]

I never denied that gas prices might fluctuate downwards (at least over short periods of time). But supplies are limited (in this case fixed), and demand is increasing. Even if oil is currently overpriced at $140/barrel, its still not likely to fall much below $100. Ever taken economics? If not, I'd suggest looking into supply and demand curves

I've heard all this before and yet we saw gas and oil prices plummet for lengthy periods. Supply and demand seems to defy the recent elevated prices we have seen.

As for alternatives, companies and labs are already working on them. Even in the U.S. (where gas is cheaper than here) we hear of companies working on things like oil-from-bacteria/algae, wind farms, etc. Whatever little 'incentive' is provided by a carbon tax isn't needed (and certainly not worth the type of tinkering with our economy that would result.)

I disagree that it doesn't act as more of an incentive.

I never claimed that private companies couldn't get involved in nuclear power generation (although it might be a political nightmare). But it would require very high capital costs, and I doubt a company like "Joe's Underwear Factory" would be able to afford their own CANDU.

There are companies now who could do it. They don't have to be Canadian companies.

I'm not opposed to the improving east-west transmission... it would improve grid reliability, and give more flexibility to consumers and providers.

I wish the federal government would step up on this matter. I can't think of too many things that have both economic stimulus and greener energies and nation building all wrapped in one package.

But if the goal is to reduce total CO2 emissions, an east-west transmission line would do nothing. Why? Because the Canadian grids are already linked to the U.S. grids. (Quebec sells a lot of its hydro power to the U.S.). If Quebec or Manitoba decide to sell power to Ontario (rather than the U.S.) it might reduce the amount of CO2 we emit here. But, that will also mean that in the U.S. they will have to use more coal or oil in their electrical generation to make up the difference. End result: the same amount of CO2 gets emitted globally. (And as far as I can tell, the U.S./Canada border doesn't prevent CO2 from passing from one country to another.)

There is plenty of capacity in Newfoundland and Manitoba to meet both demands in Canada and the present U.S. demands.

Your claim of additional CO2 is bogus if you think that east-west transmission means less exports of hydro to the U.S.

I actually did suggest (in another thread) that, if you believed that taxation to reduce usage was a good thing, you should also support taxing hydro consumption. At least if you reduced all electrical usage (even 'clean' hydro) it would reduce the need to use fossil fuels to fill the gap.

I do support taxation on hydro for the environmental damage it does.

But wait a second... if you did your calculations as soon as the change happened then how do you know what your fuel efficiency was before the change? And are you absolutely sure that the gas stations you were filling up with weren't already adding ethanol even before they were mandated? (And did the change happen prior to the summer? If so, the fact that you'd be driving with either the windows down or the air conditioning on will harm your fuel efficiency.)

I was already calculating mileage before the change for work and filling with non-ethanol blend. We still have a number of months left to get a full year of driving with ethanol blend but my comparison between season showed a fair difference.

To be honest, I have no major complaint about your claims of fuel efficiency. Like I said, the studies I've seen look at fleet efficiencies. Maybe your cars are mutants. And they are withing a percent or 2 of tests.

Well, the U.S. study on corn said around 3% but that it varied for different cars. This month both my cars are averaging a 5% difference from this time last year.

When Minnesota compared itself with Wisconsin in 2004 over E10 ethanol, the fuel economy was 20.62 mpg in Minnesota versus 23.30 mpg in Wisconsin. That is a 13% difference. Both states have similar climates, topography, etc. The only difference was in mandated ethanol.

Actually, no, there wouldn't be. At least as far as fuel efficiency goes.

All 'alcohols' are basically just strings of carbon molecules, with hydrogen molecules (plus an oxygen molecule) attached. In fact, alcohol molecules look remarkably like the hydrocarbon molecules from oil (the difference is, the alcohol contains the extra oxygen, the oil molecules don't.)

Ethanol is basically Ethyl Alcohol, which means that its got 2 carbon atoms. (Methyl alcohol only has one carbon, butanol has 4.) But it doesn't matter how the ethanol is formed... the ethyl alcohol molecule formed by fermenting corn will be identical to the molecule formed by fermenting grains.

The only thing that might change is the economics... in many areas, corn requires more intensive crop cultivation, so I suspect (although this is just a guess) its use will impact food prices more.

If there is no difference then I'd have to say it is either my cars or the calculations on ethanol fuel economy need to be recalculated.

You mean through subsidies? Granted, there are sometimes subsidies given, but not all ethanol plants receive such subsidies. Some are built by companies raising the capital themselves.

All have received federal and provincial money in recent years. No plant has been constructed without government money and mandated ethanol blends with gas.

there will be[/i] middle income single people in Ontario with a gas furnace will end up paying more than they get back? I've given the sources for my figures... have you found any problems with my calculations?

I'd rather have an actual study rather than anecdotal evidence.

Just out of curiosity, where exactly are you getting that $500 million figure from?

It cost Manitoba $180 million for a 225 mw natural gas plant in 2002. They are talking about a 500 mw plant now if they can't get their hydro projects done on time. The price tag was listed as around $500 million.

You can look it up if you like.

And you still haven't answered my question... would you be in favor of subsidies for the installation to help people install that?

If it spared building a $500 million gas plant, sure.

[segnosaur]

I've heard all this before and yet we saw gas and oil prices plummet for lengthy periods. Supply and demand seems to defy the recent elevated prices we have seen.

There's speculation in the market. That doesn't change the fundamental fact that we have a commodity with a fixed supply and an ever increasing demand. Even with occasional speculative bubbles, the ultimate cost will go up. Even Al Gore said as much.

I disagree that it doesn't act as more of an incentive.

Where is that from, Based on the statistics of "pulling opinions out of my butt"?

At least I can point to the fact that the U.S. is currently engaging in many areas of alternative development, without any carbon tax, with lower gas prices, and in many cases without government subsidies.

What can you point to to prove your point?

I never claimed that private companies couldn't get involved in nuclear power generation (although it might be a political nightmare). But it would require very high capital costs, and I doubt a company like "Joe's Underwear Factory" would be able to afford their own CANDU.

There are companies now who could do it. They don't have to be Canadian companies.

I never claimed that they had to be Canadian companies, or even that they had to use the CANDU reactor. The issue was that building a nuclear plant is outside the abilities of most business in Canada (or even the U.S.), so that expecting them to go 'green' (when other alternatives are either heavily subsidized or uneconomical) is currently an impossible goal.

There is plenty of capacity in Newfoundland and Manitoba to meet both demands in Canada and the present U.S. demands.

Uhhh... no, there isn't.

The U.S. generates about 3 million GWh/year from fossil fuels. Canada itself generates only about 350,000 GWh/year from Hydro, only around 10% of what the U.S. uses. Furthermore, Canada itself generates around 160,000 GWh from fossil fuel... if we replaced that coal/gas generated electricity with home grown hydro, that would only leave 190,000 GWh for export to the the U.S., only about 6% of its requirements.

Ah, but what about untapped potential? Well, lets see... Manitoba has about 5000MW of untapped potential...They currently generate 4200MW, so they could in theory more than double the potential output. Lets be generous and say that our entire hydro output could be doubled, country-wide. This would still only give about 540,000 GWh for the U.S. (after replacing Canada's coal/gas generators), less than 20% of what the U.S. needs to replace its fossil fuel generators. They'd still have to generate 2,400 GWh of electricity from coal/gas. And that's ignoring any increases in demand from population growth.

Now, perhaps you're assuming that we'd keep selling the U.S. the same amount of power as we do now, and only use new generating plants for our needs. But again, that doesn't help the problem of global emissions, since any new demands in the U.S. would need to be filled (in part) by fossil fuels. Total emissions for North America would go down the same whether we kept the power to offset our own needs, or sold the power to offset American needs.

http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/industr...stics/index.htm

http://www.canren.gc.ca/tech_appl/index.as...d=4&PgId=26

http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/CA-elc.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Hydro

I do support taxation on hydro for the environmental damage it does.

Ah, but in the other thread, when I criticized the Liberal plan for not taxing hydro, you rejected my suggestion.

When Minnesota compared itself with Wisconsin in 2004 over E10 ethanol, the fuel economy was 20.62 mpg in Minnesota versus 23.30 mpg in Wisconsin. That is a 13% difference. Both states have similar climates, topography, etc. The only difference was in mandated ethanol.

Actually, there are other differences that may come into play... population densities (about a 40% difference) might change driving patterns, higher per-capita incomes in Minnesota (about 15% higher) may allow people to purchase larger vehicles. (I don't know what the relative numbers of SUVs vs. sedans is in the 2 states).

All have received federal and provincial money in recent years. No plant has been constructed without government money and mandated ethanol blends with gas.

I was referring to other countries. Brazil apparently has ended their subsidies years ago.

...there will be middle income single people in Ontario with a gas furnace will end up paying more than they get back? I've given the sources for my figures... have you found any problems with my calculations?

I'd rather have an actual study rather than anecdotal evidence.

Why is that necessary? You can look the figures up for yourself. Most of them are right in the Liberal green plan.

Or do you not trust the figures given in the green plan?

Do you doubt that there are single people with mid-level incomes living in Ontario? Or are you just being difficult so you don't have to admit that there are some people who are going to end up worse off? (Heck, even economists who support the Liberal green plan admit not everyone will benefit.)

Just out of curiosity, where exactly are you getting that $500 million figure from?

It cost Manitoba $180 million for a 225 mw natural gas plant in 2002. They are talking about a 500 mw plant now if they can't get their hydro projects done on time. The price tag was listed as around $500 million.

Ah, I see... but then, the issue we were talking about for the subsidies was for geothermal. (I assumed the $500 million ws the cost of a geothermal plant, while you were saying it was for a generator.)

Of course, if you were to try installing geothermal for 50k homes, it would cost between $750million, and $1.5 billion. So, you could in theory have to triple the cost of an electrical plant.

[Wild Bill]

Ah, but what about untapped potential? Well, lets see... Manitoba has about 5000MW of untapped potential...They currently generate 4200MW, so they could in theory more than double the potential output. Lets be generous and say that our entire hydro output could be doubled, country-wide. This would still only give about 540,000 GWh for the U.S. (after replacing Canada's coal/gas generators), less than 20% of what the U.S. needs to replace its fossil fuel generators. They'd still have to generate 2,400 GWh of electricity from coal/gas. And that's ignoring any increases in demand from population growth.

I wonder what would happen to your argument if Mark Steyn is right and the North American population is due to hit a sharp drop...

[jdobbin]

There's speculation in the market. That doesn't change the fundamental fact that we have a commodity with a fixed supply and an ever increasing demand. Even with occasional speculative bubbles, the ultimate cost will go up. Even Al Gore said as much.

Sure, but you seem to have a set price in mind already and don't think it is going below that. We've seen that that type of thinking many times before.

Where is that from, Based on the statistics of "pulling opinions out of my butt"?

It is based on the economics of a consumption tax.

At least I can point to the fact that the U.S. is currently engaging in many areas of alternative development, without any carbon tax, with lower gas prices, and in many cases without government subsidies.

This is like the argument some made about smoking going down before taxes went up on the product. Sure they were but several studies showed money was even a bigger incentive for many to quit.

What can you point to to prove your point?

Smoking.

I never claimed that they had to be Canadian companies, or even that they had to use the CANDU reactor. The issue was that building a nuclear plant is outside the abilities of most business in Canada (or even the U.S.), so that expecting them to go 'green' (when other alternatives are either heavily subsidized or uneconomical) is currently an impossible goal.

Building nuclear plants in a specialized business. I wouldn't expect every day businesses to build one anymore than I'd expect to build a dam.

Uhhh... no, there isn't.

Boy, do you extrapolate. I said to meet present demands as in to meet all of our present export contracts. I'd never make the claim that we could meet all U.S. power demands.

Now, perhaps you're assuming that we'd keep selling the U.S. the same amount of power as we do now, and only use new generating plants for our needs. But again, that doesn't help the problem of global emissions, since any new demands in the U.S. would need to be filled (in part) by fossil fuels. Total emissions for North America would go down the same whether we kept the power to offset our own needs, or sold the power to offset American needs.

I'd expect the U.S. would meet their own needs. McCain has already said he will push for nearly 50 nuclear plants.

The solution I was promoting and have been for a long time now was for Canada's needs.

Ah, but in the other thread, when I criticized the Liberal plan for not taxing hydro, you rejected my suggestion.

I rejected a carbon tax.

I don't have a problem with an environmental tax where warranted.

A

ctually, there are other differences that may come into play... population densities (about a 40% difference) might change driving patterns, higher per-capita incomes in Minnesota (about 15% higher) may allow people to purchase larger vehicles. (I don't know what the relative numbers of SUVs vs. sedans is in the 2 states).

The percentage was significantly different that it makes me wonder the role ethanol.

I was referring to other countries. Brazil apparently has ended their subsidies years ago.

We don't seem anywhere near that.

Why is that necessary? You can look the figures up for yourself. Most of them are right in the Liberal green plan.

Or do you not trust the figures given in the green plan?

I don't trust your numbers.

Do you doubt that there are single people with mid-level incomes living in Ontario? Or are you just being difficult so you don't have to admit that there are some people who are going to end up worse off? (Heck, even economists who support the Liberal green plan admit not everyone will benefit.)

I'm sure there are people who might not benefit right away. That was why the tax was being imposed.

Ah, I see... but then, the issue we were talking about for the subsidies was for geothermal. (I assumed the $500 million ws the cost of a geothermal plant, while you were saying it was for a generator.)

Of course, if you were to try installing geothermal for 50k homes, it would cost between $750million, and $1.5 billion. So, you could in theory have to triple the cost of an electrical plant.

The costs of pipelines of a new subdivision plus the furnaces and air conditioning make it much more economical. The Waverley West sub-division is supposed to be 13,000 homes built over 20 to 30 years. The energy savings for the new owners start right away. The energy saved from that many homes not connected to the grid is substantial. The emissions from geothermal. Zero.

Edited July 29, 2008 by jdobbin

[segnosaur]

Sure, but you seem to have a set price in mind already and don't think it is going below that. We've seen that that type of thinking many times before.

Where did I say I had a 'set' floor price? I said the average price is going to trend upwards. That's ALL we need to know, and that's all we really need to provide the needed incentive to develop new energy sources.

It is based on the economics of a consumption tax.

So in other words, it is pretty much coming out of your butt.

Still waiting to hear why a consumption tax is needed when prices were going up anyways.

This is like the argument some made about smoking going down before taxes went up on the product. Sure they were but several studies showed money was even a bigger incentive for many to quit.

Big difference between smoking and energy usage... Smoking is a completely optional activity, and has a clearly defined 'alternative' which is cheap... i.e. not smoking.

On the other hand, we NEED to use energy, both domestically (gotta have lights and hydro) and industrially. And the possible 'alternatives' are either uneconomical, or just don't exist.

Another big difference... the limited supply and increasing demand ensures that the price of oil will trend upwards (with occasional fluctuations due to speculation and world events). With tobacco, there was no big huge rise in demand, and more than enough farmland to continue growing the needed crops. Taxes on smoking were the only way that prices were going to go up for the product.

Building nuclear plants in a specialized business. I wouldn't expect every day businesses to build one anymore than I'd expect to build a dam.

But the argument for this carbon tax is that it would encourage people to use 'alternatives'. Things like wind or solar are not competitive, so that leaves Nuclear. So why dump an extra tax on businesses for something that's outside of their control (namely how their provincial utility is generating its electricity)

Boy, do you extrapolate. I said to meet present demands as in to meet all of our present export contracts. I'd never make the claim that we could meet all U.S. power demands.

Actually, I suggested that was one way to interpret the argument you were making.

I'd expect the U.S. would meet their own needs. McCain has already said he will push for nearly 50 nuclear plants.

So so many things wrong with that argument...

- It assumes that McCain will get elected. (Obama has suggested that he's OK with nuclear, but has expressed reservations)

- It assumes that whomever becomes president would actually have the political capital to build those plants (to some people, 'nuclear' is something to be feared)

- It assumes that even once those plants are built, it will be enough to satisfy all their demands

There is one other problem.... it ignores the nature of nuclear power generation. Nuclear plants are designed to run near peak capacity at all times. (There's just no way to 'throttle' them back.) As a result, they are great for handling base load... however, they are very poor at handling any sort of spikes in power consumption. Even if the U.S. had all sorts of new nuclear capacity, they'd still need either gas or hydroelectric power to handle peak demand. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant)

So, while you can suggest that the U.S. should "meet their own needs", such an attitude doesn't help reduce the carbon emissions for all of north america.

The solution I was promoting and have been for a long time now was for Canada's needs.

Ah, but in the other thread, when I criticized the Liberal plan for not taxing hydro, you rejected my suggestion.

I rejected a carbon tax.

I don't have a problem with an environmental tax where warranted.

I didn't classify it as a 'carbon tax'. (I even pointed to the environmental problems.) But what I was told was that we shouldn't tax hydro because its 'green'. (I'm assuming it was you making that argument but I'll have to go back and make sure.)

At no point did you say "Hydro also causes problems... lets tax it".

actually, there are other differences that may come into play... population densities (about a 40% difference) might change driving patterns, higher per-capita incomes in Minnesota (about 15% higher) may allow people to purchase larger vehicles.

The percentage was significantly different that it makes me wonder the role ethanol.

You see, this is where a logical person would try to apply Occam's razor... the idea that the simplest solution is the most likely.

So, which makes more sense: That multiple studies done my researchers (who were dealing with a single geographic region) would greatly underestimate the loss of milelage caused by a switch to ethanol, or that two different states might have multiple factors that affect fuel consumption?

I don't trust your numbers.

Then point out where my numbers are wrong. I went through the problem of doing my calculations. I pointed out exactly where I was getting the values from (even providing references). With all that, you should have no problem pointing out what exactly you don't trust about them.

I'm sure there are people who might not benefit right away. That was why the tax was being imposed.

And in my case, I will never benefit. Ever.

The costs of pipelines of a new subdivision plus the furnaces and air conditioning make it much more economical. The Waverley West sub-division is supposed to be 13,000 homes built over 20 to 30 years. The energy savings for the new owners start right away. The energy saved from that many homes not connected to the grid is substantial. The emissions from geothermal. Zero.

Still haven't seen you actually provide any numbers giving the up-front cost of geothermal.

Nor have I seen you indicate whether you'd be willing to provide subsidies if the cost of geothermal made its use uneconomical for new homeowners.

[Wild Bill]

Sure, but you seem to have a set price in mind already and don't think it is going below that. We've seen that that type of thinking many times before.

It is based on the economics of a consumption tax.

This is like the argument some made about smoking going down before taxes went up on the product. Sure they were but several studies showed money was even a bigger incentive for many to quit.

Not meaning to pick apart your model instead of your point but perhaps you might be able to explain something for me.

With newspapers citing that at least 1 in 3 cigarettes smoked are illegal, how on earth are stats gathered about tobacco consumption going down?

I had assumed that sales of tobacco would the the easiest and most logical factor to track but how could this be done with contraband? Do all those smugglers and reserve tobacco manufacturers dutifully provide StatsCan with their data?

Perhaps they used telephone surveys. Of course, given the guilt felt by many smokers many probably lied and said they no longer smoked, while sneaking out to the garage so that their husband or wife wouldn't catch them.

My own observations make me suspect that the percentage still smoking hit a plateau over 10 years ago and hasn't changed much since. These observations are anecdotal, of course. They are based on social contacts and driving past smoking areas and high schools.

Still, do flawed stats from those with an agenda trump those cited from anecdotal data?

Perhaps you could have used a better example to make your point. It's like saying crime is down by swamping out the violence numbers by including stats on embezzlement cases.

[jdobbin]

Still, do flawed stats from those with an agenda trump those cited from anecdotal data?

Perhaps you could have used a better example to make your point. It's like saying crime is down by swamping out the violence numbers by including stats on embezzlement cases.

Smuggling numbers are also gathered by Statscan. I have no reason to believe the numbers of smokers aren't down. Statscan has various tools in determining numbers of smokers and is a respected agency world-wide.

The Economist a few years ago cited Statscan as one of the few agencies that do a good job gathering information on difficult subjects.

I know that right wing wants to discredit all government as in capable of doing a good job or being filled with Liberals but this is getting a little ridiculous.