NDP's Layton promises investments

[Wilber]

Municipalities will be paying a price for any carbon emissions they produce. I think my point was that they get money back from the Feds in the form of the 2005 infrastructure agreements.

Which of course will be borne by the municipal tax payers. I don't think they will get property or income tax rebates for that, do you? Why bring it up if it is part of a 2005 agreement? Nothing to do with a carbon tax.

Why wouldn't they? All carbon is taxed at $40 a tonne. Gas gets taxed even more than diesel under the plan. Carbon is carbon, is it not? You think gas should be taxed at $50 a tonne? Any reason why you want it singled out even more?

Well someone who was really interested in reducing emissions wouldn't slap an extra tax on the fuel used by vehicles which emit 30% less CO2 than those which use a fuel which is not being taxed extra and is already cheaper in spite of whatever taxes are already on it. Anyone except maybe a blinkered zealot who can't see past, we must tax carbon where ever we find it and damn the consequences. Kind of says, its all about the tax and not emissions don't you think?

So this stand is against tax in principle.

That's it?

Edited August 12, 2008 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

Which of course will be borne by the municipal tax payers. I don't think they will get property or income tax rebates for that, do you? Why bring it up if it is part of a 2005 agreement? Nothing to do with a carbon tax.

It certainly mutes the argument that the Feds taken and don't give anything in return.

Well someone who was really interested in reducing emissions wouldn't slap an extra tax on the fuel used by vehicles which emit 30% less CO2 than those which use a fuel which is not being taxed extra and is already cheaper in spite of whatever taxes are already on it. Anyone except maybe a blinkered zealot who can't see past, we must tax carbon where ever we find it and damn the consequences. Kind of says, its all about the tax and not emissions don't you think?

The burden on diesel is less. If it produces 30% less carbon, it is taxed that much less. The tax is on $40 a tonne of carbon produced.

Carbon is carbon is carbon.

That's it?

That's all I'm seeing. All tax is bad and they never give it back. If there is more, I'm all ears.

[Wilber]

The burden on diesel is less. If it produces 30% less carbon, it is taxed that much less. The tax is on $40 a tonne of carbon produced.

Carbon is carbon is carbon.

And emissions are emissions are emissions but never mind, I think I'm better off talking to my dog.

That's all I'm seeing. All tax is bad and they never give it back. If there is more, I'm all ears.

No, all tax is not bad. All I am saying is that no matter what a politician tells you a tax is for, it always winds up in general revenue. History backs me up 100%.

Edited August 12, 2008 by Wilber

[Wilber]

The burden on diesel is less. If it produces 30% less carbon, it is taxed that much less. The tax is on $40 a tonne of carbon produced.

No, it is taxed on the carbon content of the fuel, not the emissions of the vehicle using it. Read your own stuff.

[jdobbin]

No, it is taxed on the carbon content of the fuel, not the emissions of the vehicle using it. Read your own stuff.

You're correct. It is taxed on the carbon content. My error. It still means that diesel would be taxed less.

[jdobbin]

And emissions are emissions are emissions but never mind, I think I'm better off talking to my dog.

Diesel will still be taxed less. Much less than gas based on its carbon content.

No, all tax is not bad. All I am saying is that no matter what a politician tells you a tax is for, it always winds up in general revenue. History backs me up 100%.

And every tax cut is removed from government revenue. History backs me up 100%.

[Wilber]

Diesel will still be taxed less. Much less than gas based on its carbon content.

Geez Louise

Example: Environment Canada figures. Annual CO2 emissions.

2004 VW Jetta, 5 spd manual transmission.

2.0 liter gas engine 4021 kg per annum

1.9 liter turbo diesel 2992 kg per annum

What lunatic who wanted to reduce CO2 emissions would unilaterally add a tax to diesel and leave gas alone. I was right about my dog.

And every tax cut is removed from government revenue. History backs me up 100%.

Eh.

[jdobbin]

What lunatic who wanted to reduce CO2 emissions would unilaterally add a tax to diesel and leave gas alone. I was right about my dog.

I was right that you can't seem to respond without insults.

Gas is taxed more than diesel in this plan. It is not left alone.

[Wilber]

I was right that you can't seem to respond without insults.

Gas is taxed more than diesel in this plan. It is not left alone.

Be honest, it is all about the tax isn't it. You really couldn't give a damn that diesel powered vehicles emit far less CO2. I was right about my dog.

[jdobbin]

Be honest, it is all about the tax isn't it. You really couldn't give a damn that diesel powered vehicles emit far less CO2. I was right about my dog.

You really can't help yourself with insulting the other person. Why do it? Why constantly go down that route?

Diesel is taxed less than gas under the plan. All carbon except gas is taxed at $40 per tonne. Gas is at $43.

[Wilber]

You really can't help yourself with insulting the other person. Why do it? Why constantly go down that route?

Diesel is taxed less than gas under the plan. All carbon except gas is taxed at $40 per tonne. Gas is at $43.

You just can't get past the tax and actually discuss emissions can you. Well dobbin, the way you can doggedly stick to the party line in spite of any logical argument just cracks me up. I give up.

[jdobbin]

You just can't get past the tax and actually discuss emissions can you. Well dobbin, the way you can doggedly stick to the party line in spite of any logical argument just cracks me up. I give up.

And you resort to insults. I don't know why you do it all the time.

[bk59]

What lunatic who wanted to reduce CO2 emissions would unilaterally add a tax to diesel and leave gas alone.

Be honest, it is all about the tax isn't it. You really couldn't give a damn that diesel powered vehicles emit far less CO2.

The goal of the plan is to tax all carbon emissions.

At the end of four years the goal is to tax carbon emissions at the rate of $40 per tonne of carbon emitted.

Current gas taxes equate to a rate of $42 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions.

Current diesel taxes do not equate to a rate of $40 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions.

Therefore, in order to reach the goal at the end of four years: gas can be left alone, but a carbon tax must be added to diesel.

In your example, the diesel powered vehicle emits less carbon dioxide than the gas powered vehicle. Therefore the driver of the diesel powered vehicle will pay less money in total than the driver of the gas powered vehicle. Both drivers are taxed at the same rate, but the diesel driver pays less overall.

[jdobbin]

The goal of the plan is to tax all carbon emissions.

At the end of four years the goal is to tax carbon emissions at the rate of $40 per tonne of carbon emitted.

Current gas taxes equate to a rate of $42 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions.

Current diesel taxes do not equate to a rate of $40 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions.

Thanks, I keep hearing in the media that it is $42 or $43 but I just pulled out a calculator and it is just slightly above $42 per tonne.

Therefore, in order to reach the goal at the end of four years: gas can be left alone, but a carbon tax must be added to diesel.

In your example, the diesel powered vehicle emits less carbon dioxide than the gas powered vehicle. Therefore the driver of the diesel powered vehicle will pay less money in total than the driver of the gas powered vehicle. Both drivers are taxed at the same rate, but the diesel driver pays less overall.

Precisely. Now people can debate the tax overall but it taxes carbon fairly evenly. Some people seem to want a break for diesel and they are already getting it under the plan over gas.

[Wild Bill]

Thanks, I keep hearing in the media that it is $42 or $43 but I just pulled out a calculator and it is just slightly above $42 per tonne.

Precisely. Now people can debate the tax overall but it taxes carbon fairly evenly. Some people seem to want a break for diesel and they are already getting it under the plan over gas.

Doesn't look like much of a break in the total price of diesel to me!

If this gets implemented, all I care about is the financial incentive to me. In other words, is it worth it to buy a diesel car?

Wilber's point seems to be that diesel is cleaner and therefore price savings to an owner of a diesel car should be encouraged. Jdobbin seems to be arguing more from an academic standpoint.

I think most Canadians would only care about the price at the pump and how far that tank will get them, whether it is gas or diesel. If the savings of running a diesel are not significant and obvious no one will likely bother.

Which gets back to Wilber's argument, that isn't the plan supposed to have reducing carbon emissions as its PRIMARY goal?

Edited August 12, 2008 by Wild Bill

[Wilber]

In your example, the diesel powered vehicle emits less carbon dioxide than the gas powered vehicle. Therefore the driver of the diesel powered vehicle will pay less money in total than the driver of the gas powered vehicle. Both drivers are taxed at the same rate, but the diesel driver pays less overall.

Not another one. The tax is on the carbon content of the fuel not the emissions the car produces. You and dobbin want to add a tax to a more efficient system. That's like saying if we add an extra tax to the gas hybrids are using, we will reduce emissions even more because they are paying less for fuel anyway. Somehow you have got it into your brains that it is the tax which produces lower emissions and not the more efficient vehicle. Yeesh.

[madmax]

Not another one. The tax is on the carbon content of the fuel not the emissions the car produces. You and dobbin want to add a tax to a more efficient system. That's like saying if we add an extra tax to the gas hybrids are using, we will reduce emissions even more because they are paying less for fuel anyway. Somehow you have got it into your brains that it is the tax which produces lower emissions and not the more efficient vehicle. Yeesh.

obviously too hard for you to comprehend. Here is how tax shifting works.

From Guelph NDP candidate Tom King, who's known for his colourful stories and analogy's...

[on the "Green Shift"] "So it's sort of like passing money from your left pocket to your right pocket, but I know enough about Ottawa and Ottawa's digestive track to know that if you pass money through it, it doesn't come out the same as it went in," Mr. King said.

"It's like a man who has a horse and feeds hay to the horse and stands under the back end of the horse hoping to get the same amount of hay out that he put in, and it just doesn't happen. So revenue neutral, in terms of Ottawa, is a myth.

Now do you understand the difference between Diesel and Gas, and the LPC

I have to agree with your comments on the stupidity of punishing people who use Diesel.

[Wilber]

obviously too hard for you to comprehend. Here is how tax shifting works.

Oh, I think I comprehend it. The only other explanation is a stunning technical ignorance in those who would determine what fuels should have taxes added to them in order to reduce CO2 emissions. That diesels extract more work from a given amount of hydrocarbons than gasoline engines, thereby consuming less and producing fewer CO2 emissions isn't a philosophical issue like a tax, it is physical fact.

[bk59]

Doesn't look like much of a break in the total price of diesel to me!

If this gets implemented, all I care about is the financial incentive to me. In other words, is it worth it to buy a diesel car?

Wilber's point seems to be that diesel is cleaner and therefore price savings to an owner of a diesel car should be encouraged. Jdobbin seems to be arguing more from an academic standpoint.

I think most Canadians would only care about the price at the pump and how far that tank will get them, whether it is gas or diesel. If the savings of running a diesel are not significant and obvious no one will likely bother.

Which gets back to Wilber's argument, that isn't the plan supposed to have reducing carbon emissions as its PRIMARY goal?

One more time...

The primary goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by taxing ALL greenhouse gas emissions. All greenhouse gas emissions are taxed at the same rate because all greenhouse gas emissions are the same REGARDLESS of the source.

Compare diesel and gas. Using gas emits more greenhouse gases. Let's say the carbon tax on gas amounts to $X per year. Let's say the carbon tax on diesel amounts to $Y per year. If Y is less than X then more people will want to use diesel in order to save money. And Y will be less than X for all of the reasons you have pointed out: diesel emits less greenhouse gasses than normal gasoline.

The reason you tax the emission themselves is because the emissions are what you want to reduce. When a more efficient fuel reaches market then the cost of the carbon tax on that fuel will be $Z per year where Z is even less than Y. People will move to the new fuel. And we won't have to change the tax legislation (by introducing a new diesel tax).

It is called a carbon tax for a reason - it taxes carbon! Not a specific fuel. More efficient fuels will be chosen by consumers because the tax paid will be less. The tax paid will be less because the fuel emits less greenhouse gasses.

[White Doors]

I thought gasoline was to be exempt from this tax?

they dither and change their mind?

[jdobbin]

I have to agree with your comments on the stupidity of punishing people who use Diesel.

How are they punished? Is it a carbon-free fuel? Does it get taxed more than gas under the plan?

As for Tom King, perhaps he can tally up what the NDP plan will cost. So far we see they are making spending promises with the excise tax. Does everyone get a share? Why are they so coy on the subject?

[jdobbin]

Oh, I think I comprehend it. The only other explanation is a stunning technical ignorance in those who would determine what fuels should have taxes added to them in order to reduce CO2 emissions. That diesels extract more work from a given amount of hydrocarbons than gasoline engines, thereby consuming less and producing fewer CO2 emissions isn't a philosophical issue like a tax, it is physical fact.

And therefore diesel gets taxes less under the plan. It still has carbon and carbon is what is being taxed.

[bk59]

Not another one. The tax is on the carbon content of the fuel not the emissions the car produces. You and dobbin want to add a tax to a more efficient system. That's like saying if we add an extra tax to the gas hybrids are using, we will reduce emissions even more because they are paying less for fuel anyway. Somehow you have got it into your brains that it is the tax which produces lower emissions and not the more efficient vehicle. Yeesh.

The only info I have seen says that the carbon tax is based on a dollar value per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted. I have not seen documentation on carbon content of fuel. Please let me know where I can find such information because I would like to read it.

Regardless, the carbon content in the fuel has to go somewhere. Where does it go? The air. As emissions. So you can base a carbon tax on the carbon content of fuel by knowing how much of that carbon gets emitted into the atmosphere when the fuel is used. There is no real difference then between "carbon content" and "carbon emissions" for the purposes of the tax once you do this conversion.

I am not saying "let's add a tax to diesel and that will reduce emissions". I am saying that the tax applies to all emissions equally no matter the source. More efficient fuels will emit less carbon and therefore the tax paid over a year will be less than those fuels that emit more carbon. People will pay less using diesel. This sounds like a financial reward to me.

The tax does not produce lower emissions directly. It encourages behaviour that lowers emissions. Driving a gas car will be more costly than driving a diesel car. Driving a diesel car will be more costly than taking public transit. Public transit will be more costly than riding your bicycle or walking.

The tax isn't there to reward the most efficient automobile fuel. It is there to encourage behaviour that lowers greenhouse gas emissions.

Oh, I think I comprehend it. The only other explanation is a stunning technical ignorance in those who would determine what fuels should have taxes added to them in order to reduce CO2 emissions. That diesels extract more work from a given amount of hydrocarbons than gasoline engines, thereby consuming less and producing fewer CO2 emissions isn't a philosophical issue like a tax, it is physical fact.

The stunning technical ignorance comes from those who do not realize that the point is to tax the emissions themselves. Not a fuel. The emissions. Not a fuel.

Fuels that produce fewer emissions get taxed less. Activities that emit even less than diesel will be even cheaper for people. Et voila. Your goal is achieved: lower emissions through modified behaviour.

[bk59]

I thought gasoline was to be exempt from this tax?

they dither and change their mind?

Nope. The reason that gas will be exempt from this tax is that the current gas tax is equal to a carbon tax of approximately $42 per tonne of carbon. After four years the end goal is to tax carbon at a rate of $40 per tonne of carbon. So there is no point in adding tax to gas since it is already where they want it. Think of it as renaming the current gas tax to a carbon tax at the end of the fourth year.

But make no mistake. If, after four years, the carbon tax is increased to something like $50 per tonne of carbon then you will see the tax on gas rising to keep it consistent.

[jdobbin]

I thought gasoline was to be exempt from this tax?

they dither and change their mind?

It was always included. It comes out to 10 cents a litre.

Diesel will be taxed at 7 cents a litre after four years.