Are the Liberals damaging Green party chances...?

[Wilber]

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

Exactly, it will replaced by another tax because all those entitlements made possible with the carbon tax will still have to be paid for, making the assertion of revenue neutrality a bald faced lie. It is a tax increase, pure and simple.

[jdobbin]

Exactly, it will replaced by another tax because all those entitlements made possible with the carbon tax will still have to be paid for, making the assertion of revenue neutrality a bald faced lie. It is a tax increase, pure and simple.

Those entitlements could also be cut if the carbon tax was to end. Any assertion that they would have to remain is a bold faced lie. Don't think they'd be cut? Remember the 1990s. Cuts happened to entitlements.

[Wilber]

Those entitlements could also be cut if the carbon tax was to end. Any assertion that they would have to remain is a bold faced lie. Don't think they'd be cut? Remember the 1990s. Cuts happened to entitlements.

No, I don't believe they would be cut because I believe the purpose of this program is primarily the transfer of wealth and not the reduction of CO2 emissions.

[segnosaur]

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

Of course spikes defy supply and demand. That's why they're spikes.

The thing is, prices are not likely to be going down much further than $100/barrel (there may be a dip, but it won't sit there forever). And the price of $100/barrel is already the price that many people quote as making certain alternatives attractive.

For example:

- Standard Ethanol production (corn/sugar cane/etc.... becomes competitive when oil is under $70/barrel (and that can be done without subsidies. We could be importing ethanol from brazil) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2006/2006-04-25-03.asp

- Wind may be competitive when oil is above $40/barrel http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/business...ess/28wind.html

- An oil-from-bacteria scheme may be competitive at $50/barrel http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle4133668.ece

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

Ok, first of all, municipal infrastructure includes more than just roads. It includes water/sewer, parks, and a whole host of things. (Even the article you referenced points that out.)

Secondly, while the GST from the gas tax is being diverted to 'infrastructure', it means that gas sales are not pulling their weight compared to, lets say, hair cuts (or anything else the GST is applied to). Gas is still being given 'special' treatment.

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

Yes it would. But I thought the purpose was to prevent the use of gas altogether.

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

If you want to claim that we should be self-reliant, I'm fine with that argument. But that is not the same as the argument that an east-west line will cut down global carbon emissions.

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.

And if they don't have access to cheap, renewable electricity from Canada, and they have no rivers of their own left to tap, then they will go to the old standby of gas.

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.

Although smart meters have given some benefit, California still expects to see its peak demand increase over the next decade. (See: http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2004-03-24_700-04-003.PDF page 11.)

Not that smart meters don't have benefit, but I think you're vastly overestimating their ability to eliminate the problem of peak loading and eliminating the need for gas powered plants.

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

If your interested in transportation issues, maybe. You pointed at ethanol as the problem. Are you now admitting you were wrong on the issue?

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

Yes, house sizes have gone up. Of course, this is partially offset by better standards for insulation. And it was one of the smallest houses I could find.

Hmmm... I wonder why the Liberals don't make that the central focus of their green plan.... "Vote for us... we'll force you out of your home and into someplace smaller". Want me to start working on the advertising campaign now?

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?

Lets see... that $200 increase would be the equivalent of a 2% income tax increase. I'm trying to put money into my RRSPs for retirement, and that $200 will eventually cost me around $3000 within a decade (assuming I invested it in a safe fund).

And of course the critical word in your above sentences is if it is reducing emissions. What still needs to be shown is whether A: it actually causes people to reduce emissions (more than they would have due to the natural increase in prices), and B: if it was the most effective way to reduce those emissions.

Let me put it this way... there are around 20million taxpayers in the country. If half of them get the same type of penalty as I get, it will mean about $2 billion. (Granted, that is a very very rough estimate. And yes, the other half of the people would end up getting money back. But I'm not a member of that group.) Now, imagine what type of research we could have accomplished with that amount of money.... we could have funded research to turn algae into fuel, we could have done more research into nuclear fusion, or even geothermal. Personally, if I had a choice I'd prefer my energy to go to something that has long term benefits.

[jdobbin]

Of course spikes defy supply and demand. That's why they're spikes.

The thing is, prices are not likely to be going down much further than $100/barrel (there may be a dip, but it won't sit there forever). And the price of $100/barrel is already the price that many people quote as making certain alternatives attractive.

I don't know that anyone is predicting how far it will dip or for how long and when it will go back up again and how fast with great confidence in their accuracy. If someone could predict that, they would be the richest person on the planet.

Most agree it will go up and probably dramatically but we just haven't seen the drastic reductions in supply and increases in demand yet.

Ok, first of all, municipal infrastructure includes more than just roads. It includes water/sewer, parks, and a whole host of things. (Even the article you referenced points that out.)

Secondly, while the GST from the gas tax is being diverted to 'infrastructure', it means that gas sales are not pulling their weight compared to, lets say, hair cuts (or anything else the GST is applied to). Gas is still being given 'special' treatment.

It is the first time money had been earmarked for infrastructure at the municipal level coming from gas money. The excise tax collects $5 billion a year in revenue. It has been mostly used for government revenue and was usually earmarked for deficit reduction. In 2005, Paul Martin made agreements with the provinces that a portion of all gas taxes would go to the provinces to be used by the municipalities for infrastructure.

If the carbon tax replaces the excise tax, there is still a federal portion of gas tax that continues to go the provinces for infrastructure.

I don't see a problem here.

Yes it would. But I thought the purpose was to prevent the use of gas altogether.

Geothermal could replace an enormous portion of natural gas usage. Other alternates would do their part as well.

If you want to claim that we should be self-reliant, I'm fine with that argument. But that is not the same as the argument that an east-west line will cut down global carbon emissions.

It would cut Canada's contribution to global carbon emissions. It seems the argument that you've been making is that we can't do such a project without causing the U.S. to have an uptick in their emissions. My argument all along is how can untapped hydro being used in Canada cause this? If coal plants and natural gas plants are replaced by hydro in Canada, it doesn't suddenly cause the U.S. to have an uptick in emissions.

And if they don't have access to cheap, renewable electricity from Canada, and they have no rivers of their own left to tap, then they will go to the old standby of gas.

The U.S. have their own untapped supply at the moment. Roughly 90,000 mws of power by last count of hydroelectric power.

Some states get all their power from hydro now and just this year, it was predicted that hydro production in the U.S. could increase 50%.

Although smart meters have given some benefit, California still expects to see its peak demand increase over the next decade. (See: http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2004-03-24_700-04-003.PDF page 11.)

Not that smart meters don't have benefit, but I think you're vastly overestimating their ability to eliminate the problem of peak loading and eliminating the need for gas powered plants.

I think they shouldn't be underestimated since the utility could remotely lower demand.

If your interested in transportation issues, maybe. You pointed at ethanol as the problem. Are you now admitting you were wrong on the issue?

I still ethanol could be a major source of the problem.

Yes, house sizes have gone up. Of course, this is partially offset by better standards for insulation. And it was one of the smallest houses I could find.

I think that is part of the problem that there seems few choices now with home sizes so much larger.

Hmmm... I wonder why the Liberals don't make that the central focus of their green plan.... "Vote for us... we'll force you out of your home and into someplace smaller". Want me to start working on the advertising campaign now?

Nice. There are plenty of alternatives first before people need to downsize.

The "freeze in the dark" scare tactics of the right are pretty over the top.

Lets see... that $200 increase would be the equivalent of a 2% income tax increase. I'm trying to put money into my RRSPs for retirement, and that $200 will eventually cost me around $3000 within a decade (assuming I invested it in a safe fund).

I still don't see this as being shafted or the equivalent of losing a body part.

And of course the critical word in your above sentences is if it is reducing emissions. What still needs to be shown is whether A: it actually causes people to reduce emissions (more than they would have due to the natural increase in prices), and B: if it was the most effective way to reduce those emissions.

Regressive consumption taxes have the effect of making people limit their exposure to those products that cause them to be taxed.

Let me put it this way... there are around 20million taxpayers in the country. If half of them get the same type of penalty as I get, it will mean about $2 billion. (Granted, that is a very very rough estimate. And yes, the other half of the people would end up getting money back. But I'm not a member of that group.) Now, imagine what type of research we could have accomplished with that amount of money.... we could have funded research to turn algae into fuel, we could have done more research into nuclear fusion, or even geothermal. Personally, if I had a choice I'd prefer my energy to go to something that has long term benefits.

I've seen no evidence that research suddenly stops on the private or public front with this Liberal program. Also, I have never seen the figures you quote being offered as a possibility by anyone.

[segnosaur]

I don't know that anyone is predicting how far it will dip or for how long and when it will go back up again and how fast with great confidence in their accuracy. If someone could predict that, they would be the richest person on the planet.

Most agree it will go up and probably dramatically but we just haven't seen the drastic reductions in supply and increases in demand yet.

Just out of curiosity, just how long will gas have to stay above $100 (or $75, or some other marker) before you say that it really won't fall any more?

It is the first time money had been earmarked for infrastructure at the municipal level coming from gas money.

The fact that part of the GST is 'earmarked' is irrelevant. For every Gas GST$ directed directly at municipalities directly, there is less need to get the money from elsewhere. There's only a limited pool of money. The fact that some is earmarked doesn't make it appear magically.

I should also point out.... the municipal 'infrastructure' does not necessarily apply to roads... it can include parks, government buildings, public transportation, etc.

Once again...

- Prior to the money being 'earmarked' All products and services have the GST applied for government revenue.. gas, haircuts, and movie tickets. The money supports basic government operations, some involving transportation, most not

- Because gas used in transportation requires special government expenses (i.e. roads) it should have extra taxes applied to it . Although this may not have been the stated purpose of the excise tax, but it had the same effect

- If the excise tax becomes the 'carbon tax', then the government is no longer funding those 'extra expenses' from the people that are using it (i.e. drivers using gas)

Geothermal could replace an enormous portion of natural gas usage. Other alternates would do their part as well.

Just out of curiosity, do you even understand the difference between base and peak load?

I know I've explained the difference before (and just why geothermal, while it may hold some promise, isn't useful for all situations.) If you don't understand the difference, let me know and I'll try to find some sites to help educate you.

If you want to claim that we should be self-reliant, I'm fine with that argument. But that is not the same as the argument that an east-west line will cut down global carbon emissions.

It would cut Canada's contribution to global carbon emissions. It seems the argument that you've been making is that we can't do such a project without causing the U.S. to have an uptick in their emissions. My argument all along is how can untapped hydro being used in Canada cause this? If coal plants and natural gas plants are replaced by hydro in Canada, it doesn't suddenly cause the U.S. to have an uptick in emissions.

Ummm... I never claimed that developing untapped hydro in Canada would cause the U.S. to increase emissions.

What I said was improved east-west transmission links, which would allow provinces like Manitoba and Quebec to sell their power to Ontario instead of the U.S. would increase their emissions. (Or, at least have their emissions higher than they could be.)

Developing new interprovincial transmission lines is a completely different issue than developing new hydro plants. The only way that an east-west transmission line (by itself) would actually reduce total carbon emissions would be if the U.S. had managed to generate all its electricity from uranium, geothermal, wind, or hamsters on a wheel, and utilities in Ontario had a surplus of power they needed to find a market for.

The U.S. have their own untapped supply at the moment. Roughly 90,000 mws of power by last count of hydroelectric power.

Not sure where exactly you're getting you're 90,000 mws (I don't even know what units you're referring to.)

That is different than the 30million kw estimate I've seen (for example, here: http://www.answers.com/topic/hydroelectricity).

But, lets assume you meant 90 million kw of untapped hydro (and I got the units right). Problem is, the U.S. will actually need over 250 million kw over the next 30 years, more than 3 times the amount available from hydro. Now, Nuclear power could supply some of that. So could geothermal. But both of those are best at handling base loads. A rule of thumb is that base loads account for less than 40% of your total load. That would mean they'd need 150 million KW in peak load. Even if they successfully developed every hydro resource, they'd still be short 60 million kw. That means either A: use fossil fuels, or B: import from Canada.

I think they shouldn't be underestimated since the utility could remotely lower demand.

You think? No statistics? No actual calculations?

You know, I think it speaks volumes about the quality of your argument and your critical thinking skills when I present long, complex calculations using published statistics as a basis, and you dismiss everything with "I think...".

Yes, house sizes have gone up. Of course, this is partially offset by better standards for insulation. And it was one of the smallest houses I could find.

Hmmm... I wonder why the Liberals don't make that the central focus of their green plan.... "Vote for us... we'll force you out of your home and into someplace smaller". Want me to start working on the advertising campaign now?

Nice. There are plenty of alternatives first before people need to downsize.

Well, where are those alternatives? You keep claiming they exist. Why haven't you presented any? I've already told you all the things I've done to reduce my costs. (And I believe you were the one that first brought up the issue of house size.)

Lets see... that $200 increase would be the equivalent of a 2% income tax increase. I'm trying to put money into my RRSPs for retirement, and that $200 will eventually cost me around $3000 within a decade (assuming I invested it in a safe fund).

I still don't see this as being shafted or the equivalent of losing a body part.

I never claimed that having to pay more in taxes was equivalent to loosing a body part.

What I was complaining about was the attitude that you and many other Liberal supporters seem to have that I shouldn't complain about being hurt a little over the plan. I was drawing an analogy... criticizing me for complaining about a $200 tax increase (when things could be worse) is similar to criticizing someone when they complain about loosing a hand, when they could have been decapitated instead.

So, tell me, how much should I have to pay before you think I have a real cause for complaint, if you think $200/year is nothing? $500/year? $1000? Should I be willing to pay all my income to the government just for the joy and privelege of living in Canada? Where do you draw the line between something I should be happy to pay, and something I should be unhappy?

Regressive consumption taxes have the effect of making people limit their exposure to those products that cause them to be taxed.

I never claimed that regressive consumption taxes did otherwise. What I've said all along is that those taxes become unnecessary if market forces are already affecting the use of products.

Let me put it this way... there are around 20million taxpayers in the country. If half of them get the same type of penalty as I get, it will mean about $2 billion. (Granted, that is a very very rough estimate. And yes, the other half of the people would end up getting money back. But I'm not a member of that group.) Now, imagine what type of research we could have accomplished with that amount of money.... we could have funded research to turn algae into fuel, we could have done more research into nuclear fusion, or even geothermal. Personally, if I had a choice I'd prefer my energy to go to something that has long term benefits.

I've seen no evidence that research suddenly stops on the private or public front with this Liberal program.

I never claimed that research would stop with this Liberal program. (And I never even claimed that the conservatives would increase the research budget either.) But, research can be very expensive, and there is often more demand for research grants than there is money available. I was suggesting the tax money be applied to research over and above money that was already being spent for that purpose.

What I was saying is that if I did have to pay more in taxes, I would rather those taxes go to finding an actual cure for or environmental problems, rather than going to fund a tax cut for Quebec or Manitoba residents who just happen to be lucky enough to live in a hydro-producing province.

Also, I have never seen the figures you quote being offered as a possibility by anyone.

That's because those figures are based on calculations I made myself. (I even admitted that they were very rough calculations.) The details of those calculations were given... if you have any problems with the details, lets see them.

Or is this going to be a case where you just hand-wave away any sort of problems?

[Oleg Bach]

Just out of curiosity, just how long will gas have to stay above $100 (or $75, or some other marker) before you say that it really won't fall any more?

The fact that part of the GST is 'earmarked' is irrelevant. For every Gas GST$ directed directly at municipalities directly, there is less need to get the money from elsewhere. There's only a limited pool of money. The fact that some is earmarked doesn't make it appear magically.

I should also point out.... the municipal 'infrastructure' does not necessarily apply to roads... it can include parks, government buildings, public transportation, etc.

Once again...

- Prior to the money being 'earmarked' All products and services have the GST applied for government revenue.. gas, haircuts, and movie tickets. The money supports basic government operations, some involving transportation, most not

- Because gas used in transportation requires special government expenses (i.e. roads) it should have extra taxes applied to it . Although this may not have been the stated purpose of the excise tax, but it had the same effect

- If the excise tax becomes the 'carbon tax', then the government is no longer funding those 'extra expenses' from the people that are using it (i.e. drivers using gas)

Just out of curiosity, do you even understand the difference between base and peak load?

I know I've explained the difference before (and just why geothermal, while it may hold some promise, isn't useful for all situations.) If you don't understand the difference, let me know and I'll try to find some sites to help educate you.

It would cut Canada's contribution to global carbon emissions. It seems the argument that you've been making is that we can't do such a project without causing the U.S. to have an uptick in their emissions. My argument all along is how can untapped hydro being used in Canada cause this? If coal plants and natural gas plants are replaced by hydro in Canada, it doesn't suddenly cause the U.S. to have an uptick in emissions.

Ummm... I never claimed that developing untapped hydro in Canada would cause the U.S. to increase emissions.

What I said was improved east-west transmission links, which would allow provinces like Manitoba and Quebec to sell their power to Ontario instead of the U.S. would increase their emissions. (Or, at least have their emissions higher than they could be.)

Developing new interprovincial transmission lines is a completely different issue than developing new hydro plants. The only way that an east-west transmission line (by itself) would actually reduce total carbon emissions would be if the U.S. had managed to generate all its electricity from uranium, geothermal, wind, or hamsters on a wheel, and utilities in Ontario had a surplus of power they needed to find a market for.

Not sure where exactly you're getting you're 90,000 mws (I don't even know what units you're referring to.)

That is different than the 30million kw estimate I've seen (for example, here: http://www.answers.com/topic/hydroelectricity).

But, lets assume you meant 90 million kw of untapped hydro (and I got the units right). Problem is, the U.S. will actually need over 250 million kw over the next 30 years, more than 3 times the amount available from hydro. Now, Nuclear power could supply some of that. So could geothermal. But both of those are best at handling base loads. A rule of thumb is that base loads account for less than 40% of your total load. That would mean they'd need 150 million KW in peak load. Even if they successfully developed every hydro resource, they'd still be short 60 million kw. That means either A: use fossil fuels, or B: import from Canada.

You think? No statistics? No actual calculations?

You know, I think it speaks volumes about the quality of your argument and your critical thinking skills when I present long, complex calculations using published statistics as a basis, and you dismiss everything with "I think...".

Nice. There are plenty of alternatives first before people need to downsize.

Well, where are those alternatives? You keep claiming they exist. Why haven't you presented any? I've already told you all the things I've done to reduce my costs. (And I believe you were the one that first brought up the issue of house size.)

I still don't see this as being shafted or the equivalent of losing a body part.

I never claimed that having to pay more in taxes was equivalent to loosing a body part.

What I was complaining about was the attitude that you and many other Liberal supporters seem to have that I shouldn't complain about being hurt a little over the plan. I was drawing an analogy... criticizing me for complaining about a $200 tax increase (when things could be worse) is similar to criticizing someone when they complain about loosing a hand, when they could have been decapitated instead.

So, tell me, how much should I have to pay before you think I have a real cause for complaint, if you think $200/year is nothing? $500/year? $1000? Should I be willing to pay all my income to the government just for the joy and privelege of living in Canada? Where do you draw the line between something I should be happy to pay, and something I should be unhappy?

I never claimed that regressive consumption taxes did otherwise. What I've said all along is that those taxes become unnecessary if market forces are already affecting the use of products.

I've seen no evidence that research suddenly stops on the private or public front with this Liberal program.

I never claimed that research would stop with this Liberal program. (And I never even claimed that the conservatives would increase the research budget either.) But, research can be very expensive, and there is often more demand for research grants than there is money available. I was suggesting the tax money be applied to research over and above money that was already being spent for that purpose.

What I was saying is that if I did have to pay more in taxes, I would rather those taxes go to finding an actual cure for or environmental problems, rather than going to fund a tax cut for Quebec or Manitoba residents who just happen to be lucky enough to live in a hydro-producing province.

That's because those figures are based on calculations I made myself. (I even admitted that they were very rough calculations.) The details of those calculations were given... if you have any problems with the details, lets see them.

Or is this going to be a case where you just hand-wave away any sort of problems?

The green party is a fraud - imagine if they were in power - do you think they would have staged the Olypics in that polluting filth pit slave labour camp called China? - Damn right they would...just like NDP types are NOT governened by Christian benevolence - they are just mail men who want to live in frinking Rosedale....Liberalism and the Greens have but one thing in common - and that is the fact that Greens are liberals that are the better liars and want to feel good about them selves - hence the environ and all that crap - Only those raised in the green of the country side by a lake know what "green" is ....these turds just parrot environmentalizm - they never had mud between their toes nor have they every wacked a leopord frog with a stick in the tall grass to use for Bass bait as a kid - I am green damn it - and they are phoney telephone book recyclers.

[jdobbin]

Just out of curiosity, just how long will gas have to stay above $100 (or $75, or some other marker) before you say that it really won't fall any more?

I think I already said I have no idea how far it will dip or when it will rise again. I had been pointing out the much of the steady increase in oil the last year was speculation that eventually proved to be incorrect on weather, international affairs and the economy.

As some analysts have been saying, the rise was parabolic and some shrewd investors started betting it was a bubble.

The fact that part of the GST is 'earmarked' is irrelevant. For every Gas GST$ directed directly at municipalities directly, there is less need to get the money from elsewhere. There's only a limited pool of money. The fact that some is earmarked doesn't make it appear magically.

I should also point out.... the municipal 'infrastructure' does not necessarily apply to roads... it can include parks, government buildings, public transportation, etc.

Once again...

- Prior to the money being 'earmarked' All products and services have the GST applied for government revenue.. gas, haircuts, and movie tickets. The money supports basic government operations, some involving transportation, most not

- Because gas used in transportation requires special government expenses (i.e. roads) it should have extra taxes applied to it . Although this may not have been the stated purpose of the excise tax, but it had the same effect

- If the excise tax becomes the 'carbon tax', then the government is no longer funding those 'extra expenses' from the people that are using it (i.e. drivers using gas)

The excise tax had been imposed to end the deficit. That was paid for 10 years ago. The money now collected has been used to pad the surplus.

Seems to me that there is still a lot of money floating around the end of the excise tax (like the Tories promised in 2005) or reassignment of it is not going to make a huge difference.

Just out of curiosity, do you even understand the difference between base and peak load?

I know about load profile. What information do you on it in regards to geothermal heating and pumps?

I know I've explained the difference before (and just why geothermal, while it may hold some promise, isn't useful for all situations.) If you don't understand the difference, let me know and I'll try to find some sites to help educate you.

Don't think I said it would be useful for all situations. I said it could replace an enormous amount of natural gas heating and cooling units all over the U.S. and Canada. and do so without creating emissions.

Ummm... I never claimed that developing untapped hydro in Canada would cause the U.S. to increase emissions.

What I said was improved east-west transmission links, which would allow provinces like Manitoba and Quebec to sell their power to Ontario instead of the U.S. would increase their emissions. (Or, at least have their emissions higher than they could be.)

How so? What citation do you have for that?

Developing new interprovincial transmission lines is a completely different issue than developing new hydro plants. The only way that an east-west transmission line (by itself) would actually reduce total carbon emissions would be if the U.S. had managed to generate all its electricity from uranium, geothermal, wind, or hamsters on a wheel, and utilities in Ontario had a surplus of power they needed to find a market for.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

Not sure where exactly you're getting you're 90,000 mws (I don't even know what units you're referring to.)

That should have been kws and I am still looking for the DOE info that I saw it on. It was on a Manitoba Hydro paper that was talking about demand.

The DOE site talked about site 30 million kws that could be developed with minimal environmental effect. To be sure, there would be a fight to develop other hydro.

That is different than the 30million kw estimate I've seen (for example, here: http://www.answers.com/topic/hydroelectricity).

But, lets assume you meant 90 million kw of untapped hydro (and I got the units right). Problem is, the U.S. will actually need over 250 million kw over the next 30 years, more than 3 times the amount available from hydro. Now, Nuclear power could supply some of that. So could geothermal. But both of those are best at handling base loads. A rule of thumb is that base loads account for less than 40% of your total load. That would mean they'd need 150 million KW in peak load. Even if they successfully developed every hydro resource, they'd still be short 60 million kw. That means either A: use fossil fuels, or B: import from Canada.

Or start a massive conservation program.

I still think that Canada could export quite a bit of power to the U.S. but Ontario should be a major project on our parts for Canada.

You think? No statistics? No actual calculations?

You know, I think it speaks volumes about the quality of your argument and your critical thinking skills when I present long, complex calculations using published statistics as a basis, and you dismiss everything with "I think...".

I don't have calculations for it. It is still in the experimental stages in a lot of places. The utilities seem to think it could have a fair sized effect. You don't think so? What are the predictions that you've seen for it?

Well, where are those alternatives? You keep claiming they exist. Why haven't you presented any? I've already told you all the things I've done to reduce my costs. (And I believe you were the one that first brought up the issue of house size.)

If you use a car, use it for combined tasks, use public transit more, walk, ride a bike, some people partially close heat and cold vents in rooms that don't get as much use, wash dishes by hand, use fans or open windows rather than AC all the time, unplug appliances when not using for a length of time.

These are the same things people will be doing anyway if energy rises up again like was all the last year.

I think it will stabilize based on the three key areas that analysts say drove speculation before. We could sill see a storm cause problem or some other thing but I think we have seen some industries look at what happened in the last year as a "near death" experience. It still may be for some. I think that even if prices go down, companies like GM don't want to get into 50% of their business being leases.

I never claimed that having to pay more in taxes was equivalent to loosing a body part.

What I was complaining about was the attitude that you and many other Liberal supporters seem to have that I shouldn't complain about being hurt a little over the plan. I was drawing an analogy... criticizing me for complaining about a $200 tax increase (when things could be worse) is similar to criticizing someone when they complain about loosing a hand, when they could have been decapitated instead.

There we go with body parts again.

Some people will pay more, some less and some will be the same with the policy. I suppose if you feel you will do better with other political parties and their plans on cap and trade or regulations, you should go that way.

So, tell me, how much should I have to pay before you think I have a real cause for complaint, if you think $200/year is nothing? $500/year? $1000? Should I be willing to pay all my income to the government just for the joy and privelege of living in Canada? Where do you draw the line between something I should be happy to pay, and something I should be unhappy?

Some people get angry for paying tax at all. I guess you have to determine what you are getting out of it.

I am still pushing for at least an 8 to 10% income tax cut separate from what we have seen with the Green plan.

I never claimed that regressive consumption taxes did otherwise. What I've said all along is that those taxes become unnecessary if market forces are already affecting the use of products.

Market forces also encouraged people to buy bigger too and emissions increased.

I never claimed that research would stop with this Liberal program. (And I never even claimed that the conservatives would increase the research budget either.) But, research can be very expensive, and there is often more demand for research grants than there is money available. I was suggesting the tax money be applied to research over and above money that was already being spent for that purpose.

How much money are you thinking about?

What I was saying is that if I did have to pay more in taxes, I would rather those taxes go to finding an actual cure for or environmental problems, rather than going to fund a tax cut for Quebec or Manitoba residents who just happen to be lucky enough to live in a hydro-producing province.

What research would you put it in to?

That's because those figures are based on calculations I made myself. (I even admitted that they were very rough calculations.) The details of those calculations were given... if you have any problems with the details, lets see them.

Or is this going to be a case where you just hand-wave away any sort of problems?

I'll go with your calculations. It sounds like the Green program from the Liberals won't be good for you and you should consider your options in the next election to make sure they don't get in and that you don't end up with a worse policy.

[segnosaur]

Once again...

- Prior to the money being 'earmarked' All products and services have the GST applied for government revenue.. gas, haircuts, and movie tickets. The money supports basic government operations, some involving transportation, most not

- Because gas used in transportation requires special government expenses (i.e. roads) it should have extra taxes applied to it . Although this may not have been the stated purpose of the excise tax, but it had the same effect

- If the excise tax becomes the 'carbon tax', then the government is no longer funding those 'extra expenses' from the people that are using it (i.e. drivers using gas)

The excise tax had been imposed to end the deficit. That was paid for 10 years ago. The money now collected has been used to pad the surplus.

Note that in my previous post, I've already addressed that issue, when I pointed out that funding roads may not have been the stated purpose of the excise tax, but it was a side effect.

There is only one set of taxpayers, and only one 'government' (ok, there are provincial and municipal governments, but we can view them as one big collective). Having money 'earmarked' for a particular purpose is irrelevant, because if a something was going to be funded anyways, it still would have come from the same spot (the taxpayer). Money is going to be spent on roads regardless. Because roads require special expenses, then perhaps drivers should be paying a bit more, over and above the 'carbon tax'.

Just out of curiosity, do you even understand the difference between base and peak load?

I know about load profile. What information do you on it in regards to geothermal heating and pumps?

At this point geothermal heating/pumps are irrelevant. We are talking about electrical generation here.

It was you that brought geothermal when we were talking about east-west transmission lines. Even if geothermal is the greatest technology in the world for heating/cooling, we're not dealing with it in that context.

Ummm... I never claimed that developing untapped hydro in Canada would cause the U.S. to increase emissions.

What I said was improved east-west transmission links, which would allow provinces like Manitoba and Quebec to sell their power to Ontario instead of the U.S. would increase their emissions. (Or, at least have their emissions higher than they could be.)

How so? What citation do you have for that?

Ummm... why would I need a citation? Its just logic... I've explained it over and over again. Not sure why its not sinking in.

- the U.S. needs electricity

- Nuclear and geothermal can handle base loads, but that's only around 40% of the needed capacity

- To handle peak capacity they need some other generating technology. That will be either A: gas, or B: hydro

- The U.S. doesn't have enough of its own hydro to meet its needs. (I've provided calculations and references for this in the past).

- If they don't have enough of its own hydro, they will either have to use fossil fuels, or import hydro from Canada

- Even if we do more hydro development up here in Canada, as long as we can sell power to the U.S. to offset their fossil fuel usage we are reducing global carbon emissions.

Really, what exactly are you having troubles understanding in that?

That is different than the 30million kw estimate I've seen (for example, here: http://www.answers.com/topic/hydroelectricity).

But, lets assume you meant 90 million kw of untapped hydro (and I got the units right). Problem is, the U.S. will actually need over 250 million kw over the next 30 years, more than 3 times the amount available from hydro. Now, Nuclear power could supply some of that. So could geothermal. But both of those are best at handling base loads. A rule of thumb is that base loads account for less than 40% of your total load. That would mean they'd need 150 million KW in peak load. Even if they successfully developed every hydro resource, they'd still be short 60 million kw. That means either A: use fossil fuels, or B: import from Canada.

Or start a massive conservation program.

Ah yes, there's that wonderful "proof by handwaving" again.

Maybe Marvel comics should contact you about creating a superhero based on that particular power.

Earth about to be destroyed by a giant asteroid? Along comes handwaving man to make the problem disappear. Supervillians about to take over? Don't defeat them with strength, defeat them with Handwaving.

I still think that Canada could export quite a bit of power to the U.S. but Ontario should be a major project on our parts for Canada.

Greater ability to transmit power between provinces does have advantages (improved reliability, perhaps lower costs). But greenhouse gas reductions are not among those advantages.

Well, where are those alternatives? You keep claiming they exist. Why haven't you presented any? I've already told you all the things I've done to reduce my costs. (And I believe you were the one that first brought up the issue of house size.)

If you use a car, use it for combined tasks, use public transit more, walk, ride a bike, some people partially close heat and cold vents in rooms that don't get as much use, wash dishes by hand, use fans or open windows rather than AC all the time, unplug appliances when not using for a length of time.

I've already done all that, and more... including (as I mentioned before) timed thermostats, using fans in the upper floors to push warmer air downwards, ensuring the furnace is tuned, etc.

These are the same things people will be doing anyway if energy rises up again like was all the last year.

Which is pretty much the point I've been making right from the start... people (like me) are already likely taking steps to reduce our energy usage without the carbon tax.

So, tell me, how much should I have to pay before you think I have a real cause for complaint, if you think $200/year is nothing? $500/year? $1000?

Some people get angry for paying tax at all. I guess you have to determine what you are getting out of it.

Still haven't seen you answer the question.

In earlier posts you were suggesting my complaints were unfounded because I didn't have to pay that much extra. Still waiting to hear how much more I'd have to pay before you suggest I have a valid complaint.

I never claimed that research would stop with this Liberal program. (And I never even claimed that the conservatives would increase the research budget either.) But, research can be very expensive, and there is often more demand for research grants than there is money available. I was suggesting the tax money be applied to research over and above money that was already being spent for that purpose.

How much money are you thinking about?

Well, my very rough calculations suggested that the Liberal plans would see approximately 2 billion dollars shifted from one group of people (single people in Ontario/Alberta for example) to people in Quebec/Montreal, or people with children. So, instead of shifting that $2 billion from one group of voters to another, apply it to research.

Note that this is not a serious proposal... I know it would never actually be accepted, and it would be a nightmare to apply. But, at least it would have the potential to actually give real solutions.

What research would you put it in to?

How about nuclear fusion? More energy than we could ever use, taken right from water. (Lots of technical difficulties with it though.)

How about pilot projects to create ethanol from cellulose (e.g. switchgrass, which can be grown on land unsuitable for corn)? Lots of energy for driving our cars, while minimizing the problems of increased food prices.

How about genetic engineering, to allow extraction of ethanol or oil from either algae or bacteria?

[normanchateau]

I was having an interesting discussion with a friend that is a Green party supporter, and she was bemoaning the Liberal's 'Green Shift' plan. However, she was annoyed not because she is against action on the environment, but because...she worries it may turn people off from the Green party by association.

What is far more likely to turn people off from the Green Party is to know the policies and campaign platform of the Green Party. For example, how many Canadians who plan to vote Green know that they propose a 12 cents a litre additional tax on gasoline?

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/releases/06.06.2007

[jdobbin]

Note that in my previous post, I've already addressed that issue, when I pointed out that funding roads may not have been the stated purpose of the excise tax, but it was a side effect.

There is only one set of taxpayers, and only one 'government' (ok, there are provincial and municipal governments, but we can view them as one big collective). Having money 'earmarked' for a particular purpose is irrelevant, because if a something was going to be funded anyways, it still would have come from the same spot (the taxpayer). Money is going to be spent on roads regardless. Because roads require special expenses, then perhaps drivers should be paying a bit more, over and above the 'carbon tax'.

That will be up to the provincial governments then since roads is their purview. The federal government can't assign money for roads without their say so.

The excise tax was never meant for roads nor was the GST as it was applied to gas. The federal government has always contributed to infrastructure within the provincial purview through agreements and paid for it out of general revenue. Once the deficit was paid for, the Martin government negotiated with the provinces for a portion of the gas tax to be used for infrastructure for municipalities.

The Feds still keep the lionshare of gas revenue for things other than infrastructure.

It is up to the provinces if they want to tax gas more for road work because it is in their constitutional mandate.

At this point geothermal heating/pumps are irrelevant. We are talking about electrical generation here.

The U.S. produces the greatest amount of electricity from geothermal in the world at the moment. It is estimated that California could derive 70% of its electric power from geothermal.

It was you that brought geothermal when we were talking about east-west transmission lines. Even if geothermal is the greatest technology in the world for heating/cooling, we're not dealing with it in that context.

I said that it one aspect. It also generates electricity. Granted, geothermal heating is more suited for the western part of the U.S. but it can generate quite a lot of power.

Ummm... why would I need a citation? Its just logic... I've explained it over and over again. Not sure why its not sinking in.

- the U.S. needs electricity

- Nuclear and geothermal can handle base loads, but that's only around 40% of the needed capacity

- To handle peak capacity they need some other generating technology. That will be either A: gas, or B: hydro

- The U.S. doesn't have enough of its own hydro to meet its needs. (I've provided calculations and references for this in the past).

- If they don't have enough of its own hydro, they will either have to use fossil fuels, or import hydro from Canada

- Even if we do more hydro development up here in Canada, as long as we can sell power to the U.S. to offset their fossil fuel usage we are reducing global carbon emissions.

Really, what exactly are you having troubles understanding in that?

I don't think I've said they wouldn't need other sources of power. I said that they still untapped areas of electrical generation in hydro and geothermal left to use for their own needs. They will continue to use gas or coal as well and with newer technologies, they could reduce the emissions in those areas as well.

Or start a massive conservation program.

Ah yes, there's that wonderful "proof by handwaving" again.

Maybe Marvel comics should contact you about creating a superhero based on that particular power.

Earth about to be destroyed by a giant asteroid? Along comes handwaving man to make the problem disappear. Supervillians about to take over? Don't defeat them with strength, defeat them with Handwaving.

There's that wonderful insulting tone that I see just before someone gets banned. I've seen it happen a few times now. Really, you should control the urge to insult all the time.

Greater ability to transmit power between provinces does have advantages (improved reliability, perhaps lower costs). But greenhouse gas reductions are not among those advantages.

If it retires coal plants in Ontario, it certainly does its part.

I've already done all that, and more... including (as I mentioned before) timed thermostats, using fans in the upper floors to push warmer air downwards, ensuring the furnace is tuned, etc.

Which is pretty much the point I've been making right from the start... people (like me) are already likely taking steps to reduce our energy usage without the carbon tax.

But we have also seen other people increase their energy usage because of lower fuel costs. People have bought bigger houses, bigger cars taken more frequent trips with cheaper flights.

Some people get angry for paying tax at all. I guess you have to determine what you are getting out of it.

Still haven't seen you answer the question.

In earlier posts you were suggesting my complaints were unfounded because I didn't have to pay that much extra. Still waiting to hear how much more I'd have to pay before you suggest I have a valid complaint.

I believe I said I had no reason to trust anything you said. You tell me you are doing all the things you say but I have no way of confirming it.

When I first heard of the carbon tax, I believed it wouldn't work if it added around $1000 to the annual costs for a family as what was predicted by some critics. That would be too much for most to absorb all at once without some sort of tax cut.

My preference for tax cuts has always been for a straight corporate and income tax cut. The Liberals used too many tax credits and the like. It has been a favorite of a lot of political parties lately and it just makes things far too complicated. The tax credits should be streamlined and the Liberals would just make it more complicated.

So, my answer was that if the average cost for a family approached $1000, I didn't think it would work or be accepted.

Well, my very rough calculations suggested that the Liberal plans would see approximately 2 billion dollars shifted from one group of people (single people in Ontario/Alberta for example) to people in Quebec/Montreal, or people with children. So, instead of shifting that $2 billion from one group of voters to another, apply it to research.

Note that this is not a serious proposal... I know it would never actually be accepted, and it would be a nightmare to apply. But, at least it would have the potential to actually give real solutions.

A complicated scenario.

How about nuclear fusion? More energy than we could ever use, taken right from water. (Lots of technical difficulties with it though.)

You won't hear any objections from me there.

How about pilot projects to create ethanol from cellulose (e.g. switchgrass, which can be grown on land unsuitable for corn)? Lots of energy for driving our cars, while minimizing the problems of increased food prices.

I think you have seen my stand on ethanol from food sources. I prefer things like switchgrass. All the political parties are on the wrong foot with the present ethanol. It will be hard to remove it as a permanent farm support now.

How about genetic engineering, to allow extraction of ethanol or oil from either algae or bacteria?

No objections from me there either. I think it is a great idea.