NDP's Layton promises investments

[jdobbin]

The operative word here is, supposed.

I think the word supposed fits with the Liberal policy as well. You are looking for instantaneous solutions to a policy not yet announced with a phase in period of fours years.

There will be electric cars on the market in 2010. The Japanese have their own versions rushing through pre-production and slated to come out in 2010 as well. The winner, like when Chrysler put out their minivan, will likely be the one that is out first.

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.

The tax also also acts an incentive for people to upgrade to even higher efficiencies in diesel car and truck models, to use maintain and use their vehicles in peak efficiencies and... to drive less.

You may have done all of that and more but many people have not. The tax is a regressive tax applied equally over carbon products. For those who can't or won't make changes, they will pay a higher price.

There are alternatives. You have said that the market will decide this. However, the market doesn't make decisions based on safety where it is opposed to the idea that there is a problem. This was the case in CFCs when the industry was universally skeptical and had to be pushed into making changes.

Gas has had a regressive tax for a much longer time. It has changed many people's car buying habits as Canadians are more likely to buy fuel efficient vehicles. It will continue to do so.

[Wilber]

The tax also also acts an incentive for people to upgrade to even higher efficiencies in diesel car and truck models, to use maintain and use their vehicles in peak efficiencies and... to drive less.

It provides a new penalty to diesel owners for not upgrading two who knows what, but none to gas vehicle owners even though the diesel owners already emit less. Well done.

You may have done all of that and more but many people have not. The tax is a regressive tax applied equally over carbon products. For those who can't or won't make changes, they will pay a higher price.

Except for higher emitting gas owners because there will be no higher price for them.

Gas has had a regressive tax for a much longer time. It has changed many people's car buying habits as Canadians are more likely to buy fuel efficient vehicles.

It has? So gas drivers are not the problem you say, it's them nasty diesel owners. Wait a minute, some of them switched those more efficient diesels. Better tax em.

[jdobbin]

It provides a new penalty to diesel owners for not upgrading two who knows what, but none to gas vehicle owners even though the diesel owners already emit less. Well done.

Diesel owners can reduce their exposure with better efficiency in usage and maintenance. Diesel is finally catching up to what gas owners have been paying for a long time in a federal tax. Carbon emissions will be treated fairly under the plan and diesel owners will still have an advantage over gas.

Except for higher emitting gas owners because there will be no higher price for them.

It has? So gas drivers are not the problem you say, it's them nasty diesel owners. Wait a minute, some of them switched those more efficient diesels. Better tax em.

As I say, vote for the Tories. I'm sure their plan will be the answer to your worries. That is, unless their plan actually put even higher costs on diesel.

[Wilber]

Diesel owners can reduce their exposure with better efficiency in usage and maintenance.

They already did when they opted for diesel over gas. At least 30% more efficient.

Diesel is finally catching up to what gas owners have been paying for a long time in a federal tax. Carbon emissions will be treated fairly under the plan and diesel owners will still have an advantage over gas.

Carbon emissions are being treated stupidly under the plan. You are adding to the cost of owning lower emission vehicles while doing nothing to higher emitters.

Diesel is finally catching up to what gas owners have been paying for a long time in a federal tax. Carbon emissions will be treated fairly under the plan and diesel owners will still have an advantage over gas.

Yes I know, it is all about the tax. Emissions don't enter into it.

Edited August 20, 2008 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

They already did when they opted for diesel over gas. At least 30% more efficient.

An now they can do even more for efficiency within maintenance, usage change and even more efficient models.

Carbon emissions are being treated stupidly under the plan. You are adding to the cost of owning lower emission vehicles while doing nothing to higher emitters.

Yes I know, it is all about the tax. Emissions don't enter into it.

As I said, vote for the Tories if you think it will help.

[Wilber]

An now they can do even more for efficiency within maintenance, usage change and even more efficient models.

As can gas drivers the cost of who's fuel you are not touching. How dare they opt for something that is 30% more efficient. It wasn't our idea so lets tax em. Of course the fact that they are already driving the more efficient models means nothing to you because it is all about the tax.

[bk59]

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.

The market is good, up to a point. It isn't perfect though. Economists recognize that there are market failures, where the market does not take into account the true cost of an item. Greenhouse gas emissions are an example of a market failure. The true cost of emitting is not reflected in the market. This is why people all over the world are looking at carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes. It corrects for this market failure. So yes, right now people are modifying their behaviour due to higher gas prices. Depending on price fluctuations though, the behaviour will change. We also have other fuels that emit greenhouse gases and the best way to ensure that the market actually accounts for that is to put a price on the emissions from all sources. Doing nothing would not correct the market failure.

Your point about gas prices and driving behaviour is probably one of the main reasons why the Green Shift plan turns the excise tax into a carbon tax. At the end of four years the Green Shift would have a complete plan in place, taxing all carbon emissions equally. Correcting the market failure. At that point the market takes over. So yes, gotta love that free market.

[bk59]

I'm still waiting for you to propose one.

See the discussion regarding the Green Shift above. It isn't the plan I would have proposed had I started from scratch, but it's the one that is being discussed today in Canada. It's one that has a chance of actually being implemented.

Geoffrey Dalmer had a plan. What's your point?

My point is that you are simply whining on this forum. It's your right, but don't pretend you are adding anything of value to the discussion. Your idea that the Green Shift is a huge disincentive to the diesel car industry was wrong. Other than that, every time you are asked for a constructive opinion you always respond with "you first". That may have worked on the playground in grade school, but all it shows here is that you have nothing worthwhile to say.

[bk59]

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

Yes, it is. Even if everyone changed to diesel right now we would still need to reduce emissions. Diesel drivers need to change their behaviour as much as anyone else. A carbon tax on fuel makes everyone take into account how much they are using.

Of course I expected nothing less from you. Why bother to suggest an alternative when you can just say "no that's dumb"? The big cost of switching is the cost of the car, not the fuel. But you would have people believe that 7 cents per litre is somehow the death knell for diesel cars in Canada.

[bk59]

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.

First, we all know the Green Shift is not a perfect plan. No plan will be environmentally perfect unless we are willing to sacrifice our economy.

Like I said though, I don't buy this idea that hordes of people will flee from diesel because of 7 cents per litre. Using the 2004 numbers Wilber was quoting, a 7 cents per litre increase in diesel would reduce the incentive to switch by 17%. Instead of saving $449 in 2004 you would have saved $372 in 2004.

People may complain that before the carbon tax they could have saved more, but the fact remains that people can save significant money by switching, even after the carbon tax reaches 7 cents per litre in the fourth year.

[bk59]

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

Yeah, less appealing in the same way that a man offering you $372 for free is less appealing than a man offering you $449 for free. People would still take the $372.

[Wilber]

Your point about gas prices and driving behaviour is probably one of the main reasons why the Green Shift plan turns the excise tax into a carbon tax.

Garbage, you dress it up in a green jumpsuit because to increase the cost of gas would kill any chance of getting elected. Bugger all to do with emissions.

Yes, it is. Even if everyone changed to diesel right now we would still need to reduce emissions. Diesel drivers need to change their behaviour as much as anyone else. A carbon tax on fuel makes everyone take into account how much they are using.

Everyone except those who use gasoline.

Yes, it is. Even if everyone changed to diesel right now we would still need to reduce emissions. Diesel drivers need to change their behaviour as much as anyone else. A carbon tax on fuel makes everyone take into account how much they are using.

Everyone except those driving gasoline powered vehicles. Whoops, I forgot about the new green jumpsuit. Changes everything.

You know, seven years before you even dreamed of the Green Shift, I committed to a technology that emits over 30% less CO2. First I replaced my truck (a $5500 option at the time by the way, over $7000 now) and three years later, my car. Now you want to stick your hand in my pocket for my trouble while doing nothing to those who didn't make that commitment and you wonder why I am pissed.

[bk59]

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.

I'll give you that some people definitely use it in a patronizing way. But generally these are people who mean "you must change your behaviour" not "we must change our behaviour". The simple fact is that we emit way more than we should. This has to change through a number of methods including new technologies and attempting a more efficient lifestyle. The bottom line is that there needs to be a price on carbon, whether that be a tax or an emissions trading scheme or whatever. For better or worse, people won't try to be more efficient unless they have to pay for something.

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.

They changed their behaviour did they? I accept that you see people as driving less, not "pleasure driving", etc. And I do know some people who have acted this way. But I also know many people who do continue to "pleasure drive". So anecdotal evidence isn't really going to help here.

I did a quick google search and came up with this. Here is what the article says about gasoline demand:

Demand as measured by the volume of retail gasoline sales was 0.5% higher during the first five months this year compared with the same period last year, a Statistics Canada report released Thursday shows. The increase came despite a 23% jump in gas prices during the period, from a national average of $1.07 per litre of regular unleaded in early January to $1.32 by the end of May.

So it looks like, despite a 23% increase in price, Canadians are not changing their behaviour.

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.

...

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.

I have no doubt that public transit in many areas needs to be improved. And if your 10 minute / 90 minute difference is accurate then that needs to be improved. (Maybe as prices rise people will start demanding reasonable public transit.) Your statement about the inconvenience of walking to the bus stop is telling though. Why is that a huge inconvenience? Why does our society have this attitude? Unless you are something like a 30 minute walk from a bus stop this shouldn't be a huge inconvenience. It costs you the time, but nothing else. And it's healthier! The simple fact that you have to walk a bit should not be seen as a reason to avoid public transit.

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!

Yes a lot of people feel pressed for time. And we could have a philosophical discussion about the time demands of North American society and the demands of our working life. But at some point we will have to decide what is more important to us: the cost of giving up an extra 30 minutes Monday to Friday, or the costs of doing nothing about climate change.

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.

That really isn't obvious at all. There is a lot of room for acting more efficiently with respect to emissions. People think there is no room left because they don't want to give up all of the comforts that they have. If you reject alternatives because it might take a bit longer to get to work or because you might have to walk 10 minutes to a bus stop then obviously there appears to be nowhere to go.

Take energy prices for example. Canada has one of the cheapest energy rates in the world. Something like third or fifth lowest. And yet look at how people talk about the electricity rate increases in Ontario. It's as if the world will end if the rate continues to go up. And yet somehow the rest of the world deals with higher rates. My point is that just because we are used to something this does not mean that there is no other way to do it.

I take your point that the phrase "changing behaviour" or "changing attitudes" appears very 1984. The sad part is though, this is what has to be done. The difference between how I'm saying it and 1984 is that I think we should all participate in the discussion about how that happens.

[jdobbin]

As can gas drivers the cost of who's fuel you are not touching. How dare they opt for something that is 30% more efficient. It wasn't our idea so lets tax em. Of course the fact that they are already driving the more efficient models means nothing to you because it is all about the tax.

Actually, it has always been about the carbon. It is a fair and equal application of the tax on carbon products.

[jdobbin]

Garbage, you dress it up in a green jumpsuit because to increase the cost of gas would kill any chance of getting elected. Bugger all to do with emissions.

I agree. The tax you want would kill the program. You can dress it up any way you want but that is what you are hoping for.

The tax will be applied equally on carbon.

Everyone except those who use gasoline.

Everyone except those driving gasoline powered vehicles. Whoops, I forgot about the new green jumpsuit. Changes everything.

Those people using gas have already been taxed and will continue to be taxed.

You know, seven years before you even dreamed of the Green Shift, I committed to a technology that emits over 30% less CO2. First I replaced my truck (a $5500 option at the time by the way, over $7000 now) and three years later, my car. Now you want to stick your hand in my pocket for my trouble while doing nothing to those who didn't make that commitment and you wonder why I am pissed.

And I'm sure you'll feel even more unhappiness when the Tory plan hits you harder.

[Wilber]

I'll give you that some people definitely use it in a patronizing way. But generally these are people who mean "you must change your behaviour" not "we must change our behaviour".

I believe Bill has the right of it. You really don't mean "we", otherwise you wouldn't be trying to force your will on others.

So it looks like, despite a 23% increase in price, Canadians are not changing their behaviour.

So you need to increase it more until they do, right? Wait a minute, increasing the price of gas is not part of the Green Shift. Hmm.

[Wilber]

I

agree. The tax you want would kill the program. You can dress it up any way you want but that is what you are hoping for.

Exactly, it's about getting elected, not emissions. I am not the politician and believe it or not this is not a political issue for me, it is a taxation and emissions issue, pure and simple.

Those people using gas have already been taxed and will continue to be taxed.

But nothing will be done to change their behavior or reduce their emissions.

[bk59]

Garbage, you dress it up in a green jumpsuit because to increase the cost of gas would kill any chance of getting elected. Bugger all to do with emissions.

If you think that any plan that taxes gas will never be implemented then what is the point? Are you just complaining that the world is unfair?

What is the better option for the environment?

1. Introduce a plan that, at the end of the fourth year, treats carbon emissions equally even if the tax on gas does not change within those four years.

2. Do nothing for the environment at all because you want to have a plan that taxes gas even though you admit that no one will ever vote for such a plan.

No matter what you say, the Green Shift does deal with emissions. It may not deal with emissions in the way that you want, but it does deal with emissions.

You know, seven years before you even dreamed of the Green Shift, I committed to a technology that emits over 30% less CO2. First I replaced my truck (a $5500 option at the time by the way, over $7000 now) and three years later, my car. Now you want to stick your hand in my pocket for my trouble while doing nothing to those who didn't make that commitment and you wonder why I am pissed.

And now we get to the real reason behind your opposition. You are pissed because you can only see your own situation. Fair enough. But you also got the benefit of that switch in terms of less money spent on fuel. And let's face it, there are others out there doing even more to reduce their emissions and it is certainly costing them a lot more than it's costing you. You also ignore the fact that you will be saving money on income taxes. That hand in your pocket is also putting some money in. I don't know if it will be equal, but it certainly isn't all about the taking.

If you have a way of increasing the tax on gas and still getting your plan passed in Parliament then by all means tell everyone. Otherwise you're just upset that transitioning fuel costs so that emissions are treated equally at the end of four years will affect you more during those four years than others.

[bk59]

I believe Bill has the right of it. You really don't mean "we", otherwise you wouldn't be trying to force your will on others.

Hahaha. Of course. The Liberal plan means forcing someone's will on someone else. Tell me, when the Conservative government proposes a plan is that the Conservative party forcing someone's will on someone else?

By your definition all government is forcing someone's will on others. If this is your problem with the plan then you are going to have to search the world long and hard for a country where the only government elected is one that gets 100% of the votes and 100% of the people agree with 100% of what the government says and does. Actually, I will save you some time: you will never find a place like that.

So label the Liberal plan as forcing their will on people if you want. It is no different than any other party "forcing their will" on people. Democracy is a b*tch, huh?

[jdobbin]

Exactly, it's about getting elected, not emissions. I am not the politician and believe it or not this is not a political issue for me, it is a taxation and emissions issue, pure and simple.

It is also about emissions.

Will your politics keep you from voting Tory when they hit you for even more costs on fuel that are passed on to you?

But nothing will be done to change their behavior or reduce their emissions.

It has already happened and will continue to happen.

As I said, vote Tory. Please vote Tory. Tell me how the Tory plan will be better. Explain it to me. If fuel costs are the only thing you are concerned about why are you not out of your mind angry at the Tories? It is a question you avoid answering over and over and over again. You are upset about a 7 cent increase on diesel but don't seem to care in the slightest about how the Tory plan will affect you in in the pocketbook.

Edited August 21, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

Yeah, less appealing in the same way that a man offering you $372 for free is less appealing than a man offering you $449 for free. People would still take the $372.

What the hell are you talking about, it's my tax money, it is not a gift and it is not free. You remind me of a certain other ideology which believed everything belonged to the state and only it should decide what people should or should not have.

And now we get to the real reason behind your opposition. You are pissed because you can only see your own situation. Fair enough. But you also got the benefit of that switch in terms of less money spent on fuel.

Damn right, I put my money where my mouth is. Any idea how many kilometers you would have to drive in order to make back that $5500 in fuel savings with diesel already costing more than gas. My seven year old truck has 85K on it and at that rate I will probably never make it back even without your tax. I guess saving a little money by emitting less must be a crime because you seem intent on taking it away.

And let's face it, there are others out there doing even more to reduce their emissions and it is certainly costing them a lot more than it's costing you.

How do you know, we are only talking about motor vehicles here.

Will your politics keep you from voting Tory when they hit you for even more costs on fuel that are passed on to you?

If they just picked on diesel without addressing gasoline, it definitely could. Don't think you would just get my vote by default however, there are other options and I am not above spoiling a ballot in lieu of a none of the above choice.

It has already happened and will continue to happen.

Yes, the old tax in the new green beanie again.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Wilber

[Wild Bill]

The bottom line is that there needs to be a price on carbon, whether that be a tax or an emissions trading scheme or whatever.

<snip>

But at some point we will have to decide what is more important to us: the cost of giving up an extra 30 minutes Monday to Friday, or the costs of doing nothing about climate change.

<snip>

I take your point that the phrase "changing behaviour" or "changing attitudes" appears very 1984. The sad part is though, this is what has to be done.

Your entire argument is based on the premise that climate change is not just real but within man's control.

Not everyone agrees with your premise. To you it may be gospel but to others its just your personal opinion. You seem to feel that taxing folks like me will save us from ourselves. We see it as you are hurting us for nothing but a mistaken premise.

When do folks like me get to tax folks like YOU for something?

Let's start with country music. Nail on a sky-high tax and maybe we can reduce consumption!

[jdobbin]

Your entire argument is based on the premise that climate change is not just real but within man's control.

This is the fallback argument that some conservatives are sure to use: global warming is not happening, if it is, it is not man-made and if it is happening, we can't do anything about it.

[Wild Bill]

This is the fallback argument that some conservatives are sure to use: global warming is not happening, if it is, it is not man-made and if it is happening, we can't do anything about it.

What's your point? Why would anyone who disagreed with the premise want to pay for nothing of value?

Are you suggesting people MUST agree with you?

Geez, at least the Witness at my door on a weekend morning ASKS me and doesn't TELL me to read his magazine!

[jdobbin]

What's your point? Why would anyone who disagreed with the premise want to pay for nothing of value?

Are you suggesting people MUST agree with you?

Geez, at least the Witness at my door on a weekend morning ASKS me and doesn't TELL me to read his magazine!

Nope, just hoping that that is how the Tories campaign in the election.