NDP's Layton promises investments

[jdobbin]

Sorry. Just not a big deal.

The article was from 2000. There has been a few developments since.

[Wilber]

While efficiency is great, it still doesn't take away the fact that a price set on carbon makes consumers look for even great efficiencies and alternate energies.

What would you suggest when it comes to alternate energies for motor fuels. What can I go out and buy that is different today?

The newest tanks the U.S. are so fuel inefficient that they burn the same amount of fuel idle as they do at 30 kms. They have to be shipped to front lines because too much fuel is used to get there under there own power.

What new tanks? The Abrams is powered by a gas turbine, is a fuel hog compared to diesel powered tanks like the Leopard and leaves a huge heat signature, its two biggest faults.

Or to use more efficiently through a variety of ways.

Which means using less.

The alternates are still cheaper and will still appeal to drivers who are looking for something better.

But less cheaper then before and therefore with less appeal.

I disagree. The tax is regressive as long as it exists and makes people look for alternates and efficiencies.

You aren't adding an additional regressive tax to gasoline, you are doing nothing, which will encourage people to do nothing. You are adding a regressive tax to the only present alternative that emits less CO2, which will encourage people to do nothing even more. That is why this is such a farce.

[bk59]

Meanwhile, the idea of taxing us to bring about technological innovation is not in a research stage at all.

That's not really what a carbon tax is about though. It isn't a tax to bring about technological innovation. The problem comes down to the fact that we need to start reducing emissions immediately. We can't wait until a new technology appears. More importantly, our behaviour has to change. We can't keep thinking that we can consume whatever we want without affecting the environment. A carbon tax will affect behaviour. While it may also increase the incentive to invest in technological innovation I don't see that as its main function.

[bk59]

You are adding a regressive tax to the only present alternative that emits less CO2, which will encourage people to do nothing even more. That is why this is such a farce.

So the only present alternative to driving a gas vehicle is a diesel vehicle? I guess public transit, bicycles and your own two feet don't count then? Car pooling apparently isn't an option either. Don't get me wrong, some of these alternatives are not available for many people who have to commute longer distances to work where public transit is unavailable, but to assume that you can only drive a gas car or drive a diesel car is ridiculous. Part of the problem is the mentality that thinks there is no cost to things like driving two blocks to the store to pick up a bag of milk. Why not walk? Little things like this can have a large effect.

Interesting though that you have yet to comment on the math that shows your disincentive to switch to diesel is quite low. Interesting that you really have not made any suggestions for a politically and economically feasible plan of your own.

[Wilber]

So the only present alternative to driving a gas vehicle is a diesel vehicle? I guess public transit, bicycles and your own two feet don't count then? Car pooling apparently isn't an option either. Don't get me wrong, some of these alternatives are not available for many people who have to commute longer distances to work where public transit is unavailable, but to assume that you can only drive a gas car or drive a diesel car is ridiculous. Part of the problem is the mentality that thinks there is no cost to things like driving two blocks to the store to pick up a bag of milk. Why not walk? Little things like this can have a large effect.

Interesting though that you have yet to comment on the math that shows your disincentive to switch to diesel is quite low. Interesting that you really have not made any suggestions for a politically and economically feasible plan of your own.

So we'll add a tax to all the diesel drivers so they will take transit and car pool but leave the gas drivers alone so they can continue as they are? Like I said, a farce.

Do you always wait for the price of something to go up before you buy it? Can I sell you something, please?

[jdobbin]

What would you suggest when it comes to alternate energies for motor fuels. What can I go out and buy that is different today?

The Zenn. It is well suited for a city car today.

What new tanks? The Abrams is powered by a gas turbine, is a fuel hog compared to diesel powered tanks like the Leopard and leaves a huge heat signature, its two biggest faults.

It is the M1 I was talking about.

Which means using less.

Of course.

But less cheaper then before and therefore with less appeal.

For people looking for a fuel and an engine with better mileage, it still has great appeal.

You aren't adding an additional regressive tax to gasoline, you are doing nothing, which will encourage people to do nothing. You are adding a regressive tax to the only present alternative that emits less CO2, which will encourage people to do nothing even more. That is why this is such a farce.

The tax is regressive. It just isn't high enough for you.

[blueblood]

Some companies are already switching out hydraulics for electric motors. The Navy is doing that for all their carriers starting this year.

Here is what one source said about the Deere electric tractor.

http://farmindustrynews.com/mag/farming_electric_tractors_2/

This report was in 2003. Last I heard was testing was to be done after the E series was introduced next year.

I already know full well that electric motors are more efficient than IC motors, the problem I'm stating is getting the vast amounts of juice needed to operate the type of equipment I have for the long hours I require. A battery just won't cut it, having it run like a train would be a good idea, lots less maintenance. Your idea of full size might be different than mine.

[bk59]

So we'll add a tax to all the diesel drivers so they will take transit and car pool but leave the gas drivers alone so they can continue as they are? Like I said, a farce.

Good news: no more talk from you about huge disincentives.

Bad news: still no attempt at proposing a feasible alternative. Would it be good to have a higher tax on gas (than it is now) to reduce emissions? Yes. Would it be politically feasible right now by any party? Doubtful. Better to introduce a plan slowly than to sell a plan that no one will vote for. A plan that is phased in over four years is better than a plan that will never get implemented ever. And the best part about this particular plan is that after four years it treats all carbon emissions equally.

Now I know you want to go off again about a particular technology. But the point of a carbon tax is to tax carbon dioxide emissions, not focus on a particular technology. If you want to get people buying a particular technology then suggest rebates for purchasing that technology (i.e. the car itself, not the fuel). Your knee jerk partisan reaction has blinded you to the fact that there are better ways to reach the goal of lowered emissions than naysaying every plan that comes out.

Do you always wait for the price of something to go up before you buy it? Can I sell you something, please?

You aren't selling anything worth buying. At any price.

Do you always blindly criticize without offering anything constructive? Do you always insist on measures that would be practically impossible to achieve?

[blueblood]

Good news: no more talk from you about huge disincentives.

Bad news: still no attempt at proposing a feasible alternative. Would it be good to have a higher tax on gas (than it is now) to reduce emissions? Yes. Would it be politically feasible right now by any party? Doubtful. Better to introduce a plan slowly than to sell a plan that no one will vote for. A plan that is phased in over four years is better than a plan that will never get implemented ever. And the best part about this particular plan is that after four years it treats all carbon emissions equally.

Now I know you want to go off again about a particular technology. But the point of a carbon tax is to tax carbon dioxide emissions, not focus on a particular technology. If you want to get people buying a particular technology then suggest rebates for purchasing that technology (i.e. the car itself, not the fuel). Your knee jerk partisan reaction has blinded you to the fact that there are better ways to reach the goal of lowered emissions than naysaying every plan that comes out.

You aren't selling anything worth buying. At any price.

Do you always blindly criticize without offering anything constructive? Do you always insist on measures that would be practically impossible to achieve?

How about the plan where gas at 4 dollars a gallon due to high commodity prices resulted in people getting rid of their 4x4s for more fuel efficient cars. Mission accomplished. No tax necessary. Gotta love that efficient free market.

[Wilber]

The Zenn. It is well suited for a city car today.

I don't live in the city and have to do at least 80 kph to get to one or I will get run over. 40KPH on just about any road around here except in a school zone would scare the hell out of me. If I need to go to Vancouver I would have to drive 90 km on side roads because it isn't fast enough to go on the freeway and besides, I couldn't even get half way there without recharging the thing. Does this mean I have to move to the city?

It is the M1 I was talking about.

M1 Abrams. Weight 60 tons Gas turbine powered. 1500 HP. Fuel capacity 504 USG, cruising range, 275 miles.

Leopard 2. Weight 60 tons. Diesel powered. 1500 HP. Fuel capacity 317 USG, cruising range, range 342 miles.

You had it backwards. At idle, the Abrams burns almost as much as it does at 30MPH, not the other way around. As I said, it's greatest drawback, other than that it is a great tank.

For people looking for a fuel and an engine with better mileage, it still has great appeal.

But less appeal, because of you.

The tax is regressive. It just isn't high enough for you.

What tax, the one that is already there but will change peoples habits by just changing its name? A farce on a Gilbert and Sullivan scale.

[Wilber]

Bad news: still no attempt at proposing a feasible alternative.

I'm still waiting for you to propose one. Geoffrey Dalmer had a plan. What's your point?

You aren't selling anything worth buying. At any price.

Neither are you but you want to charge me anyway.

[Wilber]

If you want to get people buying a particular technology then suggest rebates for purchasing that technology

Give someone a rebate to buy a particular technology then throw a tax on the fuel it uses. Great plan.

Edited August 20, 2008 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

I don't live in the city and have to do at least 80 kph to get to one or I will get run over. 40KPH on just about any road around here except in a school zone would scare the hell out of me. If I need to go to Vancouver I would have to drive 90 km on side roads because it isn't fast enough to go on the freeway and besides, I couldn't even get half way there without recharging the thing. Does this mean I have to move to the city?

Then your present vehicle despite the costs is your best option. For others, they will be able to buy a Zenn that tops out at 45 kph at the moment.

In 2010, you can buy the Chevy Volt, It's top speed is 190 kph and a range of 40 kms on an overnight charge. That might be long enough for some people who go a long distance. In that case, some of the Volt's are hybrids. The price is $30,000 but expected to come down in mass production.

M1 Abrams. Weight 60 tons Gas turbine powered. 1500 HP. Fuel capacity 504 USG, cruising range, 275 miles.

Leopard 2. Weight 60 tons. Diesel powered. 1500 HP. Fuel capacity 317 USG, cruising range, range 342 miles.

You had it backwards. At idle, the Abrams burns almost as much as it does at 30MPH, not the other way around. As I said, it's greatest drawback, other than that it is a great tank.

I referring to the Abrams burning as much fuel in idle as it does in motion. You were the one who mentioned the Leopard.

But less appeal, because of you.

Oh, I don't take all the credit.

Gas is less appealing with the carbon tax as proposed by Dion. Period.

What tax, the one that is already there but will change peoples habits by just changing its name? A farce on a Gilbert and Sullivan scale.

Certainly, it doesn't appear to make you happy. But then again, I doubt the Tory or NDP plans will either.

[jdobbin]

I already know full well that electric motors are more efficient than IC motors, the problem I'm stating is getting the vast amounts of juice needed to operate the type of equipment I have for the long hours I require. A battery just won't cut it, having it run like a train would be a good idea, lots less maintenance. Your idea of full size might be different than mine.

The military already has an electric tractor that can pull huge loads. The lithium-ion batteries are now capable of quite a lot of power. I expect we'll see electric-diesel hybrids in large farm equipment at first to cover the time needed for type of hours described.

[Smallc]

In 2010, you can buy the Chevy Volt, It's top speed is 190 kph and a range of 40 kms on an overnight charge. That might be long enough for some people who go a long distance. In that case, some of the Volt's are hybrids. The price is $30,000 but expected to come down in mass production.

Don't hold your breath. I'll believe it when I see it. And don;t bring out any articles, Ive read them all. I follow autos very closely. GM has a recent habit of not delivering on big promises.

Edited August 20, 2008 by Smallc

[Wilber]

In 2010, you can buy the Chevy Volt, It's top speed is 190 kph and a range of 40 kms on an overnight charge. That might be long enough for some people who go a long distance. In that case, some of the Volt's are hybrids. The price is $30,000 but expected to come down in mass production.

Woopy, 2010 you say. What about today or is 2010 when you propose to start your tax? 40 kms will still not get me halfway there. These figures are very misleading. Yes you can go 40 killometers and yes you can go 190 kph but there is no way you will go 40 kms at 190 KPH, you would be very lucky to go even half that far at that speed. A hybrid Volt is a hybrid, we already have them except I think the Volt is supposed to be a plug in hybrid which is an advance in hybrid technology but certainly not a great leap forward. By 2010 I wouldn't be surprised if other manufactures beat them to it.

I referring to the Abrams burning as much fuel in idle as it does in motion. You were the one who mentioned the Leopard.

I was pointing out that the diesel powered Leopard which weighs the same and has the same power goes 25% farther on 37% less fuel. So much for the fuel efficient M1.

Oh, I don't take all the credit.

You're smarter than I thought.

Gas is less appealing with the carbon tax as proposed by Dion. Period.

How so, you aren't changing anything but the name of the tax which is already on it?

[jdobbin]

Woopy, 2010 you say. What about today or is 2010 when you propose to start your tax? 40 kms will still not get me halfway there. These figures are very misleading. Yes you can go 40 killometers and yes you can go 190 kph but there is no way you will go 40 kms at 190 KPH, you would be very lucky to go even half that far at that speed. A hybrid Volt is a hybrid, we already have them except I think the Volt is supposed to be a plug in hybrid which is an advance in hybrid technology but certainly not a great leap forward. By 2010 I wouldn't be surprised if other manufactures beat them to it.

2010 is when the Volt comes on the market. If the Liberals won this this fall, the full effect of the carbon tax would be not in place until 2012.

You obviously know a lot about the Volt to make such a definitive judgment on it. You're certainly dismissive of it. So what figures are hearing?

By the way, it is actually 40 miles range, no 40 kms. That's my error. The figures are 64 kms. I did have the speed right though although I don't know any speed limits as high as what the car is capable of.

The Volt mileage is based on normal driving conditions, the same as a gas vehicle. I wouldn't get as good mileage in my car either if I ran it at 190 kph.

The average travel distance for an American driver is 20 miles a day. The Volt fits the bill for most city and smaller commutes.

I was pointing out that the diesel powered Leopard which weighs the same and has the same power goes 25% farther on 37% less fuel. So much for the fuel efficient M1.

I don't think anyone said the M1 was fuel efficient. The military is just starting to realize that a tank that has to be towed to the front lines and can't advance very far before refueling is probably a flaw.

How so, you aren't changing anything but the name of the tax which is already on it?

Because diesel remains a cheaper alternative. I don't know how many times it has to be said.

Edited August 20, 2008 by jdobbin

[White Doors]

Because diesel remains a cheaper alternative. I don't know how many times it has to be said.

Per litre it is already more expensive than gas. With the green shaft, there will be even more of a gap between the two thereby discouraging people from buying diesel powered vehicles which, ironically, produce less GHG emissions.

Isn't it ironic?

Alanis should update her song.

[jdobbin]

Per litre it is already more expensive than gas. With the green shaft, there will be even more of a gap between the two thereby discouraging people from buying diesel powered vehicles which, ironically, produce less GHG emissions.

Per kilometre it is cheaper

I find it ironic that the Tory program is likely to slap a 40 cent a litre passed on cost to the consumer.

[Wilber]

2010 is when the Volt comes on the market.

I'll believe it when I see it. So far it is just a concept car.

By the way, it is actually 40 miles range, no 40 kms. That's my error. The figures are 64 kms. I did have the speed right though although I don't know any speed limits as high as what the car is capable of.

Still not far enough but closer, but 40 miles at what speed, certainly not 190 KPH.

The Volt mileage is based on normal driving conditions, the same as a gas vehicle. I wouldn't get as good mileage in my car either if I ran it at 190 kph.

The average travel distance for an American driver is 20 miles a day. The Volt fits the bill for most city and smaller commutes.

Great, it is a commuter car for people who drive 20 miles a day. What about everyone else?

I don't think anyone said the M1 was fuel efficient. The military is just starting to realize that a tank that has to be towed to the front lines and can't advance very far before refueling is probably a flaw.

You are right, I misinterpreted that statement. Still interesting that the most efficient tanks are diesel powered however.

Because diesel remains a cheaper alternative. I don't know how many times it has to be said.

But a less cheaper alternative and therefore less appealing. I don't know how many times that has to be said.

How is gas going to be less appealing under Dion's carbon tax when his "carbon tax" on gas consists entirely of changing the name of a tax that has already been on it for years? How is it going to make gas less appealing when he is adding a tax to the only more efficient alternative currently available? No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't answer the question.

[White Doors]

Per kilometre it is cheaper

I find it ironic that the Tory program is likely to slap a 40 cent a litre passed on cost to the consumer.

Only because it burns more efficiently. Ironic that the liberals want to put a new tax on a more efficient fuel and NOT put a new tax on the more inefficient one, that being gasoline.

It's fun watching you contort logic to fit liberal policy jdobbin.

[jdobbin]

I'll believe it when I see it. So far it is just a concept car.

Not quite when it is supposed to roll off the production line in 2010. A concept car would be something at a trade show with no production in sight.

Still not far enough but closer, but 40 miles at what speed, certainly not 190 KPH.

Great, it is a commuter car for people who drive 20 miles a day. What about everyone else?

The average driver doesn't do more than 64 kilometres in the day. In Europe, they are setting up preferred parking for electric cars with re-charging stations to ensure that a charge doesn't have to wait till the driver gets home.

The mileage was set for average speed. The same as a gas vehicles tested for city driving. I assume that is 60 to 80 kms a hour. I have no idea what highway driving is although one Chevrolet person was saying 150 miles per gallon with the hybrid with a range of 500 kms before recharging.

Are you driving that much in a day that an electric hybrid is out of the question?

You are right, I misinterpreted that statement. Still interesting that the most efficient tanks are diesel powered however.

I still don't know why they made the decision to buy such a vehicle. Fuel consumption makes it very vulnerable.

But a less cheaper alternative and therefore less appealing. I don't know how many times that has to be said.

How is gas going to be less appealing under Dion's carbon tax when his "carbon tax" on gas consists entirely of changing the name of a tax that has already been on it for years? How is it going to make gas less appealing when he is adding a tax to the only more efficient alternative currently available? No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't answer the question.

Diesel still remains an attractive alternative. It can't get a free ride in the carbon tax since it produces its own fair share of emissions. It will remain cheaper than gas and therefore still be appealing to people looking for an alternate.

It is hard to believe people on the right are asking for a higher tax on gas that what it is now. In essence, people have been paying a regressive tax on gas for more than ten years and now other fuels that also produce carbon are catching up. They still, however, remain competitive.

As for alternates, people don't necessarily have to seek a fuel alternative as they can a vehicle alternative that gets better gas mileage.

[jdobbin]

Only because it burns more efficiently. Ironic that the liberals want to put a new tax on a more efficient fuel and NOT put a new tax on the more inefficient one, that being gasoline.

Canadians have been paying a regressive tax on gas for some time. Other fuels that produce emissions are starting to catch up in a fairer way.

It's fun watching you contort logic to fit liberal policy jdobbin.

It's fun watching Conservatives put down a policy that will result in a lesser charge on gas and diesel than their own plan.

[Wild Bill]

That's not really what a carbon tax is about though. It isn't a tax to bring about technological innovation. The problem comes down to the fact that we need to start reducing emissions immediately. We can't wait until a new technology appears. More importantly, our behaviour has to change. We can't keep thinking that we can consume whatever we want without affecting the environment. A carbon tax will affect behaviour. While it may also increase the incentive to invest in technological innovation I don't see that as its main function.

I'm sorry, but whenever I hear the need to "change our behaviour" as a justification for being taxed more severely I just want to scream! It just seems so elitist and patronizing.

On my opening Sympatico webpage yesterday there was a link to some report about how despite the record gasoline prices Canadians still "haven't changed their behaviour".

Are these folks blind? Most Canadians changed their behaviour years ago! Pleasure driving is almost unheard of anymore, except for the annual vacation trip. The price of gas over the past decade has increased to the point where people drive mostly for necessity, like commuting to work. When articles such as the one on the Sympatico link mention how there's no sign of more people turning to public transit they seem unaware that the reason is...public transit usually sucks! People in my part of the country are locked into up to several hours of commuting time a day. Public transit, if available at all, usually would increase that time by double or treble.

People are time poor. They are NOT going to switch to a public transit system that takes away even more time from their daily lives!

My wife works for the City of Hamilton. They often are given cheerleading sessions to lead by example by using public transit. We live in the built up part of the city, not out in the sticks at all. If she were to take the bus a 10 minute drive would become a 90 minute trip. That's without considering the inconvenience of weather and the walk to bus stops at both ends.

So the obvious answer is that there is little room left to change behaviour. It would seem that only people in academic situations insulated from these real world pressures are unaware of this.

Everybody's bleeding the same poor old horse and assuming the horse can easily replenish what's been taken. The problem is that there are a great number of interests bleeding the horse who seem blissfully unaware of anyone but themselves doing the bleeding and just how much blood is being taken in total.

Unless all the leeches are put in their place the poor horse is doomed.

[Wilber]

Not quite when it is supposed to roll off the production line in 2010. A concept car would be something at a trade show with no production in sight.

The operative word here is, supposed. It is planned for production hopefully in 2010 but in what final form, meeting what specifications and at what price, we don't know. Are there even any pre production prototypes running yet? I don't mean running concept cars but actual pre production prototypes that accurately represent the car we will be able to buy? Don't get me wrong, I think it is a great concept and I wish them success. It is something that I might actually see myself buying but I am still shaking my head over the fact that you are only increasing the cost of diesel in order to encourage people to buy them, if and when they become available and assuming normal people can afford to buy them.

Let's review my options today.

Option 1. I can by a Zenn, well actually I can't but even if I could it won't even do the residential speed limit, doesn't meet any of the safety standards for conventional cars an has a range so short that a 90 KM trip to Vancouver and back would essentially be a three day trip because of charging times, low speeds and inability to use main roads. Doesn't sound much better than a horse and buggy.

Option 2. I can go out and buy a real car like a Honda Fit for about the same money and don't have to worry about an extra tax being added to the fuel it is using because that is not part of your plan.

I think I've decided.

Diesel still remains an attractive alternative. It can't get a free ride in the carbon tax since it produces its own fair share of emissions. It will remain cheaper than gas and therefore still be appealing to people looking for an alternate.

Probably but that also depends on what the market does to the price of diesel relative to gas, but regardless, less attractive just the same because of your added tax.

Surely we can agree that if you make something more expensive in relation to something else, there is less incentive to buy it. Surely at least we can agree on that.

Yes, add a tax to the most efficient technology currently available, while doing nothing with regard to a less efficient technology which is in much larger scale use, other than putting a green beanie on an already existing tax and calling it "Carbon". Great plan.