Expert report questions

[Wilber]

Revenue neutral means that the money from the carbon tax is offset from money from tax cuts. It doesn't mean that individual taxes will remain the same. Some will go up, some will go down. The ability to bring the tax down is subject to limiting carbon tax exposure.

And I have no problem with you parking your vote with the Tories. Just don't be surprised if you pay more for their plan on diesel or gas.

Stop babbling about "tax cuts", Because it is "revenue neutral there are no "tax cuts" It is wealth transfer and you know it.

Everything is political with you. Who says I am parking my vote with anyone. What I am saying is that I will be far more able to do the things I need to do to reduce energy consumption without politicians picking my pocket. Get it.

[jdobbin]

Stop babbling about "tax cuts", Because it is "revenue neutral there are no "tax cuts" It is wealth transfer and you know it.

Stop losing your cool.

There are tax cuts involved. It is as the plan says, a shift of taxes from one thing to another. I don't consider it a wealth transfer although some others on both left and right do. I've always considered it an environment plan and many economists do think it reduce emissions.

Everything is political with you. Who says I am parking my vote with anyone. What I am saying is that I will be far more able to do the things I need to do to reduce energy consumption without politicians picking my pocket. Get it.

Your temper tend to make you rather unpleasant a lot of the time. It doesn't help if you personally get angry with me. You have a choice to vote for someone else and probably will so take some satisfaction in that. Why get nasty with me over a policy proposed by the Opposition who are not likely to win the next election?

The regressive nature of carbon taxes encourages even faster compliance on seeking alternatives. The principles of a consumption tax are well know in economics. I think making the centerpiece of emission policy a cap and trade passes on many costs to the consumers but takes a long time to reduce emissions and it only covers a portion of total emissions that occur.

If you don't believe in emissions, I can why you'd be upset with all politics but does it really help to get angry at me? Why personalize things when it often leads to getting banned?

[Wilber]

If something is revenue neutral there are no tax cuts, only redistribution of wealth. Who are you trying to kid? Geez. I'm not being personal, I am being honest. Try it some time.

[jdobbin]

If something is revenue neutral there are no tax cuts.

I think you are missing what revenue neutral means. It mean no change in what the government takes in terms of revenue. I wish the right wing would be honest about that.

[Wilber]

I think you are missing what revenue neutral means. It mean no change in what the government takes in terms of revenue. I wish the right wing would be honest about that.

I wish you would be honest about it. If all the revenue is comming from a tax and the result is revenue neutral, there is no such thing as a "tax cut", only the redistribution of wealth.

[jdobbin]

I wish you would be honest about it. If all the revenue is comming from a tax and the result is revenue neutral, there is no such thing as a "tax cut", only the redistribution of wealth.

It is your opinion that if a wealth shift. Be honest about that. Others are of the opinion that is a tax to help the environment and the principle behind consumption taxes supports that.

[Wilber]

It is your opinion that if a wealth shift. Be honest about that. Others are of the opinion that is a tax to help the environment and the principle behind consumption taxes supports that.

It's not an opinion it is fact. If you take money from people and give it to someone else, it is a wealth shift. You can try and dress it up anyway you want but that is what it is.

[jdobbin]

It's not an opinion it is fact. If you take money from people and give it to someone else, it is a wealth shift. You can try and dress it up anyway you want but that is what it is.

Fine, if you want to think of it as a wealth shift, it is. It is also an environmental program. That's a fact too.

[Wilber]

Fine, if you want to think of it as a wealth shift, it is. It is also an environmental program. That's a fact too.

Don't flatter yourself, it is a tax program.

[jdobbin]

Don't flatter yourself, it is a tax program.

Fine. It is a tax program. Just like the tax programs that reduced smoking numbers.

[Wilber]

Fine. It is a tax program. Just like the tax programs that reduced smoking numbers.

Except people don't need to smoke to heat their homes or cook their food.

[jdobbin]

Except people don't need to smoke to heat their homes or cook their food.

Ah, yes, the old people will freeze in the dark argument. I keep hearing how the costs will ruin people but some of the examples I have seen here have averaged $100 to $200 difference after four years.

We have seen that difference in fuel prices in the last year alone.

As I said, vote for someone else if that is an unacceptable burden. I think the costs will be higher without a price on carbon.

People have not been serious about alternatives to carbon energy because the price of fuel keep fluctuating down and the fear of things like nuclear have been stronger. The bubble of this last spike has fallen back. The issue of emissions remain.

Cap and trade and going after polluters is still likely to pass on about $200 or more to consumers of taxpayers. More, if there is no tax cut or savings to go along with those policies.

If you or others have a better policy to reduce emissions that won't cost a penny, now is the time to speak up. If you don't believe in carbon emissions being a problem, then no policy will be satisfactory. I don't know who you vote for then.

[Wilber]

We have seen that difference in fuel prices in the last year alone.

This is the pompous attitude that really pisses me off. It's like only you can solve the problem and the high prices people are trying to adapt to don't mean dick because only you can fix it by piling on even more costs.

Look at Canadian auto sales in July and see what is selling and what isn't. Who needs you.

[jdobbin]

This is the pompous attitude that really pisses me off. It's like only you can solve the problem and the high prices people are trying to adapt to don't mean dick because only you can fix it by piling on even more costs.

It is the naive attitude that surprises me. We have seen adjustments to higher prices before only to have a return to higher consumption of carbon emitting products when costs fell to what people believed was acceptable.

Speeds in Canada and the U.S. were reduced only to rise again. North American automakers started building economy cars only to go big and bigger. And house sizes increased dramatically in the last ten years. That is how people adapted before.

Now, with the speculative bubble coming down and perhaps even more with a recession in the U.S. (which has more to do with financial mismanagement that energy prices) , we are at a crossroads in terms of actually doing something different.

The North American solution of drilling in the Arctic and offshore while securing even more overseas oil only continues the emissions which are forecast by a number of studies commissioned by the Harper government to have costs for Canadian people.

Look at Canadian auto sales in July and see what is selling and what isn't. Who needs you.

I remember the sales of K cars as well and 55 mph in the U.S. and 100 kms in Canada. That went away with growing dependence on oil and coal and increasing supply from various sources.

We have had plenty of time to make adjustments independent of taxes but like a smoker, we keep going back to the same habit because the cost of changing seems far off in the future.

[Wilber]

It is the naive attitude that surprises me. We have seen adjustments to higher prices before only to have a return to higher consumption of carbon emitting products when costs fell to what people believed was acceptable.

What's naive about it, you are going to pile on taxes regardless of energy costs. You haven't being paying attention. Oil fell to $121 last week but when it was announced that US gasoline supplies were down 3 Bbl it jumped six bucks. Who needs you? The fact is, even if demand is decreasing, increases in reserves are no longer keeping pace with demand. Who needs you to add more pain?

Now, with the speculative bubble coming down and perhaps even more with a recession in the U.S. (which has more to do with financial mismanagement that energy prices) , we are at a crossroads in terms of actually doing something different.

Golly, demand is down because consumption is down therefore emissions are down. Funny how that works.

Don't preach to me about Harper, I could give a rat's ass about Harper.

You are the one who started this thread and I am still of the opinion that you flatter yourself.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

What's naive about it, you are going to pile on taxes regardless of energy costs. You haven't being paying attention. Oil fell to $121 last week but when it was announced that US gasoline supplies were down 3 Bbl it jumped six bucks. Who needs you? The fact is, even if demand is decreasing, increases in reserves are no longer keeping pace with demand. Who needs you to add more pain?

Apparently the public needs more incentive because every time costs went up and fell, they resumed old habits. Costs will rise with reduced supply but most analysts are still saying that the oil price is way over inflated based on what the world reserves are and current demand.

Golly, demand is down because consumption is down therefore emissions are down. Funny how that works.

Don't preach to me about Harper, I could give a rat's ass about Harper.

You are the one who started this thread and I am still of the opinion that you flatter yourself.

The thread certainly seems to make you angry. What changes are you making now where your costs have risen? Did you make changes before the carbon prices change in B.C.? Would you have made any changes if the price stayed the same?

[Wilber]

Apparently the public needs more incentive because every time costs went up and fell, they resumed old habits. Costs will rise with reduced supply but most analysts are still saying that the oil price is way over inflated based on what the world reserves are and current demand.

All this conjecture about why the price is high. Who gives a crap, the price is high. That is what people are trying to deal with and you are telling them it is not high enough. The economy is slowly sliding into the dumpster because of those prices but they still aren't high enough.

Well big brother, I guess us plain folks just can't exist without you telling us what to do.

The thread certainly seems to make you angry. What changes are you making now where your costs have risen? Did you make changes before the carbon prices change in B.C.? Would you have made any changes if the price stayed the same?

Actually, you make me angry.

What have I done? I haven't bought diesel, propane or gasoline in BC since the beginning of June. Don't plan on it either. Self defense you know. Aside from adding insulation to my house, replacing the windows and furnace as well as adding energy star appliances and as those twirly lights since I have owned it, I've already told you, I drive a car that gets 50+MPG. Have done for the past four years. What have you done?

[jdobbin]

All this conjecture about why the price is high. Who gives a crap, the price is high. That is what people are trying to deal with and you are telling them it is not high enough. The economy is slowly sliding into the dumpster because of those prices but they still aren't high enough.

The economy was on a slide even before oil prices rose. A lot of it has been a result of financial mismanagement.

Well big brother, I guess us plain folks just can't exist without you telling us what to do.

Governments are elected to make decisions like this. If people could quit smoking easily, they would have done it. It took a lot of measures to do so including a higher price.

Actually, you make me angry.

So it would seem. Makes me wonder what sort of danger that might represent since I'm not insulting you or trying to run you down in anyway. I keep saying you have choices and even I admit that if an election was held today, the Liberals are not likely to be elected. What is to be angry about when you are not likely to be affected by this policy in the next year or two or three if at all?

What have I done? I haven't bought diesel, propane or gasoline in BC since the beginning of June. Don't plan on it either. Self defense you know. Aside from adding insulation to my house, replacing the windows and furnace as well as adding energy star appliances and as those twirly lights since I have owned it, I've already told you, I drive a car that gets 50+MPG. Have done for the past four years. What have you done?

I have done the same and have reduced my energy use.

I'd love to go geothermal in the next years but I have an high energy furnace that is brand new as well as new central air. That has helped with energy costs I am still waiting for geothermal to come down in price or for the incentive program to increase. For new home buyers, the savings can begin immediately if there are no gas lines installed, no furnace or AC.

In the U.S., geothermal alone has reduced carbon and energy use by very large numbers for the million homes that had it installed.

[Wilber]

The economy was on a slide even before oil prices rose. A lot of it has been a result of financial mismanagement.

Part of it but no all. Car makers who build fuel efficient vehicles aren't suffering much at all.

Governments are elected to make decisions like this. If people could quit smoking easily, they would have done it. It took a lot of measures to do so including a higher price.

Ah, the old smoking analogy again. So heating your home is a sin. You are wrong about taxes stopping people from smoking. It's education and peer pressure. The more affluent people are, the less likely they are to smoke.

So it would seem. Makes me wonder what sort of danger that might represent since I'm not insulting you or trying to run you down in anyway. I keep saying you have choices and even I admit that if an election was held today, the Liberals are not likely to be elected. What is to be angry about when you are not likely to be affected by this policy in the next year or two or three if at all?

What choices do I have?

So the Liberals have no intention of being elected. That's a comfort. Give me a break.

I'd love to go geothermal in the next years but I have an high energy furnace that is brand new as well as new central air. That has helped with energy costs I am still waiting for geothermal to come down in price or for the incentive program to increase. For new home buyers, the savings can begin immediately if there are no gas lines installed, no furnace or AC.

Who wouldn't love to go geothermal but far less likely after you stick your hand in my pocket. Hope you enjoy your AC, I don't have it. Never have.

[jdobbin]

Part of it but no all. Car makers who build fuel efficient vehicles aren't suffering much at all.

Sadly, the North American manufacturers forecast prices would be half of what they are right now and abandoned the small car market because they saw no profit in it.

Ah, the old smoking analogy again. So heating your home is a sin. You are wrong about taxes stopping people from

smoking. It's education and peer pressure. The more affluent people are, the less likely they are to smoke.

So price has nothing to do with it? That is not what the scientific research on the subject says.

What choices do I have?

So the Liberals have no intention of being elected. That's a comfort. Give me a break.

Oh, they are trying to get elected but I've seen nothing to indicate they will win.

Who wouldn't love to go geothermal but far less likely after you stick your hand in my pocket. Hope you enjoy your AC, I don't have it. Never have.

Came with the house and I was given a newer unit that I installed.

Most people didn't seem compelled to change to alternates as long as the price remained where it was. And as it fluctuates down, people seem to resume previous practices. The problem is that emissions continue regardless.

A fixed price for carbon sets a price for continuing with that practice.

[Wilber]

Sadly, the North American manufacturers forecast prices would be half of what they are right now and abandoned the small car market because they saw no profit in it.

So, what does that have to do with a carbon tax?

So price has nothing to do with it? That is not what the scientific research on the subject says.

Show me the evidence that a larger percentage of higher income people smoke than those with lower incomes.

Came with the house and I was given a newer unit that I installed.

Ah, it was free so that makes it different. Are you going to give it up?

[jdobbin]

So, what does that have to do with a carbon tax?

A carbon tax would likely have made many auto manufacturers consider not abandoning the small car market since there would have been a demand for products that were smaller and more efficient.

Show me the evidence that a larger percentage of higher income people smoke than those with lower incomes.

Where did I suggest that higher income people smoked more?

I said that price point effected smoking in general and the tax increases acted an incentive to quit. You are saying it made no change in people's minds regarding quitting?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/smoking/cost.html

Despite the availability of some cheaper cigarettes, the U.S. surgeon general reported that higher cigarette prices result in lower rates of consumption. A 10 per cent price increase should result in a two to three per cent drop in the number of smokers. The report also states that fewer young people will be likely to smoke if cigarette prices are higher, and more people will be driven to quit.

Ah, it was free so that makes it different. Are you going to give it up?

Already calculating the costs of higher gas and hydro with dumping all the furnace and AC equipment in favour of geothermal. In the meantime, it is off a lot of the time.

[Wilber]

I said that price point effected smoking in general and the tax increases acted an incentive to quit. You are saying it made no change in people's minds regarding quitting?

I am saying that a lower percentage of higher income people are smokers therefore cost was not a major factor in their quiting. They quit because it became socially unacceptable and it kills you.

A carbon tax would likely have made many auto manufacturers consider not abandoning the small car market since there would have been a demand for products that were smaller and more efficient.

Possibly, but that is history and the market is already dictating that, to their misfortune. Transport Canada and manufacturers such as Ford are saying this is not a phase but a permanent shift in consumer buying habits. Maybe so, maybe not but their opinion is as good as any other "experts", probably better. Did you know that more Buicks are sold in China than North America? Shanghai is full of the things.

Already calculating the costs of higher gas and hydro with dumping all the furnace and AC equipment in favour of geothermal. In the meantime, it is off a lot of the time.

Glad you have that "choice" but then the more affluent a person is the more choices they will always have. For most Canadians, reducing their income and increasing prices to a point where they can no longer afford certain things is not giving them "choices", it is imposing your will on them. That is why I find this malarkey about "choices" to be so ingenuous.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

I am saying that a lower percentage of higher income people are non smokers therefore cost was not a major factor in their quiting. They quit because it became socially unacceptable and it kills you.

As I pointed out earlier on, cost was just one of many factors in people quitting. Health warnings, restricted sales, education, restricted areas of smoking have all contributed.

Possibly, but that is history and the market is already dictating that, to their misfortune. Transport Canada and manufacturers such as Ford are saying this is not a phase but a permanent shift in consumer buying habits. Maybe so, maybe not but their opinion is as good as any other "experts", probably better. Did you know that more Buicks are sold in China than North America? Shanghai is full of the things.

Did you know that Chinese cars have to have higher mileage standards than North American cars?

Today, analysts were once again saying that oil prices are likely to drop a whole lot more. It was just on CNN a few minutes ago. So, will that change anyone's practices? History has shown that it hasn't worked in terms of oil and gas prices. People bought bigger when energy was cheaper.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Oil prices plunged in a massive selloff Monday, falling below US$120 a barrel for the first time since early May after Tropical Storm Edouard appeared unlikely to threaten oil and natural gas facilities in the Gulf of Mexico.

Also weighing on prices was a report by the U.S. Commerce Department that consumer spending fell in June as shoppers dealt with higher prices for gasoline, food and other items. That fed investors' beliefs that a U.S. economic slowdown is forcing Americans to cut back on energy use.

Glad you have that "choice" but then the more affluent a person is the more choices they will always have. For most Canadians, reducing their income and increasing prices to a point where they can no longer afford certain things is not giving them "choices", it is imposing your will on them. That is why I find this malarkey about "choices" to be so ingenuous.

Emissions just haven't dropped enough in recent years with the voluntary practices used thus far. The Stern report among other studies has shown that costs will rise a lot higher if nothing is done.

I know many on the right wing don't believe a word of it and keep saying that no change is possible, no alternative is possible, that people will freeze in the dark and that nothing needs to be done. Warming is already having an effect on Canada and will continue to cost Canadians a lot of money in damage.

Voluntary change has been insufficient. It is why Nexen and Enbridge in the energy sector have said that a price on carbon will help people consider alternatives a lot faster than they would otherwise. The argument that oil prices are to zoom past $150 this year and higher is looking a lot less likely.

Edited August 4, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wild Bill]

I said that price point effected smoking in general and the tax increases acted an incentive to quit. You are saying it made no change in people's minds regarding quitting?

Wouldn't a smoker simply choose to buy contraband? The going rate for a bag of 200 cigarettes on the Six Nations Reserve is $6. Compare this with $80 or so for a legal carton.

Again, I'm picking apart your model and not your point. Still, there was a time not that long ago when virtually no non-native bought contraband cigarettes. Now the official number is 1 out of every 3 and climbing. Why?

Some feel that energy sources are different, in that you can't as easily sell contraband gas. Maybe not, but in the past few weeks here in my town the new crime is big-time theft of gasoline and diesel oil. Big tankers pull up to a gas station in the dead of the night, break some locks and siphon the underground tanks dry. Considering we're talking upwards of $50,000...