NDP's Layton promises investments

[jdobbin]

Two very simple questions but just as I thought, you can't answer them. Either that or you can but don't like the answers.

Precisely what I was going to say about you. You don't like the answers.

You must be the only person to have singled out the diesel portion of the tax. I haven't seen your argument made anywhere else.

[Wilber]

Precisely what I was going to say about you. You don't like the answers.

You must be the only person to have singled out the diesel portion of the tax. I haven't seen your argument made anywhere else.

Those were answers?

If you are adding a tax to diesel that you are not adding to the present price of gasoline, how will it end up costing drivers of diesels less? By increasing the price differential between gasoline and diesel, how does that give anyone an incentive to invest in the lower emitting technology?

Try again and address the specific questions this time.

Diesel drivers are a minority, you seem intent on keeping them that way.

Edited August 16, 2008 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

Those were answers?

If you are adding a tax to diesel that you are not adding to the present price of gasoline, how will it end up costing drivers of diesels less? By increasing the price differential between gasoline and diesel, how does that give anyone an incentive to invest in the lower emitting technology?

So you solution is to keep the excise tax as is and slap another 10 cents on top of gas making it around $50 per tonne?

Try again and address the specific questions this time.

Diesel drivers are a minority, you seem intent on keeping them that way.

In 2006, the minority diesel users emitted 42 million tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere. The majority gas users emitted 90 million tonnes. Gas will pay 10 cents a litre carbon tax and diesel will pay 7 cents.

What exactly are you advocating? Diesel produces quite a lot of carbon for the minority it presents. You want some sort of sliding scale on the tax and it will get your full support?

Edited August 16, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

So you solution is to keep the excise tax as is and slap another 10 cents on top of gas making it around $50 per tonne?

In 2006, the minority diesel users emitted 42 million tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere. The majority gas users emitted 90 million tonnes. Gas will pay 10 cents a litre carbon tax and diesel will pay 7 cents.

What exactly are you advocating? Diesel produces quite a lot of carbon for the minority it presents. You want some sort of sliding scale on the tax and it will get your full support?

Is that a Canadian, North American or World statistic?

Diesels are not a minority in the rest of the world. Almost every commercial bus , truck, non electric train and ship on the planet is diesel powered as well as such things many pumping stations and backup power units. Their emissions are nowhere near what they would be if they were all gasoline powered.

Can't answer the questions can you.

I'm advocating not penalizing things that reduce emissions because of a dogma.

I'll tell you what though, if you guys happen to help drive the cost of diesel way past that of premium gas, I'll dump the TDI, buy something like a GTI and have some fun. They cost about the same. Who cares if it pumps nearly 1000 KG more CO2 into the atmosphere every year. You don't.

[jdobbin]

Is that a Canadian, North American or World statistic?

That's the Statscan statistic for Canada in 2006.

Diesels are not a minority in the rest of the world. Almost every commercial bus , truck, non electric train and ship on the planet is diesel powered as well as such things many pumping stations and backup power units. Their emissions are nowhere near what they would be if they were all gasoline powered.

The figures for Canada show that for a minority of vehicles, diesel produces quite the wallop in carbon emissions.

Can't answer the questions can you.

I'm advocating not penalizing things that reduce emissions because of a dogma.

And I'm saying that diesel packs a wallop in carbon and shouldn't get a free ride. At $40 per metric tonne, it is a fair application of the the tax.

I'll tell you what though, if you guys happen to help drive the cost of diesel way past that of premium gas, I'll dump the TDI, buy something like a GTI and have some fun. They cost about the same. Who cares if it pumps nearly 1000 KG more CO2 into the atmosphere every year. You don't.

You think buying a car with worse mileage is going to help?

[Wilber]

The figures for Canada show that for a minority of vehicles, diesel produces quite the wallop in carbon emissions.

And I've shown you that diesel powered passenger cars don't emit near the amount per kilometer as gasoline powered vehicles. But that's OK, just convert everything that is now diesel to gasoline and then see where your emissions are at.

You think buying a car with worse mileage is going to help?

Why not if the cost of the fuel it uses is substantially less? That's what you can't seem to get.

[jdobbin]

And I've shown you that diesel powered passenger cars don't emit near the amount per kilometer as gasoline powered vehicles. But that's OK, just convert everything that is now diesel to gasoline and then see where your emissions are at.

Why not if the cost of the fuel it uses is substantially less? That's what you can't seem to get.

Substantially less that the mileage it gets outweighs the costs of the fuel? I think not.

[Wilber]

Substantially less that the mileage it gets outweighs the costs of the fuel? I think not.

Depends what you mean by substantial. As you say the market has driven the price up. Your tax could provide the tipping point. There comes a time when you have to stop beating your head against a wall and have some fun even if it costs a couple of bucks.

Edited August 17, 2008 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

Depends what you mean by substantial. As you say the market has driven the price up. Your tax could provide the tipping point. There comes a time when you have to stop beating your head against a wall and have some fun even if it costs a couple of bucks. Life is to short to be spent struggling with idiots. Ideologies like yours often make that kind of decision much easier.

You're the one that said substantial. I don't see it from a 7 cent increase by the fourth year surpassing the savings of mileage so that people think it is worth it to get a gas vehicle. The savings from a diesel engine easily surpass that of a gas engine.

[Wilber]

You're the one that said substantial. I don't see it from a 7 cent increase by the fourth year surpassing the savings of mileage so that people think it is worth it to get a gas vehicle. The savings from a diesel engine easily surpass that of a gas engine.

Well if it is no big deal and isn't going to change anything, why do it?

[jdobbin]

Well if it is no big deal and isn't going to change anything, why do it?

I never said it wasn't going to change anything. I said it wasn't going to drive people to buying gas powered cars to make a savings.

[Wilber]

I never said it wasn't going to change anything. I said it wasn't going to drive people to buying gas powered cars to make a savings.

Well what is it then that you expect it to change?

[jdobbin]

Well what is it then that you expect it to change?

I expect it will put a bigger push into electric vehicles. Initially, those vehicles are going to be low speed vehicles for urban areas with a speed no greater than 50 kms. The price has come way down for those vehicles and Canada is a leader in the field.

I expect we'll see even faster conversion of vehicles to hybrids. In some cities, a large chuck of some company's fleets are now hybrids.

The biggest thing I expect we'll see is people looking at smaller vehicles with better mileage whether they are gas or diesel. Throughout the 1990, we saw a reversal of a trend following the last oil shocks which was economy cars.

[Wilber]

I expect it will put a bigger push into electric vehicles. Initially, those vehicles are going to be low speed vehicles for urban areas with a speed no greater than 50 kms. The price has come way down for those vehicles and Canada is a leader in the field.

I expect we'll see even faster conversion of vehicles to hybrids. In some cities, a large chuck of some company's fleets are now hybrids.

The biggest thing I expect we'll see is people looking at smaller vehicles with better mileage whether they are gas or diesel. Throughout the 1990, we saw a reversal of a trend following the last oil shocks which was economy cars.

You're expecting to do that by changing the name of a tax on gasoline which people are already paying and adding a tax to diesel which many manufacturers believe is part of the solution when it comes to lowering emissions? I'm in awe.

[jdobbin]

You're expecting to do that by changing the name of a tax on gasoline which people are already paying and adding a tax to diesel which many manufacturers believe is part of the solution when it comes to lowering emissions? I'm in awe.

Diesel contributes to carbon emissions. Gas will continue to be taxed higher than diesel. Diesel shouldn't be left off the hook for its carbon emissions.

Is that you want an additional 10 cents a lite on gas beyond what it is now?

[Wilber]

Diesel contributes to carbon emissions. Gas will continue to be taxed higher than diesel. Diesel shouldn't be left off the hook for its carbon emissions.

You are going to do all that with just a tax on diesel. I repeat, I'm in awe. Who knew it could be so simple. As much as I don't particularly like the guy, at least Campbell had the cojones to add tax to both in BC's carbon tax.

Is that you want an additional 10 cents a lite on gas beyond what it is now?

Why not? If you are really serious about changing peoples ways and believe there is on other way than a tax, you have no choice. Anything else is just BS.

[jdobbin]

You are going to do all that with just a tax on diesel. I repeat, I'm in awe. Who knew it could be so simple. As much as I don't particularly like the guy, at least Campbell had the cojones to add tax to both in BC's carbon tax.

If diesel didn't have carbon emissions, it would not be subject to any tax.

Campbell imposed as gas tax because he didn't already have an excise tax like the feds had.

Why not? If you are really serious about changing peoples ways and believe there is on other way than a tax, you have no choice. Anything else is just BS.

If the tax is $40 per metric tonne, why should gas have to pay more? The tax is equally applied across the board. Diesel still works out much better than gas because the rate of the tax is lower than gas and diesel gets better mileage than gas.

[Wilber]

If diesel didn't have carbon emissions, it would not be subject to any tax.

Campbell imposed as gas tax because he didn't already have an excise tax like the feds had.

If the tax is $40 per metric tonne, why should gas have to pay more? The tax is equally applied across the board. Diesel still works out much better than gas because the rate of the tax is lower than gas and diesel gets better mileage than gas.

Same old song and dance, you still haven't explained how this will change anything. How is changing the name of a tax on gasoline going to change the ways of people who have being paying the tax all the time but still haven't changed their ways? How is adding a tax to diesel, a fuel which few car owners use and who's vehicles already produce fewer emissions going to change anything?

What you are going to change is the cost of everything Canadians consume because energy that is used to manufacture and transport those goods will have a tax added because none of them involve gasoline. What you are also going to change is the cost of public transit whether it by land, sea or air because none of those methods of transportation use gasoline except for maybe taxi cabs.

[jdobbin]

Same old song and dance, you still haven't explained how this will change anything. How is changing the name of a tax on gasoline going to change the ways of people who have being paying the tax all the time but still haven't changed their ways? How is adding a tax to diesel, a fuel which few car owners use and who's vehicles already produce fewer emissions going to change anything?

Why should any fuel be treated different if it produces carbon? The tax is applied fairly.

What you are going to change is the cost of everything Canadians consume because energy that is used to manufacture and transport those goods will have a tax added because none of them involve gasoline. What you are also going to change is the cost of public transit whether it by land, sea or air because none of those methods of transportation use gasoline except for maybe taxi cabs.

And diesel produces a large chunk of present day emissions in Canada. What it should change is behaviours in terms of transportation and manufacturing.

[Wilber]

Why should any fuel be treated different if it produces carbon? The tax is applied fairly.

Why not address emissions instead of taxes all the time. Carbon is the great satan, it must be taxed at all costs. That's the limit of your imagination. Behaviors must change but you don't know how so just impose a tax. Simple.

And diesel produces a large chunk of present day emissions in Canada. What it should change is behaviours in terms of transportation and manufacturing.

But gasoline produces much more and you are doing nothing but changing the name of an already existing tax so how are behaviors going to change, replace diesel with gasoline? It's not just diesel but natural gas, jet fuel and any other hydrocarbon fuel that is not gasoline.

You think you can smoke this buy people because you aren't taxing gasoline when you are in fact taxing everything else. Hate to give you ideas but what's next, a tax on dairy products and beef because of the methane produced by cattle herds?

[jdobbin]

Why not address emissions instead of taxes all the time. Carbon is the great satan, it must be taxed at all costs. That's the limit of your imagination. Behaviors must change but you don't know how so just impose a tax. Simple.

I have addressed the emissions. Diesel produces quite a lot across Canada for a minority of users.

But gasoline produces much more and you are doing nothing but changing the name of an already existing tax so how are behaviors going to change, replace diesel with gasoline? It's not just diesel but natural gas, jet fuel and any other hydrocarbon fuel that is not gasoline.

And gas gets taxed more under this plan. You keep suggesting a scale for the tax but it is most evenly applied at a certain level of carbon content.

You think you can smoke this buy people because you aren't taxing gasoline when you are in fact taxing everything else. Hate to give you ideas but what's next, a tax on dairy products and beef because of the methane produced by cattle herds?

Seems to be working so far with the Liberals leading the Tories in Quebec and Ontario.

[Wilber]

I have addressed the emissions. Diesel produces quite a lot across Canada for a minority of users.

A minority of what users? It is used by nearly 100% of transport companies of all kinds and transit systems that don't use electricity. You haven't addressed emissions due to gasoline other than change the name of a tax.

And gas gets taxed more under this plan. You keep suggesting a scale for the tax but it is most evenly applied at a certain level of carbon content.

Yes but all you are doing is changing the name of the tax. You are doing absolutely nothing to change the ways of the vast majority of private vehicle owners and the source of the majority of CO2 emissions. Unless you do that, it is all BS.

Seems to be working so far with the Liberals leading the Tories in Quebec and Ontario.

Uh, does that mean you are going to tax dairy products and beef or not. Loosing ground in BC, wonder if that has anything to do with our carbon tax.

[jdobbin]

A minority of what users? It is used by nearly 100% of transport companies of all kinds and transit systems that don't use electricity. You haven't addressed emissions due to gasoline other than change the name of a tax.

It is used by a majority of public transit but as a minority of overall fuel, it produces quite the wallop in emissions regardless.

Yes but all you are doing is changing the name of the tax. You are doing absolutely nothing to change the ways of the vast majority of private vehicle owners and the source of the majority of CO2 emissions. Unless you do that, it is all BS.

I suppose if you are advocating for all carbon to be taxed at $50 per metric tonne, you would see gas taxed 10 cents above its present rate but then you would have diesel taxed higher too.

Uh, does that mean you are going to tax dairy products and beef or not. Loosing ground in BC, wonder if that has anything to do with our carbon tax.

I never said anything of the sort.

Hard to say what is happening in B.C. at the moment. Could be the carbon tax. Could be the size of the sample.

[bk59]

A fuel is just a fuel, it emits nothing until it is consumed. The amount of emissions depends on the efficiency of the machine using it. I you use less carbon, you emit less, the actual carbon content of the fuel is not relative. Bottom line is you believe that by taxing the carbon content of the fuel, you are taxing emissions. In the case of gasoline versus diesel powered vehicles, this is patently untrue.

By taxing carbon content of fuel you are taxing carbon dioxide emissions because when you burn that fuel that carbon becomes carbon dioxide. Which is why people can measure how many kilograms of carbon dioxide a litre of fuel will emit. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT TECHNOLOGY BURNS THE FUEL - THAT FUEL WILL EMIT THE SAME AMOUNT OF CARBON DIOXIDE PER LITRE. This is the point you continually ignore and or confuse with gas mileage. You continue to talk about a specific technology - diesel cars versus gasoline cars. And as I have already said, driving a diesel car will emit less carbon dioxide over a year. But a REAL plan to reduce emissions will take into account ALL emissions from ALL sources.

It is not enough to look at specific technologies. Even if all people began driving diesels right now that would not do enough to reduce emissions. Providing an incentive for all drivers to drive less is a valid goal to begin reducing emissions.

No, the technologies which consume less carbon are more efficient with respect to emissions.

Again... no one was arguing otherwise. Why do you feel the need to argue with every sentence, even if it agrees with your point?

When is it going to sink in that people won't give a crap about your airy fairy notions of tax fairness but they will care big time about what they have to pay for a liter of fuel?

Airy fairy? Tax fairness? All I said was that people who drive diesel cars will pay less carbon tax per year than those who drive gasoline cars. That has nothing to do with tax fairness. And it's not airy fairy at all. It is concrete fact. Your own numbers show that.

Yes, I am talking about reducing CO2 emissions and you are talking about taxing people.

Oh are you? And what exactly was your plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? So far all I've heard from you is "don't put a carbon tax on diesel". That does nothing to reduce emissions from diesel drivers and does nothing to encourage people to switch to diesel above and beyond the encouragement that people already have under the status quo.

My point exactly. I harp about not penalizing cars which emit less and all you can harp about is a tax. Which one of us is really interested in reducing emissions?

My vote goes to the person who wants to reduce all emissions by making all emissions more expensive, not the person who wants to subsidize a particular industry.

Well you've got me confused here. First you say diesel is cheaper, then it is more expensive. You were right the second time, it is more expensive, 6 to 10 cents a liter seems to be the range around here. One of the reasons people switched to diesel is because they were cheaper to run in spite of the the higher cost. Driving the price even higher will reduce that incentive considerably. What I really don't get is your assertion that people won't switch because the price is higher at the pump.

Then let me be more clear since you aren't keeping up.

Under the proposed carbon tax diesel usage per year driving your diesel Jetta would be cheaper than gasoline usage per year driving your gasoline Jetta. The price per litre of diesel is currently more expensive than gasoline's price per litre and would remain so under a carbon tax.

Here is the problem with your position that a carbon tax will prevent people from changing to a diesel car:

1. People must be able to afford the diesel car irrespective of prices at the pump. This limits the number of people who can switch. So right away your problem does not impact a number of Canadians since they can't switch anyway.

2. The price of diesel per litre (at the pump) is currently more than the price of gasoline per litre. The people who would switch to diesel right now will do the math to see that overall, including gas mileage, their costs on fuel will be less if they use diesel. There will be people who will NOT switch right now because the price of diesel is higher per litre than gasoline; these people are NOT doing the math including the gas mileage.

3. The ONLY difference that a carbon tax would make is that the price at the pump would be 7 cents more at the end of the fourth year. The people who would switch to diesel in that year will STILL do the math to see that diesel, including gas mileage, is cheaper. The only people who will NOT switch because of the carbon tax are the people who would have switched before (i.e. they WILL do the math including gas mileage), but will not switch because of the 7 cents per litre carbon tax. What you are saying is that these people will do the math, see that diesel is cheaper when you include gas mileage, and then NOT switch just because the price at the pump is 7 cents higher. That makes NO sense. If they were going to do the math before, then they will do the math again. And rational people will pick the cheaper option both times. And both times the answer will be diesel.

A carbon tax may reduce the incentive, but the incentive is still there.

I keep asking this question IF YOU THINK PEOPLE WON'T SWITCH BECAUSE OF HIGHER PRICES, WHY THE HELL DO YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE A TAX? but all I get is the same tired dogma, as if people really care about anything other than the price at the pump.

Taxing something will change how people behave with respect to that something. If emitting carbon dioxide costs something then people will act to emit less carbon dioxide.

And of course they care about more than the price at the pump. Otherwise people would not switch to diesel RIGHT NOW. Without a carbon tax. Yet people do switch. Amazing. What is even more amazing is that you said that yourself in the same post:

One of the reasons people switched to diesel is because they were cheaper to run in spite of the the higher cost.

Of course that sentence makes no sense unless you add the words "per litre" at the end.

VW Audi, the third largest car maker in the world is committed to diesels as the immediate future in low emissions.

In their current form diesel cars may be better than the current equivalent gasoline cars, but you may want to rethink your use of VW as the poster boy for corporate climate change responsibility. See here.

All of them are doing it to reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. What is it you know that these fools don't?

Actually we both know that even under a carbon tax these cars will be more cost effective for people. What is it you know that changes that basic math?

Please, stop just spouting the party line and do some research.

That goes both ways.

Unlike a theoretical exercise on the impact of a tax, that is something you can actually measure.

And yet your "don't do anything, keep business as usual" approach certainly isn't going to do anything to reduce emissions. A carbon tax may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing.

[Wilber]

It is not enough to look at specific technologies. Even if all people began driving diesels right now that would not do enough to reduce emissions. Providing an incentive for all drivers to drive less is a valid goal to begin reducing emissions.

As diesels emit on average about 30% less CO2 if all people began driving diesels right now it would reduce emissions from passenger cars by 30%. Only adding a tax to diesel and doing dick to dissuade people from changing their present mode of gasoline powered transport will reduce emissions by dick. So what do you have in mind?

Again... no one was arguing otherwise. Why do you feel the need to argue with every sentence, even if it agrees with your point?

Again.... diesels consume less carbon and in so doing produce less emissions. Why do you feel the need to continually ignore that.

Airy fairy? Tax fairness? All I said was that people who drive diesel cars will pay less carbon tax per year than those who drive gasoline cars. That has nothing to do with tax fairness. And it's not airy fairy at all. It is concrete fact. Your own numbers show that.

Only because you want to change the name of an excise tax to a carbon tax which will have absolutely zip to do with reducing emissions. Ingenuous and misleading is being polite.

Oh are you? And what exactly was your plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? So far all I've heard from you is "don't put a carbon tax on diesel". That does nothing to reduce emissions from diesel drivers and does nothing to encourage people to switch to diesel above and beyond the encouragement that people already have under the status quo.

As diesels emit on average 30% less CO2 than gasoline engines why are you so concerned about taxing them in order to reduce emissions. It's only because you don't have the guts to deal with the real problem.

My vote goes to the person who wants to reduce all emissions by making all emissions more expensive, not the person who wants to subsidize a particular industry.

So why don't you do it. Leaving the status quo when it comes to the largest source of emissions sure as hell isn't.

Got to go, will deal with the rest later.

Edited August 18, 2008 by Wilber