Are the Liberals damaging Green party chances...?

[jdobbin]

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.

For quite a long time, it was going up slowly enough that it changed how people bought homes and cars. They bought far bigger because gas was a lot cheaper in today's dollars.

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.

Consumption taxes are regressive taxes used as a drag on consumption. You can read all about in the Hamilton's Federalist Papers. By their very nature, they make people pay more for thing unless mitigated by some sort of compensation elsewhere.

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.

Those alternatives becomes more economical with higher carbon prices.

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.

The rise in energy prices was slow enough that in real dollars people were paying less that they were a few decades earlier.

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)

Because it isn't just about heating homes but on things like the size of your home which people can find alternatives for.

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

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

I don't assume anything about the U.S. policy other than they are looking for energy and they won't necessarily find great hoards more of it by drilling offshore or in the Arctic. You yourself have said that supplies are eventually dwindling.

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 U.S. has not built a nuclear plant in 30 years. It has made them more energy dependent than ever on foreign supplies. They are going to continue to have to find new ways to build capacity and conserve capacity regardless of what Canada does. Conservation is one way to mitigate spikes. The utility has the power to turn off consumer end users in a special program. This is how they throttle back now rather than shutting down the plant.

Nuclear will go a long way to helping in U.S. emissions and yes, there will be controversy but I think it will be couched in the talk of energy security, I'm sure. McCain and other seem to be using those word now.

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".

At no point did you indicate a tax other than carbon. I assumed we were talking about carbon emissions which I don't believe hydro warrants a carbon tax.

Hydro companies already pay a tax of sorts in the form of compensation for flooding lands now across Canada but it is inconsistent and covers a lot of territory such as mercury in fish. I'd support a more consistent environmental tax like we pay on many products now.

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?

And those various studies still determined that the effects could vary by car. It would be good if Canada did its own study to see if it varies for our region too. We seem to using a lot studies not done in Canada to justify the program.

Only recently, we have heard U.S. consumer watchdogs question the mileage reports from the U.S. government and industry.

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.

Have you tried running it through the Liberal website?

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

You can say you did your part then.

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

We have gone through this many times before on this forum. It is about $15,000 to $20,000 for geothermal in Manitoba. It is obviously not a solution for people in existing homes with newer furnaces and air conditioning supplied by existing gas lines.

It is ideally suited for new subdivisions at the moment. Subtract a new air conditioner, furnace and gas line, it is estimated to cost $10,000 to $13,000 depending on the size of the home.

There is other reductions in costs as well including a lower draw of electric for running geothermal air conditioning. For a 13,000 home neighborhood, that might mean existing hydro plants might be able to supply the division.

It still is an extra cost for the consumer for the initial buy.

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.

There is already a program for that in Manitoba that I support.

I personally think it should be a low interest loan since the homeowner would have it pay for itself in reduced energy costs and a home sale later on. It increases the value of the house.

Going geothermal is a tougher proposition for existing homes although many people are doing it when they need both AC and furnace. I think a low interest loan would be good for this type of building.

[noahbody]

Because it isn't just about heating homes but on things like the size of your home which people can find alternatives for.

Right. People can knock down their homes and build smaller ones. That wouldn't cost much.

[noahbody]

Consumption taxes are regressive taxes used as a drag on consumption.

Good lord. Are you suggesting cutting the GST wasn't a bad thing to do?

[jdobbin]

Good lord. Are you suggesting cutting the GST wasn't a bad thing to do?

I never suggested otherwise. I totally disagreed with Chretien saying he would end the GST.

[jdobbin]

Right. People can knock down their homes and build smaller ones. That wouldn't cost much.

There are smaller homes already available in the housing stock. New subdivisions have been scaling up because energy prices were low respective to people's incomes. Are you suggesting that new homes have to stay the same size and that people in larger homes can't downsize to smaller homes?

[Wild Bill]

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.

Usually you make a better effort to give substantiated arguments for your premises. Perhaps smoking is one of your "politically correct" areas.

OK, you have a lot of respect for StatsCan. I would agree that they probably have good intentions. This doesn't mean that they are right but only that they are sincere.

It also doesn't address misinterpretation.

Again, I will concede that YOU like them! However, that is still not sufficient reason for me to accept your claim. The Jehovah Witnesses at my door on Sunday mornings like a lot of things too.

If they have "various tools" as you say, perhaps you could name one?

Perhaps if you could actually cite me a credible methodology as to how they garnered these smoking stats I would change my opinion. I warn you, when my grandfather died at nearly 90 years of age I saw how the fact that he was a smoker was listed as one of the causes of his death. It seemed to be given equal weight to the fact that he was an alcoholic and most important...OLD!

There are a lot of reasons why I don't respect much of what the anti-smoking lobby has to say but even you must admit that this one is more than sufficient reason to be skeptical of claims in this area.

Anyhow, this is becoming "thread creep" into another area. Just name me some "tools" that make sense and we can leave it at that.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Wild Bill

[jdobbin]

If they have "various tools" as you say, perhaps you could name one?

They ask people on the census if they smoke. They record the health of Canadians. They record the sale of tobacco both legal and what the police estimate is being illegally sold.

Statscan has run the Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey for sometime to poll people on tobacco use. They regularly poll 65,000 doctors about smoking rates for their patients and other health information.

I know you say people lie but Statscan also measures 20 different health results and sales of the product as well growing of tobacco and compare it to what information they are getting from Canadians and tobacco use.

Your grandfather lived a long time but if he died from lung cancer or heart attack, it is likely they were helped along by smoking.

If you don't believe the census and Statscan, what do your own eyes tell you? Has the smoking remained the same where you are or do you think it is all underground now?

[noahbody]

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

I'm sure he believed in global warming and global cooling. I doubt he was convinced that man-made emissions were fully responsible for the rise in global temperatures. Nor should you be.

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.

Given the data that might be true. Are you under the belief that because of man Earth has cooled for the last time? Did higher CO2 levels in the past stop the world from cooling?

Others just don't believe in the science while others think nothing needs to be done.

The science that needs to be observed is the science of human behavior. Fear of the unknown is a powerful motivator. The idea that we're experiencing something unprecedented is what drives this fear. The NASA data correction alone should have been enough for the IPCC to say "whoops." But somehow the fact that it's even been warmer within 70 years seemed to fall on deaf years. We even had an ice age scare shortly after that. Fool me once shame on you.

Didn't believe nothing needed to be done?

He wasn't an alarmist by any means.

[segnosaur]

For quite a long time, it was going up slowly enough that it changed how people bought homes and cars.

That was before the significant industrialization of China and India. It was also before many of the oil fields started dwindling. They are not likely to be going up 'slowly' anymore.

Even Al Gore says prices will go up dramatically for oil and coal. Do you not trust Al Gore?

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.

Consumption taxes are regressive taxes used as a drag on consumption.

Yes, I know what consumption taxes are. Still waiting to hear why they are needed when people like Al Gore are saying energy prices are going up anyways.

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)

Because it isn't just about heating homes but on things like the size of your home which people can find alternatives for.

Really? Strange... a while ago (on the other thread) you balked at the idea that adding taxes on gas (to discourage consumption) was wrong, because people need transportation, and we've designed our cities around using gas.

Now, you are talking about whole-sale changes to our urban infrastructure.

Care to explain why one major change in infrastructure is good (tearing down all those big houses to replace them with small ones), while other changes are not good?

The U.S. has not built a nuclear plant in 30 years. It has made them more energy dependent than ever on foreign supplies. They are going to continue to have to find new ways to build capacity and conserve capacity regardless of what Canada does.

Totally irrelevant.

I pointed out that the U.S., even if they did go with nuclear, would still need either fossil fuel or hydroelectric based generation. Either they get hydro from Canada, or they burn fossil fuels. Sorry, there's no way around that fact, and there won't be until someone actually comes up with an economical alternative power source. Doesn't matter if their stated goal is 'energy independence', or economics.

Conservation is one way to mitigate spikes. The utility has the power to turn off consumer end users in a special program. This is how they throttle back now rather than shutting down the plant.

Yes, there is a certain amount of 'load shedding' which could occur... but not every company is willing to do that, and I doubt very much whether such rolling blackouts would actually be good for our economy.

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?

And those various studies still determined that the effects could vary by car.

The study I referred to earlier covered many different models of car, more than enough to cover the various ranges of car models. Yes, some cars may be better than handling ethanol than others... but do you really think that all vehicles in Minnesota just happen to be vehicles that don't handle ethanol well?

Heck, your comparison doesn't even make logical sense... Yes, alcohol does have a lower energy content per gallon; however, you're suggesting that a 10% ethanol mix actually causes a 13% decrease in mileage? That would mean that the ethanol actually provided NO energy at all. (If you look at the specific energy capacities of gas vs. alcohol, a 10% mixture would have about 3-4% less energy than pure gas, pretty much in line with what the studies have said.)

It would be good if Canada did its own study to see if it varies for our region too.

Why? Do you think cars are signficantly different in Canada than the U.S.? Heck, even YOUR experience showed that the difference is only about 1% off from the U.S. experience.

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.

Have you tried running it through the Liberal website?

Well, DUH!!!

Yes, I ran it through the Liberal web site. I told you EXACTLY where I got my figures from when I first brought this up. Most figures came directly from the Liberal web site (both the green plan document, and their 'calculation' web pages). What I didn't get from the Liberal web site, I got from either quotes from Dalton McGuinty (verified by government figures from places like StatsCan).

Personally, I think its rather incredible... you accuse me of having 'untrustworthy' numbers... yet from the sounds of it you haven't even bothered reading/looking at my calculations. To me, that shows your not actually interested in anything that might challenge your beliefs, regardless of how accurate they are. Doesn't reflect on you very well.

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

You can say you did your part then.

Then why am I being punished by having to pay more in taxes? I thought the idea was that we were supposed to reward people for good behavior, not punish them.

We have gone through this many times before on this forum. It is about $15,000 to $20,000 for geothermal in Manitoba. It is obviously not a solution for people in existing homes with newer furnaces and air conditioning supplied by existing gas lines.

It is ideally suited for new subdivisions at the moment. Subtract a new air conditioner, furnace and gas line, it is estimated to cost $10,000 to $13,000 depending on the size of the home.

You are assuming, of course, that housing developments with geothermal heating/cooling will not also continue to have gas lines for other uses (such as hot water heating), or a furnace to suplament the geothermal. (I'm not sure if houses are built with geothermal only or if they also contain furnaces for additional heating.)

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.

There is already a program for that in Manitoba that I support.

I personally think it should be a low interest loan...

Ah I get it... so subsidies are alright, as long as they're ones you happen to agree with.

As for it being in the form of a 'low interest loan'... you DO know that those are an expense to the government; basically, the difference between the interest that they collect on the 'low interest loan' and what they'd get by paying off more of the debt, or even investing it. Labeling it a 'loan' does not mean that magically there is no cost to the government.

[jdobbin]

That was before the significant industrialization of China and India. It was also before many of the oil fields started

dwindling. They are not likely to be going up 'slowly' anymore.

Really. It seems to me that India and China are subject to the same cycles as anyone other country has. Prices drop or demand drops accordingly. When China raised gas prices, demand for it dropped pretty suddenly. They will have to continue to raise prices to stamp out inflation.

Even Al Gore says prices will go up dramatically for oil and coal. Do you not trust Al Gore?

Even Gore said this last fast rise has more to do with speculators than it does on actual prices.

Yes, I know what consumption taxes are. Still waiting to hear why they are needed when people like Al Gore are saying energy prices are going up anyways.

Because emissions are no where near dropping emissions to 1990 levels. And when we have low prices like we did in respect to wages and real dollars, people bought bigger everything.

Really? Strange... a while ago (on the other thread) you balked at the idea that adding taxes on gas (to discourage consumption) was wrong, because people need transportation, and we've designed our cities around using gas.

There are taxes on gas. There just won't be added tax on top of what is there now.

Now, you are talking about whole-sale changes to our urban infrastructure.

Care to explain why one major change in infrastructure is good (tearing down all those big houses to replace them with small ones), while other changes are not good?

Don't think I said anything about tearing homes down. I said people will adjust to the price of energy and carbon accordingly by buying smaller just as they started buying bigger when fuel prices were low.

Totally irrelevant.

Maybe to you.

I pointed out that the U.S., even if they did go with nuclear, would still need either fossil fuel or hydroelectric based generation. Either they get hydro from Canada, or they burn fossil fuels. Sorry, there's no way around that fact, and there won't be until someone actually comes up with an economical alternative power source. Doesn't matter if their stated goal is 'energy independence', or economics.

As I said, it is up to the U.S. They would be a good candidate for geothermal as well in large parts of the country. Not to mention what can be saved in conservation.

And I say baloney that they need to get all this power from Canada.

Yes, there is a certain amount of 'load shedding' which could occur... but not every company is willing to do that, and I doubt very much whether such rolling blackouts would actually be good for our economy.

The utilities being able to turn off or turn down homes and businesses is to prevent blackouts. There is a financial incentive to those who sign up. Seems to be working well.

The study I referred to earlier covered many different models of car, more than enough to cover the various ranges of car models. Yes, some cars may be better than handling ethanol than others... but do you really think that all vehicles in Minnesota just happen to be vehicles that don't handle ethanol well?

Heck, your comparison doesn't even make logical sense... Yes, alcohol does have a lower energy content per gallon; however, you're suggesting that a 10% ethanol mix actually causes a 13% decrease in mileage? That would mean that the ethanol actually provided NO energy at all. (If you look at the specific energy capacities of gas vs. alcohol, a 10% mixture would have about 3-4% less energy than pure gas, pretty much in line with what the studies have said.)

I don't think I suggested anything than a big difference in fuel economy and that a major difference was ethanol.

I'd love to see a break down of which cars do better on ethanol. I've never found one.

Why? Do you think cars are signficantly different in Canada than the U.S.? Heck, even YOUR experience showed that the difference is only about 1% off from the U.S. experience.

Even if it was exactly what the U.S. was, I would think it was too much for a program not needed.

Yes, I ran it through the Liberal web site. I told you EXACTLY where I got my figures from when I first brought this up. Most figures came directly from the Liberal web site (both the green plan document, and their 'calculation' web pages). What I didn't get from the Liberal web site, I got from either quotes from Dalton McGuinty (verified by government figures from places like StatsCan).

Personally, I think its rather incredible... you accuse me of having 'untrustworthy' numbers... yet from the sounds of it you haven't even bothered reading/looking at my calculations. To me, that shows your not actually interested in anything that might challenge your beliefs, regardless of how accurate they are. Doesn't reflect on you very well.

You never mentioned running them through the website. Even if you did and you end up paying more, I have no way of knowing whether you are able to mitigate the carbon exposure more than you say can.

Then why am I being punished by having to pay more in taxes? I thought the idea was that we were supposed to reward people for good behavior, not punish them.

I have no idea if you are even at the top level efficiency on carbon use. If not, then you pay more. There is absolutely no way to reduce carbon use?

You are assuming, of course, that housing developments with geothermal heating/cooling will not also continue to have gas lines for other uses (such as hot water heating), or a furnace to suplament the geothermal. (I'm not sure if houses are built with geothermal only or if they also contain furnaces for additional heating.)

The subdivision plans were for no gas lines. Most people I know who have installed geothermal have dropped their gas lines altogether.

Ah I get it... so subsidies are alright, as long as they're ones you happen to agree with.

As for it being in the form of a 'low interest loan'... you DO know that those are an expense to the government; basically, the difference between the interest that they collect on the 'low interest loan' and what they'd get by paying off more of the debt, or even investing it. Labeling it a 'loan' does not mean that magically there is no cost to the government.

In lieu of building a large capacity energy source, I think it works out to a savings for the government

[segnosaur]

Really. It seems to me that India and China are subject to the same cycles as anyone other country has. Prices drop or demand drops accordingly.

The difference is, China and India have started to engage in very wide-scale industrialization that just did not happen a decade or two ago. So while there may be minor "boom/bust" cycles, even their economic downturns are going to have higher economic activity than even their best times under Mao.

Even Gore said this last fast rise has more to do with speculators than it does on actual prices.

First of all, do you actually have a reference to that particular statement of his? I've done a quick search and haven't found anything on it.

Secondly, even if your statement is accurate (and that he's dealing with the 'fast rise') that does not mean that he doesn't think energy prices aren't going up anyways...

Personally, I'm basing my claims on an interview I saw with Gore on the program Meet the Press. In it, Gore stated:

...oil prices and coal prices have been skyrocketing and because China and other emerging economies are demanding so much of it, and new discoveries of oil have fallen off dramatically, no matter the debate over drilling, the new discoveries have been declining and the new demand has been completely swamping it, and over the long term, those prices, everyone agrees, are going to continue to go up.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25761899/

Yes, I know what consumption taxes are. Still waiting to hear why they are needed when people like Al Gore are saying energy prices are going up anyways.

Because emissions are no where near dropping emissions to 1990 levels.

Please point to me where in the Green plan it guarantees that it will result in emissions dropping to 1990 levels.

And just out of curiosity, if the levels don't drop to 1990 levels under the green plan, will the Liberals then reverse the program, repeal the tax cuts and remove the carbon tax?

Really? Strange... a while ago (on the other thread) you balked at the idea that adding taxes on gas (to discourage consumption) was wrong, because people need transportation, and we've designed our cities around using gas.

There are taxes on gas. There just won't be added tax on top of what is there now.

Existing taxes on gas help fund road maintenance (directly, or even indirectly through general revenue/transfer payments). The 'carbon tax' is supposed to be a tax based on environmental impact.

Converting the 'excise tax' into a carbon tax means that the government is no longer collecting money from drivers to pay for their use of a common good.

Don't think I said anything about tearing homes down. I said people will adjust to the price of energy and carbon accordingly by buying smaller just as they started buying bigger when fuel prices were low.

And just what exactly do you think is going to happen to those larger homes that already exist?

I pointed out that the U.S., even if they did go with nuclear, would still need either fossil fuel or hydroelectric based generation. Either they get hydro from Canada, or they burn fossil fuels. Sorry, there's no way around that fact, and there won't be until someone actually comes up with an economical alternative power source. Doesn't matter if their stated goal is 'energy independence', or economics.

As I said, it is up to the U.S. They would be a good candidate for geothermal as well in large parts of the country.

Admittedly, I'm not an expert in geothermal...however, from what I've read, geothermal plants are typically base load plants (much like nuclear). The U.S. would still need gas or hydro to handle peak demand.

There's also the possibility that geothermal may not be quite as renewable as thought... geothermal plans may end up cooling down the area of the earth that they are located in (although after a certain time the heat may return; it just makes geothermal a little inconsistent.)

And I say baloney that they need to get all this power from Canada.

I never said they did.... They can use a lot more nuclear and geothermal, but as I said, they deal primarily with base loads. They could simply use gas/oil (plus what hydro power they have) for the remainer of their needs, but again if the idea is to reduce global carbon emissions, the idea of saying "We're better than you because you're forced to use gas generators" isn't really helping.

Yes, there is a certain amount of 'load shedding' which could occur... but not every company is willing to do that, and I doubt very much whether such rolling blackouts would actually be good for our economy.

The utilities being able to turn off or turn down homes and businesses is to prevent blackouts. There is a financial incentive to those who sign up. Seems to be working well.

It may be financially viable for some companies to agree to have their power cut during peak demands, but I doubt that is going to be very wide spread. Heavy industry can't very well afford to have employees remaining idle, any office-type business would be very unpopular with their employees if they had their air conditioning shut off.

I don't think I suggested anything than a big difference in fuel economy and that a major difference was ethanol.

Really? After you stated the differences in MPG following the ethanol switch, you tried to claim that there were no major differences between the states. You even pointed to their similar geography and climate. In fact, in your post you even stated: The only difference was in mandated ethanol. (Your very own words: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....p;#entry325878) So you weren't claiming ethanol was just ONE of the causes of differences in fuel efficiency, you were suggesting it was the ONLY difference.

Yes, I ran it through the Liberal web site. I told you EXACTLY where I got my figures from when I first brought this up. Most figures came directly from the Liberal web site (both the green plan document, and their 'calculation' web pages).

You never mentioned running them through the website.

Actually, I told you exactly where I got my numbers from. It would have taken you about 30 seconds to verify them.

Even if you did and you end up paying more, I have no way of knowing whether you are able to mitigate the carbon exposure more than you say can.

So now, even though you are now at least partly 'accepting' my claims about how much I'm going to pay (hey, only took what, half a dozen posts), you're going to hand-wave away the rest? Nice.

I have no idea if you are even at the top level efficiency on carbon use. If not, then you pay more. There is absolutely no way to reduce carbon use?

Well, lets see...

I could install energy efficient lights. Oops... already did that. Could install a timed thermostat. Oops, already do that too. Could drive less. But wait, the Liberal plan doesn't give me any extra penalties for driving. Could install new windows or upgrade my insulation. Ooops, I already got the most energy efficient windows/insulation when I bought the place. Could sell my place and move into something smaller. But wait, I've already bought a relatively small place. (Even bought it near the city center so I wouldn't have to commute far, and could take the bus when necessary.)

Actually, I have to admit, in theory I could go and buy new appliances. I did buy the most efficient appliances I could afford at the time, but there are more efficient ones on the market now. But wait... If I couldn't afford the most efficient appliances before how exactly can I afford them now, especially since I'll be loosing even more money thanks to the green plan?

You see, that's one of the problems I have with some supporters of the 'green plan'. Rather than actually admit that there are significant flaws and that I (and others) will get royally screwed, you try to justify it by hand waving.

[jdobbin]

The difference is, China and India have started to engage in very wide-scale industrialization that just did not happen a decade or two ago. So while there may be minor "boom/bust" cycles, even their economic downturns are going to have higher economic activity than even their best times under Mao.

The prices of energy can't be subsidized forever in China without it causing rampant inflation and disrupting the economy. There is evidence of the same types of bubbles we see in the west. Moreover, the cost of energy will make exports more expensive even if the Chinese try to keep prices down.

In other words, there is likely to be fluctuations in price due the world-wide economy.

First of all, do you actually have a reference to that particular statement of his? I've done a quick search and haven't found anything on it.

You are correct. It wasn't Gore. It was Obama this week that talked about speculators.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hU0EWZc...Ux7E8QD927QPVO0

Secondly, even if your statement is accurate (and that he's dealing with the 'fast rise') that does not mean that he doesn't think energy prices aren't going up anyways...

Oh, I have no doubt that he has talked about energy rising dramatically as demand increases and supplies dwindle. However, the sudden rise we have seen defies real supply and demand.

Congress and the Whitehouse had similar concerns about the speculation and the Energy Secretary said he was looking into it.

Personally, I'm basing my claims on an interview I saw with Gore on the program Meet the Press. In it, Gore stated:

...oil prices and coal prices have been skyrocketing and because China and other emerging economies are demanding so much of it, and new discoveries of oil have fallen off dramatically, no matter the debate over drilling, the new discoveries have been declining and the new demand has been completely swamping it, and over the long term, those prices, everyone agrees, are going to continue to go up.

Yes, I watched that interview. It's one of a dozen out there that were on CBS, ABC, FOX and in the newspapers. It's true what he said.

I wish they had asked him about speculators.

Please point to me where in the Green plan it guarantees that it will result in emissions dropping to 1990 levels.

The Liberal green plan is a 20% reduction below 1990 levels.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...a5-196f81fe0d49

...the Liberal target: a 20-per-cent reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by 2020.

And just out of curiosity, if the levels don't drop to 1990 levels under the green plan, will the Liberals then reverse the program, repeal the tax cuts and remove the carbon tax?

See above.

Existing taxes on gas help fund road maintenance (directly, or even indirectly through general revenue/transfer payments). The 'carbon tax' is supposed to be a tax based on environmental impact.

Converting the 'excise tax' into a carbon tax means that the government is no longer collecting money from drivers to pay for their use of a common good.

Sure they are. It is called the GST and it is gas as well.

The switch to a carbon tax means gas will now be $42 a tonne for carbon. That's $2 over other forms of energy.

And just what exactly do you think is going to happen to those larger homes that already exist?

What do you think will happen in any event as the population ages?

I expect that some people will still buy larger home for cultural and financial reasons while others will downsize because of retirement, energy savings and the like.

People are going to be affected by energy prices anyways. You don't think some of this will happen anyways?

In some cases, I expect people with larger homes might unplug from the grid and save money on natural gas with geothermal.

Admittedly, I'm not an expert in geothermal...however, from what I've read, geothermal plants are typically base load plants (much like nuclear). The U.S. would still need gas or hydro to handle peak demand.

I believe geothermal is the wave of the future. If this becomes the standard for new homes built (just like R2000 construction was), it could mean huge savings for Canadians in their power needs and help reduce energy dramatically.

Geothermal is a renewable resource.

There's also the possibility that geothermal may not be quite as renewable as thought... geothermal plans may end up cooling down the area of the earth that they are located in (although after a certain time the heat may return; it just makes geothermal a little inconsistent.)

I have never heard of such problems. On what type of scale are they talking about?

I never said they did.... They can use a lot more nuclear and geothermal, but as I said, they deal primarily with base loads. They could simply use gas/oil (plus what hydro power they have) for the remainer of their needs, but again if the idea is to reduce global carbon emissions, the idea of saying "We're better than you because you're forced to use gas generators" isn't really helping.

Don't think I ever made that argument. I think it is good economic policy in Canada and completely doable for an east-west transmission line. I don't think Canada working on such a project hurts the U.S. It helps high demand Ontario and big supply Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland.

It may be financially viable for some companies to agree to have their power cut during peak demands, but I doubt that is going to be very wide spread. Heavy industry can't very well afford to have employees remaining idle, any office-type business would be very unpopular with their employees if they had their air conditioning shut off.

It is now being looked at by Canadian utilities this month.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingn...p-4793623c.html

The Crown corporation will be able to track power usage down to the minute, issue more accurate bills, save costs on human meter readers and tell within seconds exactly which houses are without power after a thunderstorm.

If there's a catastrophic outage Hydro could implement an emergency measure that limits every household to two kilowatts of power. The meters could also help kickstart conservation.

Once the smart meters are in place, you could sign up for a program that lets Hydro control your furnace, air conditioner and hot water tank remotely. That allows Hydro to do what environmentalists have been needling homeowners to do for years -- save power. In exchange, Hydro would give you maybe a $10 or $15 rebate on your monthly bill.

The rebates act as real incentive for some people.

I like though that a actual power problem can be dealt with quickly by reducing draw.

Really? After you stated the differences in MPG following the ethanol switch, you tried to claim that there were no major differences between the states. You even pointed to their similar geography and climate. In fact, in your post you even stated: The only difference was in mandated ethanol. (Your very own words: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....p;#entry325878) So you weren't claiming ethanol was just ONE of the causes of differences in fuel efficiency, you were suggesting it was the ONLY difference.

Ethanol is certainly a major differences that can't be easily dismissed.

Actually, I told you exactly where I got my numbers from. It would have taken you about 30 seconds to verify them.

So now, even though you are now at least partly 'accepting' my claims about how much I'm going to pay (hey, only took what, half a dozen posts), you're going to hand-wave away the rest? Nice.

Well, lets see...

I could install energy efficient lights. Oops... already did that. Could install a timed thermostat. Oops, already do that too. Could drive less. But wait, the Liberal plan doesn't give me any extra penalties for driving. Could install new windows or upgrade my insulation. Ooops, I already got the most energy efficient windows/insulation when I bought the place. Could sell my place and move into something smaller. But wait, I've already bought a relatively small place. (Even bought it near the city center so I wouldn't have to commute far, and could take the bus when necessary.)

Actually, I have to admit, in theory I could go and buy new appliances. I did buy the most efficient appliances I could afford at the time, but there are more efficient ones on the market now. But wait... If I couldn't afford the most efficient appliances before how exactly can I afford them now, especially since I'll be loosing even more money thanks to the green plan?

You see, I have no way of knowing what you consider a small place. Nor do I have any idea about how efficient your energy use is. You are anonymous and unless you want to show me the bills and the place you live at, I can't properly say if you can find more savings.

You see, that's one of the problems I have with some supporters of the 'green plan'. Rather than actually admit that there are significant flaws and that I (and others) will get royally screwed, you try to justify it by hand waving.

I think royally screwed would be someone paying thousands for the green plan. By your own account, you will see a $100 to $200 cost increase by the end of the program in 2012 if it starts now. If you do make changes to your carbon exposure, it might actually nothing.

This is where I have problems with some of the people opposing the green plan. If they are not doubting warming altogether, they are indicating economic catastrophe or personal hardship in regards to an increase that is less the rate of present inflation.

[segnosaur]

Oh, I have no doubt that he has talked about energy rising dramatically as demand increases and supplies dwindle. However, the sudden rise we have seen defies real supply and demand.

Why exactly does the presence of one (speculation) negate the effect of the other (rises due to increased demand). Even if there's a lot of variation, energy prices WILL skyrocket. That's the important point. And that provides incentives to change.

The Liberal green plan is a 20% reduction below 1990 levels.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...a5-196f81fe0d49

Ah ok. Hadn't seen that. (I had read the actual green shift plan and did not recall seeing anything there about predictions.

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear... of the carbon tax doesn't help Canada reach its goal, are the Liberals going to turn around and give me my money back?

By the way, I find it ironic that in the article you quoted, it states:

Given that automobiles account for a large part of greenhouse gas emissions, it's hard to see how this policy will have any material effect on a major source of consumption and pollution. "If you really want to move the yardstick forward from today on the environment, you have to tax gasoline," said economist Dale Orr of Global Insight in Toronto. The Liberals claim the tax on gasoline is already high enough, but "I don't think that's a convincing argument at all," Orr said. "I think they're not taxing gas because they don't want to take the political heat for it."

And:

Orr, however, points to an array of politically motivated benefits to select groups that make the plan look like something less than a straight income-tax cut.

...

"You can't say this plan is driven by environmental objectives," Orr said. "There's a lot of things that are in there because various members of the Liberal caucus want to see them there."

Not that I'm necessarily going to say I'm right just because some economist says I'm right (I'll leave such tactics to you)... but these are 2 arguments I've been making for a long time. And its right in the reference that YOU provided.

Existing taxes on gas help fund road maintenance (directly, or even indirectly through general revenue/transfer payments). The 'carbon tax' is supposed to be a tax based on environmental impact.

Converting the 'excise tax' into a carbon tax means that the government is no longer collecting money from drivers to pay for their use of a common good.

Sure they are. It is called the GST and it is gas as well.

The GST is meant for general revenue and it is applied on things that don't even have any environmental impact or requires government spending. Why should something like (lets say) a haircut have the same GST applied as gas, if the use of gas requires road maintenance that the other services don't?

Any way you look at it, gas purchases are getting an artificial 'boost' compared to other types of consumption (both energy and otherwise). If you want to be consistent (in that people pay for the use of 'resources', you will need both the carbon tax and some sort of road maintenance tax on gas.

Admittedly, I'm not an expert in geothermal...however, from what I've read, geothermal plants are typically base load plants (much like nuclear). The U.S. would still need gas or hydro to handle peak demand.

I believe geothermal is the wave of the future. If this becomes the standard for new homes built (just like R2000 construction was), it could mean huge savings for Canadians in their power needs and help reduce energy dramatically.

I never claimed that geothermal didn't have a lot of potential to generate electricity in both Canada and the U.S. What I was pointing out was that the nature of geothermal (namely the inability to 'throttle' the generation) may make it unsuitable for all situations, and that gas or hydro will be needed for peak periods.

There's also the possibility that geothermal may not be quite as renewable as thought... geothermal plans may end up cooling down the area of the earth that they are located in (although after a certain time the heat may return; it just makes geothermal a little inconsistent.)

I have never heard of such problems. On what type of scale are they talking about?

Hasn't been a major problem so far... the Wairakei generating plant saw the temperatures available to the plant decrease slightly, but they were able to make some modifications to keep the plant operating at capacity. It may simply be a case of making sure that we don't build geothermal plants that are larger than needed.

From: http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull19-3/art69.htm

...despite the near stabilization of the "at depth" pressure and mass withdrawal the apparent enthalpy of the fluid continued to decrease slowly, reflected by annual decline in fluid temperature of around 0.5 deg. C per year; indication the system was being slowly mined of its heat by the production process.

Again, it may not necessarily be a major problem. The main problem (as I said before) is that geothermal may be suitable for handling base loads but not necessarily for peak power generation.

I never said they did.... They can use a lot more nuclear and geothermal, but as I said, they deal primarily with base loads. They could simply use gas/oil (plus what hydro power they have) for the remainer of their needs, but again if the idea is to reduce global carbon emissions, the idea of saying "We're better than you because you're forced to use gas generators" isn't really helping.

Don't think I ever made that argument.

You suggested that Canada should supply electricity for its own needs, plus whatever current contract requirements we have with the U.S., but anything extra should stay in Canada (via the east-west transmission lines). If the U.S. needs power to handle peak loads, they may end up having to use gas.

I think it is good economic policy in Canada and completely doable for an east-west transmission line.

I never said it wasn't good economic policy. What I did say is that it wouldn't help global greenhouse gas emissions.

It may be financially viable for some companies to agree to have their power cut during peak demands, but I doubt that is going to be very wide spread. Heavy industry can't very well afford to have employees remaining idle, any office-type business would be very unpopular with their employees if they had their air conditioning shut off.

It is now being looked at by Canadian utilities this month.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingn...p-4793623c.html

Those are smart meters. Ontario has been playing around with them for a while. Frankly I think they're a good idea.

But really, they're more for billing than anything else, and they don't really do much that (for example) a good timer wouldn't do for the average home user. They're not about to shut down major industries (for example GM) for an afternoon just because a smart meter tells them to, and business/industry IS the reason for peak demands.

Really? After you stated the differences in MPG following the ethanol switch, you tried to claim that there were no major differences between the states. You even pointed to their similar geography and climate. In fact, in your post you even stated: The only difference was in mandated ethanol.

Ethanol is certainly a major differences that can't be easily dismissed.

By all reliable accounts, ethanol causes a loss of efficiency of around 4%. Your experience was 5%. The comparison you gave between the 2 states was 13%. The difference due to ethanol would only account for about 1/3 of the difference.

You see, I have no way of knowing what you consider a small place. Nor do I have any idea about how efficient your energy use is. You are anonymous and unless you want to show me the bills and the place you live at, I can't properly say if you can find more savings.

Town home, less than 1200 sq. feet main floor+upper floor. Located in the middle of the block. New home, top quality windows and insulation. Not sure what else you'd need to know.

I think royally screwed would be someone paying thousands for the green plan. By your own account, you will see a $100 to $200 cost increase by the end of the program in 2012 if it starts now.

So, in other words, because I'm only getting hurt a little I should be happy? By that argument, anyone who looses a limb should be happy because they at least they didn't loose 3 limbs.

This is where I have problems with some of the people opposing the green plan. If they are not doubting warming altogether, they are indicating economic catastrophe or personal hardship in regards to an increase that is less the rate of present inflation.

I never claimed it would be catastrophic. I've already stated that several times. But at the end of the day I'd still have less money in my pocket.

Rather ironic that you'd complain about people overestimating their 'hardship' over this program, when you are just as cavalier in dismissing their concerns with a "perhaps you can find savings" attitude. Face it, even many liberals have stated that the plan does a lot to 'help the poor'. That should be more than enough to show that there will be some people who pay more.

[jdobbin]

Why exactly does the presence of one (speculation) negate the effect of the other (rises due to increased demand). Even if there's a lot of variation, energy prices WILL skyrocket. That's the important point. And that provides incentives to change.

When they skyrocket is fairly important. Almost all analysts have said the spikes now defy supply and demand.

I'm sure it will go up but I don't believe we are about to see $200 a barrel this year as a result of of anything short of speculation.

Ah ok. Hadn't seen that. (I had read the actual green shift plan and did not recall seeing anything there about predictions.

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear... of the carbon tax doesn't help Canada reach its goal, are the Liberals going to turn around and give me my money back?

If it is shown to be failure or there is science to show global warming is not happening, I expect the carbon tax will be dropped.

By the way, I find it ironic that in the article you quoted, it states:

Given that automobiles account for a large part of greenhouse gas emissions, it's hard to see how this policy will have any material effect on a major source of consumption and pollution. "If you really want to move the yardstick forward from today on the environment, you have to tax gasoline," said economist Dale Orr of Global Insight in Toronto. The Liberals claim the tax on gasoline is already high enough, but "I don't think that's a convincing argument at all," Orr said. "I think they're not taxing gas because they don't want to take the political heat for it."

And:

Orr, however, points to an array of politically motivated benefits to select groups that make the plan look like something less than a straight income-tax cut.

...

"You can't say this plan is driven by environmental objectives," Orr said. "There's a lot of things that are in there because various members of the Liberal caucus want to see them there."

Not that I'm necessarily going to say I'm right just because some economist says I'm right (I'll leave such tactics to you)... but these are 2 arguments I've been making for a long time. And its right in the reference that YOU provided.

The yardstick was $40 a metric tonne on carbon across the board. The excise tax conversion will make it $42.

I will agree that with Orr that it is politically difficult to raise gas even more but once again, if the goal is to set $40 a metric tonne, then gas is treated equally with other emitters.

I'll also agree that the Liberals should have done a straight income tax cut.

I've been pushing for even deeper income tax cuts separate from the carbon tax.

The GST is meant for general revenue and it is applied on things that don't even have any environmental impact or requires government spending. Why should something like (lets say) a haircut have the same GST applied as gas, if the use of gas requires road maintenance that the other services don't?

Martin used a portion of the tax to help fund municipal infrastructure. Harper has continued the program.

http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/ip-pi/gas-...dmonton_e.shtml

The Government committed, in Budget 2005, to renewing the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund, the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund and the Border Infrastructure Fund. Budget 2005 builds on the achievements of Budget 2004 – which gave municipalities the Goods and Services Tax (GST) rebate worth $7 billion over 10 years, and accelerated the $1-billion Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund.

Any way you look at it, gas purchases are getting an artificial 'boost' compared to other types of consumption (both energy and otherwise). If you want to be consistent (in that people pay for the use of 'resources', you will need both the carbon tax and some sort of road maintenance tax on gas.

See above.

I never claimed that geothermal didn't have a lot of potential to generate electricity in both Canada and the U.S. What I was pointing out was that the nature of geothermal (namely the inability to 'throttle' the generation) may make it unsuitable for all situations, and that gas or hydro will be needed for peak periods.

Geothermal would certainly free a lot of gas for situations where it was needed.

Hasn't been a major problem so far... the Wairakei generating plant saw the temperatures available to the plant decrease slightly, but they were able to make some modifications to keep the plant operating at capacity. It may simply be a case of making sure that we don't build geothermal plants that are larger than needed.

Ah, first I heard of it. I wonder if it would be the same in a large subdivision where each home had its closed loop system.

current[/i] contract requirements we have with the U.S., but anything extra should stay in Canada (via the east-west transmission lines). If the U.S. needs power to handle peak loads, they may end up having to use gas.

Ontario needs power now and in the future. We should be looking to supply our own needs. Who else will?

I'm sure we'll be able to continue to service contracts we have presently with the U.S. and more thereafter but the U.S. does have to develop some of its own capacity.

If both countries to this, then yes, emissions should drop.

I never said it wasn't good economic policy. What I did say is that it wouldn't help global greenhouse gas emissions.

Act locally, think globally. If Canada and the U.S. are successful in seeking alternatives, it will be the same as when the world acted on CFCs. 500 companies built CFC-free factories world-wide.

Those are smart meters. Ontario has been playing around with them for a while. Frankly I think they're a good idea.

But really, they're more for billing than anything else, and they don't really do much that (for example) a good timer wouldn't do for the average home user. They're not about to shut down major industries (for example GM) for an afternoon just because a smart meter tells them to, and business/industry IS the reason for peak demands.

In California, the smart meters are being used to turn down power in malls and office buildings if there is about to be a brownout. Better a lower air conditioning draw than a total loss of power.

By all reliable accounts, ethanol causes a loss of efficiency of around 4%. Your experience was 5%. The comparison you gave between the 2 states was 13%. The difference due to ethanol would only account for about 1/3 of the difference.

True. However, if I was a Minnesotan, I'd want to know why the difference was so striking.

Town home, less than 1200 sq. feet main floor+upper floor. Located in the middle of the block. New home, top quality windows and insulation. Not sure what else you'd need to know.

That's about 300 square feet bigger than the 1950s. Home sizes have gone up each decade while family size has come down.

So, in other words, because I'm only getting hurt a little I should be happy? By that argument, anyone who looses a limb should be happy because they at least they didn't loose 3 limbs.

Let's keep things in perspective. You aren't losing a finger here. If it is $200 that you are paying in four years, are you really getting the shaft if it is reducing emissions?

I never claimed it would be catastrophic. I've already stated that several times. But at the end of the day I'd still have less money in my pocket.

Rather ironic that you'd complain about people overestimating their 'hardship' over this program, when you are just as cavalier in dismissing their concerns with a "perhaps you can find savings" attitude. Face it, even many liberals have stated that the plan does a lot to 'help the poor'. That should be more than enough to show that there will be some people who pay more.

I was pointing out that if people are paying more, it is a far cry from getting shafted.

[Riverwind]

If it is shown to be failure or there is science to show global warming is not happening, I expect the carbon tax will be dropped.

Do you believe in Santa Claus too? The carbon tax proposal creates a huge swath of new entitlements and transfers with the tax system. The people on the receiving end of the these entitlements will not give them up simply because the carbon tax turns out to be be unnecessary. The only way the government could drop the tax is if it could afford to do so while keeping the entitlements which is quite unlikely. If the carbon tax comes in we will be stuck with it like the GST. Edited July 31, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Do you believe in Santa Claus too? The carbon tax proposal creates a huge swath of new entitlements and transfers with the tax system. The people on the receiving end of the these entitlements will not give them up simply because the carbon tax turns out to be be unnecessary. The only way the government could drop the tax is if it could afford to do so while keeping the entitlements which is quite unlikely. If the carbon tax comes in we will be stuck with it like the GST.

There's that insulting tone again. You really do try to personalize in so much of what you post.

The GST was to replace the 13.5% Manufacturer's Sales Tax and the 11% Telecommunications Tax which was hidden in the price of those products. If the Tories were dishonest about anything when they introduced it, it was that the tax was going to be revenue neutral.

If a carbon tax ever proved to be unnecessary, it would be replaced with either another form of tax or cutbacks.

The argument that a tax is never repealed is a lie. See above on the MST and Teletax. The idea that a government never cuts back is a lie. See the 1990s and Liberal rule.

[Riverwind]

If the Tories were dishonest about anything when they introduced it, it was that the tax was going to be revenue neutral.

A lesson worth remembering when the hearing promises that the carbon tax will be 'revenue neutral'.

If a carbon tax ever proved to be unnecessary, it would be replaced with either another form of tax or cutbacks.

And how many generations would that take? Replacing the regressive MST cost the Tories dearly even though it made economic sense. Any future politician would face the same problem with a regressive carbon tax. It think it is foolish to believe that the carbon tax would be repealled if AGW disappeared as an issue. Edited July 31, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

A lesson worth remembering when the hearing promises that the carbon tax will be 'revenue neutral'.

Since more tax cuts are also being considered by the Liberals in addition to the carbon tax, I'm sure we'll see adjustment if there is a discrepancy.

And how many generations would that take? Replacing the regressive MST cost the Tories dearly even though it made economic sense. Any future politician would face the same problem with a regressive carbon tax. It think it is foolish to believe that the carbon tax would be repealled if AGW disappeared as an issue.

Since it unlikely that the issue of global warming is about to disappear anytime soon, it seems a moot question.

Edited July 31, 2008 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

Since it unlikely that the issue of global warming is about to disappear anytime soon, it seems a mot question.

I agree that it will take a long time to die completely but it will be an irrelevent issue within 5 years if current temperature trends continue. That is why we should not be considering an policy change that would be difficult to reverse if the earth refuses to cooperate with the prophets of doom. Edited July 31, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

I agree that it will take a long time to die completely but it will be an irrelevent issue within 5 years if current temperature trends continue. That is why we should not be considering an policy change that would be difficult to reverse if the earth refuses to cooperate with the prophets of doom.

There's that namecalling again.

I wonder why there is no criticism for ethanol on your part if you are worried about decisions that are difficult to reverse. Farmers now regard ethanol as a support system even though it is a misguided emissions program. Why are you not up in arms over it?

The reason is that the Conservatives seem to be some people's favoured party and no criticism will fall on them no matter how questionable.

Edited July 31, 2008 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

I wonder why there is no criticism for ethanol on your part if you are worried about decisions that are difficult to reverse. Farmers now regard ethanol as a support system even though it is a misguided emissions program. Why are you not up in arms over it?

I have an issue with most farm subsidy schemes but that is seperate discussion and it is certainly will not be the major issue in the next election but the carbon tax likely will. In any case, I only get one vote so I will need to choose the lesser of evils when it comes to most policies so the flaws in any Conservative, NDP or Green plans aren't that significant if the alternative is the Liberals with a carbon tax. If the Liberals take the carbon tax off the table then it might be worthwhile discussing the flaws in the conservative plan. Alternatively, if the Conservatives tabled an kyoto style cap™ scheme to counter the carbon tax then I might be forced to go with the carbon tax because the cap™ would be much much worse. Edited July 31, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

I have an issue with most farm subsidy schemes but that is seperate discussion and it is certainly will not be the major issue in the next election but the carbon tax likely will. In any case, I only get one vote so I will need to choose the lesser of evils when it comes to most policies so the flaws in any Conservative, NDP or Green plans aren't that significant if the alternative is the Liberals with a carbon tax. If the Liberals take the carbon tax off the table then it might be worthwhile discussing the flaws in the conservative plan. Alternatively, if the Conservatives tabled an kyoto style cap™ scheme to counter the carbon tax then I might be forced to go with the carbon tax because the cap™ would be much much worse.

That should raise an interesting conundrum for some on the right since the Tories are talking about the cap and trade at this caucus meeting as means of currying favour with urban areas and Quebec.

[Riverwind]

That should raise an interesting conundrum for some on the right since the Tories are talking about the cap and trade at this caucus meeting as means of currying favour with urban areas and Quebec.

I said *kyoto style* cap™ which allows western companies to purchase credits from third world countries which was absolutely unacceptable. cap™ only within canada might not be so bad but I would have to see the details but I suspect that any such plan would end up being another excuse to take money from the west and send to Quebec.

That said, I agree that I will really be in a bind if the conservatives back a bad cap and trade plan.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

I said *kyoto style* cap™ which allows western companies to purchase credits from third world countries which was absolutely unacceptable. cap™ only within canada might not be so bad but I would have to see the details but I suspect that any such plan would end up being another excuse to take money from the west and send to Quebec.

Baird keeps saying the Tory plan in tougher than the one the provinces agreed to last month. He called it all talk, no action. I guess we'll see shortly what the Tories mean when they talk action.

Dion says he will support cap and trade but that it won't work as fast in reducing emissions. The expert panels agreed in the National Post and said they taker a lot longer to set up because they are not just done within the framework of Canada. In other words, companies are not restricted to trading with other companies in Canada.

Edited July 31, 2008 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

I guess we'll see shortly what the Tories mean when they talk action.

If they make it contingent on international agreements then I would see it as a delaying tactic. China, Russia and India are not stupid and they know the scientific foundations for catastrophic AGW are pretty weak no matter what various activist groups in the West may say. So we can count on them to scuttle any deal that included binding targets for themselves which would ensure that the Conservatives would never have to actually sign onto a real plan. Edited July 31, 2008 by Riverwind