NDP's Layton promises investments

Wild Bill · August 12, 2008

It was always included. It comes out to 10 cents a litre.
Diesel will be taxed at 7 cents a litre after four years.

Finally, some numbers!

Ok, we've established that diesel is a LOT cleaner than gas! Now you state that a diesel owner will save the enormous sum of 3 cents on every litre.

If that's all, as a buyer I would look VERY carefully at the total cost of owning a diesel. If it's at all more expensive than a gasoline engine it might take a very long time indeed to convert that 3 cents into breakeven, let alone a saving.

Unless there is something else of practical saving to my budget, I would buy a gasoline car. So what if it puts out a LOT more carbon! I would expect a LOT more of an incentive!

jdobbin · August 12, 2008

Finally, some numbers!
Ok, we've established that diesel is a LOT cleaner than gas! Now you state that a diesel owner will save the enormous sum of 3 cents on every litre.

If that's all, as a buyer I would look VERY carefully at the total cost of owning a diesel. If it's at all more expensive than a gasoline engine it might take a very long time indeed to convert that 3 cents into breakeven, let alone a saving.

Unless there is something else of practical saving to my budget, I would buy a gasoline car. So what if it puts out a LOT more carbon! I would expect a LOT more of an incentive!

Given that diesel often has better mileage, you could still do better that type of vehicle. It is taxed less and it usually gets better mileage.

You might have only 3 cents a litre difference in tax on a full tank but it is the fuel efficiency of the engine and the fuel that will count.

bk59 · August 12, 2008

Finally, some numbers!
Ok, we've established that diesel is a LOT cleaner than gas! Now you state that a diesel owner will save the enormous sum of 3 cents on every litre.

If that's all, as a buyer I would look VERY carefully at the total cost of owning a diesel. If it's at all more expensive than a gasoline engine it might take a very long time indeed to convert that 3 cents into breakeven, let alone a saving.

Unless there is something else of practical saving to my budget, I would buy a gasoline car. So what if it puts out a LOT more carbon! I would expect a LOT more of an incentive!

This is the problem with a complex tax like carbon tax. Because people may look at that three cents and say exactly the same thing. What everyone will have to consider is that you will generally be able to drive further on a litre of diesel than on a litre of gasoline. Meaning less emissions over a period of time and less money paid in taxes. Not to mention fuel price over the same period.

It is entirely possible that instead of switching to diesel people will simply drive less. If that does happen though, it is entirely possible that driving less will be better for the environment than switching to diesel. So perhaps not a bad thing.

Even though it is perhaps complex, it is still necessary to tax the carbon emissions themselves, and not pick and choose which methods are worthy of the tax and which get blessed with carbon tax-free status.

gc1765 · August 12, 2008

Finally, some numbers!
Ok, we've established that diesel is a LOT cleaner than gas! Now you state that a diesel owner will save the enormous sum of 3 cents on every litre.

If that's all, as a buyer I would look VERY carefully at the total cost of owning a diesel. If it's at all more expensive than a gasoline engine it might take a very long time indeed to convert that 3 cents into breakeven, let alone a saving.

Unless there is something else of practical saving to my budget, I would buy a gasoline car. So what if it puts out a LOT more carbon! I would expect a LOT more of an incentive!

In that case, let's double the carbon tax! 20 cents per litre on gasoline, 14 cents for diesel, giving a difference of 6 cents. Your incentive just doubled! Not to mention you would get twice the reduction in income taxes. Maybe you should write your MP and suggest that the carbon tax is not high enough. :lol:

Wilber · August 12, 2008

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.

Nonsense, you can't tax emissions unless you know the efficiency of the powerplant using the fuel. Some waste more than others. If you have two identical vehicles with two different engines producing the same power. One can propel the vehicle 10 miles on a pound of hydrocarbons and the other 15 at the same speed, which is more efficient and why would you add a tax to the one that goes 15 and not the one that goes 10? That is exactly what diesels do and that is why I gave you the example of the two VW's. It couldn't be more clear, yet you and dobbin want to add a tax to the more efficient engine and discourage its use while doing nothing to discourage the use of gas powered vehicles which consume and emit far more for the same distance traveled. In short, you want to tax efficiency. This is dogma run amok and a perfect example of why I maintain all politicians are potentialy dangerous.

There are several other reasons why diesels are more efficient but THIS puts it simply.

Edited August 12, 2008 by Wilber

madmax · August 12, 2008

It was always included. It comes out to 10 cents a litre.
Diesel will be taxed at 7 cents a litre after four years.

What's that tax on Home Heating Oil?

madmax · August 12, 2008

Finally, some numbers!
Ok, we've established that diesel is a LOT cleaner than gas! Now you state that a diesel owner will save the enormous sum of 3 cents on every litre.

If that's all, as a buyer I would look VERY carefully at the total cost of owning a diesel. If it's at all more expensive than a gasoline engine it might take a very long time indeed to convert that 3 cents into breakeven, let alone a saving.

Unless there is something else of practical saving to my budget, I would buy a gasoline car. So what if it puts out a LOT more carbon! I would expect a LOT more of an incentive!

What Wild Bill. You wouldn't pay more for diesel if it was more environmentally friendly? Shame on you. Shame on you Wild Bill.

Take the bus and save the.... hey, Hamilton still have those electric buses..... or are they all diesel?

madmax · August 12, 2008

In that case, let's double the carbon tax! 20 cents per litre on gasoline, 14 cents for diesel, giving a difference of 6 cents. Your incentive just doubled! Not to mention you would get twice the reduction in income taxes. Maybe you should write your MP and suggest that the carbon tax is not high enough.

With the numbers coming out. This tax appears more and more like the tax abusing, political excuse for an environmental program.

I tell you, I read Wilber and (WILDER) and their comments make alot of sense to me. The real reason that Gas is not being taxed at the pump is because the LPC know is political suicide to tax the pump of regular fuel, and now their arguments with regards to diesel are upside down and backwards.

What a scam.

bk59 · August 12, 2008

Nonsense, you can't tax emissions unless you know the efficiency of the powerplant using the fuel. Some waste more than others. If you have two identical vehicles with two different engines producing the same power. One can propel the vehicle 10 miles on a pound of hydrocarbons and the other 15 at the same speed, which is more efficient and why would you add a tax to the one that goes 15 and not the one that goes 10? That is exactly what diesels do and that is why I gave you the example of the two VW's. It couldn't be more clear, yet you and dobbin want to add a tax to the more efficient engine and discourage its use while doing nothing to discourage the use of gas powered vehicles which consume and emit far more for the same distance traveled. In short, you want to tax efficiency. This is dogma run amok and a perfect example of why I maintain all politicians are potentialy dangerous.
There are several other reasons why diesels are more efficient but THIS puts it simply.

Well here is your first problem. You are not talking about the right kind of efficiency. You are talking about gas mileage. The carbon tax has nothing to do with gas mileage (per se). The carbon tax is a tax on greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore the efficiency we are talking about is how much carbon gets released into the atmosphere per litre of fuel. Not how many kilometers the car can go on a litre of fuel.

When comparing two vehicles, one that can get 10 kilometers per litre and one that can get 15 kilometers per litre, the gas mileage does not indicate the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that are released by either car. The two fuels may release carbon dioxide in a much different ratio (e.g. instead of 10 to 15 the gas emissions may actually be 12 tonnes per 100 litres versus 15 tonnes per 100 litres).

What couldn't be more clear is that with your example of gas mileage you do not understand what it is that is being taxed. I was curious as to where you got your diesel versus gas stats before. Could you please share that link? I wouldn't mind taking a look at it for myself.

Your second problem is that you still haven't realized that this is not a tax that is just being added to diesel only. The current gas tax equates to a carbon tax of $42 per tonne of carbon. Under the plan the current tax would essentially become the carbon tax. While it will take four years to bring the diesel tax to that level, the gas tax is already there. They are replacing the current gas tax with a carbon tax on gas at the same level.

You may want to refrain from accusing others of "dogma run amuck" when your post is nothing but a misguided attack based solely on your belief that this carbon tax plan is bad.

bk59 · August 12, 2008

With the numbers coming out. This tax appears more and more like the tax abusing, political excuse for an environmental program.
I tell you, I read Wilber and (WILDER) and their comments make alot of sense to me. The real reason that Gas is not being taxed at the pump is because the LPC know is political suicide to tax the pump of regular fuel, and now their arguments with regards to diesel are upside down and backwards.

What a scam.

All I can say is that you might want to read someone else then. Perhaps someone who is actually talking about what is being taxed rather than bringing in facts that have nothing to do with a carbon tax.

If diesel emits less carbon per litre when burned than gasoline then the amount of money you spend on the carbon tax in a year will be less on diesel than on gasoline. This will encourage people to use the more efficient fuel - that is the fuel that releases less carbon into the atmosphere per litre. The mileage you get is irrelevant to the carbon tax.

Gas will be taxed. The current tax will become the carbon tax. It is a straight up swap - drop the old tax, add the new tax.

Wilber · August 12, 2008

Well here is your first problem. You are not talking about the right kind of efficiency. You are talking about gas mileage. The carbon tax has nothing to do with gas mileage (per se). The carbon tax is a tax on greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore the efficiency we are talking about is how much carbon gets released into the atmosphere per litre of fuel. Not how many kilometers the car can go on a litre of fuel.

Cripes, emissions are directly related to mileage. The more you burn the more you emit. If it is not related to mileage, why are you taxing it at all? Everyone should just go back to their V8 SUV's. Diesels extract more power from the same amount of hydrocarbons, that means they need less fuel therefore they emit less, that is the definition of efficiency. You can't emit what you don't burn. Gaawd.

The gas powered VW in my example emitted over 1000 kilos or 1/3 more per year than the same car with the same size diesel engine producing approximately the same power. How clearer can it get?

Your second problem is that you still haven't realized that this is not a tax that is just being added to diesel only. The current gas tax equates to a carbon tax of $42 per tonne of carbon. Under the plan the current tax would essentially become the carbon tax. While it will take four years to bring the diesel tax to that level, the gas tax is already there. They are replacing the current gas tax with a carbon tax on gas at the same level.

What you don't seem to realize is that diesel is already more expensive than gasoline and you want to tax it to a level where it is less economical compared to a gasoline vehicle thus discouraging people from buying them. Again, a tax on efficiency. Dogma and politicking pure and simple. Absolutely nothing to do with reducing vehicle emissions. But I guess those 53% of Western Europeans that you like to point to as shining examples and who are buying diesel instead of gas vehicles have their heads up their collective backsides because they haven't talked to you yet.

Wild Bill · August 12, 2008

What Wild Bill. You wouldn't pay more for diesel if it was more environmentally friendly? Shame on you. Shame on you Wild Bill.
Take the bus and save the.... hey, Hamilton still have those electric buses..... or are they all diesel?

I've lived here for nearly 50 years. In all that time I have never lived and worked at locations that suited the bus!

I would have walked more than I rode.

My wife figured out that if she took public transit to work it would take her nearly 90 minutes, assuming no delays due to bad weather where the buses slowed down. Meanwhile, she drives there in 10 minutes!

Hamilton's bus service was designed in the years when all the factories were at one end of town and all the workers lived at the other. Since then I swear they've never updated it! Plus, they have the problem that the city has grown on two levels, the old core and above on the escarpment. The "up-and-down" connections are very awkward and slow.

Last but not least, we have suburbs forcibly amalgamated into Hamilton by the Harris government. (McGuinty promised to reverse this. Another lie...) These suburbs get little or no bus service at all and fiercely resent paying taxes to services "not rendered".

It's a situation that just keeps getting worse and worse. Some day someone's gonna go postal!

Edited August 12, 2008 by Wild Bill

bk59 · August 12, 2008

Cripes, emissions are directly related to mileage. The more you burn the more you emit. If it is not related to mileage, why are you taxing it at all? Everyone should just go back to their V8 SUV's. Diesels extract more power from the same amount of hydrocarbons, that means they need less fuel therefore they emit less, that is the definition of efficiency. You can't emit what you don't burn. Gaawd.

Good, you have grasped the first half of the problem. Burning more of substance X will give more emissions than burning less of substance X. Now for the part that REALLY matters:

When burned, different substances (or fuels) will give off different emissions. Example: burning coal does not release the same amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as burning natural gas. Likewise, gasoline and diesel are different.

Now then, a carbon tax does not tax fuel based on mileage. A carbon tax will tax a fuel based on how much carbon it emits when used. The amount of carbon released in a year due to your driving therefore depends on 1) the composition of the fuel itself, and 2) how much you use.

Incidentally, in your post, that is NOT the definition of efficiency. Using less fuel to go further is one type of efficiency. Releasing less carbon into the atmosphere using less fuel is a DIFFERENT type of efficiency. "Gaawd."

The gas powered VW in my example emitted over 1000 kilos or 1/3 more per year than the same car with the same size diesel engine producing approximately the same power. How clearer can it get?

Yeah... I'm going to have to see the link to the actual data. Mostly because your example using gas mileage was so far off point I have no idea where you got your numbers or what numbers you were even looking at.

Dogma and politicking pure and simple. Absolutely nothing to do with reducing vehicle emissions. But I guess those 53% of Western Europeans that you like to point to as shining examples and who are buying diesel instead of gas vehicles have their heads up their collective backsides because they haven't talked to you yet.

You are becoming incoherent. What exactly are you referring to when you bring up "53% of Western Europeans"? The percentage of drivers who use diesel? How is that relevant to your "point"?

madmax · August 12, 2008

Perhaps someone who is actually talking about what is being taxed rather than bringing in facts that have nothing to do with a carbon tax.
If diesel emits less carbon per litre when burned than gasoline then the amount of money you spend on the carbon tax in a year will be less on diesel than on gasoline. This will encourage people to use the more efficient fuel - that is the fuel that releases less carbon into the atmosphere per litre. The mileage you get is irrelevant to the carbon tax.

What about Heating oil. This isn't all about transport. Its a tax on everything.

Gas will be taxed. The current tax will become the carbon tax. It is a straight up swap - drop the old tax, add the new tax.

SCAM< SCAM < SCAM

the Tax SHift is a scam.

Meanwhile, people are giving logical reasons to use lower carbon burning fuels, and you pull out some political BS spin, that if Diesel is taxed, they will use diesel because it is less taxed then the Gas, which won't be taxed at all except for the tax that is already on it, until you change it to the carbon tax., so therefore it is ok to tax diesel, which is essentially home heating oil, which is the real reason why you want to tax diesel, because if home heating oil was taxed and diesel wasn't people would get clever REAL QUICK.

It is not very different from propane which pays taxes at the pump, but not by weight for your BBQ tank.

After reading the posts, from people who seem to understand and care about the environment, receive a tin ear from knowitall Taxshift spindoctors, it is clear to me, that the LPC is more interested in securing lost revenue from their tax breaks, then caring about the environment.

The tax shift is a scam. The Green shift is a lie.

bk59 · August 12, 2008

In an effort to bring some rationality back to the discussion I did a bit of digging. And found an interesting webpage here (from the US EPA):

CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline = 2,421 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 8,788 grams = 8.8 kg/gallon = 19.4 pounds/gallon
CO2 emissions from a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon = 22.2 pounds/gallon

Looks like diesel may not be as efficient as gasoline.

But maybe that is regular diesel they are talking about. I am not sure. So, best case scenario for diesel is if we then go to a bio-diesel blend. Apparently bio-diesel blends can give up to a 15% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions (see here).

That would mean that bio-diesel blends would emit approximately 8.585 kg of carbon dioxide per gallon.

Perhaps diesel isn't so great after all?

Wilber · August 12, 2008

Now then, a carbon tax does not tax fuel based on mileage. A carbon tax will tax a fuel based on how much carbon it emits when used. The amount of carbon released in a year due to your driving therefore depends on 1) the composition of the fuel itself, and 2) how much you use.
Incidentally, in your post, that is NOT the definition of efficiency. Using less fuel to go further is one type of efficiency. Releasing less carbon into the atmosphere using less fuel is a DIFFERENT type of efficiency. "Gaawd."

You just can't accept that some machines use carbon more efficiently than others can you.

Back to my example from the Federal governments own fuel consumption guide.

Gas VW: Mileage 29 city 40 highway. Annual CO2 emissions 4021 kilos

Diesel VW Mileage 46 city 61 highway. Annual CO2 emissions 2992 kilos

I use the 2004 year because that was the last year they used the same size engines. In 2005 the gas powered car went to a larger engine and the difference between the two in mileage and emissions is even greater.

Tell me again that emissions aren't related to mileage.

Yeah... I'm going to have to see the link to the actual data. Mostly because your example using gas mileage was so far off point I have no idea where you got your numbers or what numbers you were even looking at.

Here's the LINK

Feel free to compare any cars mileage to its CO2 emissions and tell me again they aren't related. You will find they are directly related. If consumption is not related to emissions, why the hell do you want to tax carbon in the first place?

gc1765 · August 12, 2008

The real reason that Gas is not being taxed at the pump is because the LPC know is political suicide to tax the pump of regular fuel...

I agree. However, I would rather the government tax some fuels rather than none. I also think that Harper knows a carbon tax is a good idea, but is opposed to the idea because he thinks it is political suicide.

bk59 · August 12, 2008

What about Heating oil. This isn't all about transport. Its a tax on everything.

This is not just about transport. It is about everything that emits greenhouse gasses.

SCAM< SCAM < SCAM
the Tax SHift is a scam.

Simply saying that does not make it so.

Meanwhile, people are giving logical reasons to use lower carbon burning fuels, and you pull out some political BS spin, ...

Wait, the "logical reason" to use diesel was that it gets better gas mileage? Is that the logical reason? GAS MILEAGE HAS NO IMPACT ON HOW MANY TONNES OF CARBON DIOXIDE A FUEL WILL EMIT PER LITRE USED. Gas mileage does not show whether or not a fuel is a lower or higher carbon burning fuel. In fact, the REAL data shows that diesel may not be that more efficient than gasoline, and in fact, in most cases, is worse. See my post above.

Damn that science. Or is that "political BS spin" as well?

...that if Diesel is taxed, they will use diesel because it is less taxed then the Gas, which won't be taxed at all except for the tax that is already on it, until you change it to the carbon tax., so therefore it is ok to tax diesel
...

After reading the posts, from people who seem to understand and care about the environment, receive a tin ear from knowitall Taxshift spindoctors, it is clear to me, that the LPC is more interested in securing lost revenue from their tax breaks, then caring about the environment.

The tax shift is a scam. The Green shift is a lie.

The whole point is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore the tax is on greenhouse gas emissions. That means the current tax on gasoline can stay where it is to help put pressure on people to use less. But to achieve the goal, it means that we need to start taxing everything else that emits greenhouse gas emissions. Including diesel and heating oil and etc. All in an effort to reduce emissions. At the end of the four years the taxes on diesel, heating oil, gasoline, etc. will all be equal with respect to carbon emissions.

It is true that over the first four years people may not feel the need to reduce their gas use simply because it does not appear that there is a carbon tax on gas. Fair enough. But going forward, that tax will be there and it will be treated the same as everything else. As it should be for a carbon tax.

As for securing lost revenue... what are you talking about? What lost revenue needs to be made up by introducing the Green Shift plan? Remember, the income tax cuts and added tax benefits that come along with this package means that the government will not be making more money because of the carbon tax.

Wilber · August 12, 2008

Just one more diesel VS gas mileage and emissions comparison because it's the only one there is with the same cars with engines the same size. Both have 3 liter, six cylinder engines.

Mercedes E300 gas: Mileage 23 city 32 highway. Annual CO2 emissions 5184 kilos

Mercedes E320 diesel: Mileage 31 city 46 highway. Annual CO2 emissions 4128 kilos

Someone tell me again that mileage and emissions aren't related and diesels aren't more efficient in both fuel economy and emissions.

gc1765 · August 12, 2008

Just one more diesel VS gas mileage and emissions comparison because it's the only one there is with the same cars with engines the same size. Both have 3 liter, six cylinder engines.
Mercedes E300 gas: Mileage 23 city 32 highway. Annual CO2 emissions 5184 kilos

Mercedes E320 diesel: Mileage 31 city 46 highway. Annual CO2 emissions 4128 kilos

Someone tell me again that mileage and emissions aren't related and diesels aren't more efficient in both fuel economy and emissions.

What's your point? If diesel cars are as efficient as you say, then you are putting less fuel into your tank and therefore are saving more money. Where's the problem in that?

bk59 · August 12, 2008

Wilber, this whole long discussion started out because I was trying to show you what the carbon tax ACTUALLY taxes. The carbon tax is based on the amount of CO2 that the fuel will release when used. It is that simple. It is in dollars per tonne of CO2 released.

Diesel is actually a worse fuel than gasoline in terms of emitting carbon. Your own link shows that:

1 L OF GASOLINE
(regular or premium) produces 2.36 kg of CO2

1 L OF DIESEL FUEL produces 2.73 kg of CO2

I have clearly stated that the total amount of carbon released per year will depend on:

1) the fuel used, and

2) the amount you use.

But you tried to claim that mileage shows diesel is the more efficient fuel. It is not the more efficient fuel in terms of releasing CO2. And mileage shows you nothing about how many tonnes of CO2 will be released when you burn a litre of fuel.

jdobbin · August 12, 2008

What's that tax on Home Heating Oil?

It will rise $200 a year on average with a $40 per tonne carbon tax.

jdobbin · August 12, 2008

I tell you, I read Wilber and (WILDER) and their comments make alot of sense to me. The real reason that Gas is not being taxed at the pump is because the LPC know is political suicide to tax the pump of regular fuel, and now their arguments with regards to diesel are upside down and backwards.

Gas will be taxed at the pump.

The NDP are now trying to spend that tax on public transit. Still wondering how places with no public transit will be treated by Layton's plan.

Wilber · August 12, 2008

Wilber, this whole long discussion started out because I was trying to show you what the carbon tax ACTUALLY taxes. The carbon tax is based on the amount of CO2 that the fuel will release when used. It is that simple. It is in dollars per tonne of CO2 released.
Diesel is actually a worse fuel than gasoline in terms of emitting carbon. Your own link shows that:

I have clearly stated that the total amount of carbon released per year will depend on:

1) the fuel used, and

2) the amount you use.

But you tried to claim that mileage shows diesel is the more efficient fuel. It is not the more efficient fuel in terms of releasing CO2. And mileage shows you nothing about how many tonnes of CO2 will be released when you burn a litre of fuel.

Jeez Louise, did you even look at the link I gave you or did you just ignore it? My guess. I did not claim that diesel is a more efficient fuel. Fuels don't have efficiencies, only the machines that use them. I am stating that diesel engines are far more efficient in the way they use their fuel (as are gas hybrids) which makes them much lower consumers and emitters, an established engineering fact that is patently obvious in both of the examples I gave you.

1 L OF GASOLINE
(regular or premium) produces 2.36 kg of CO2

1 L OF DIESEL FUEL produces 2.73 kg of CO2

Lets get something straight right off. Fuel does not contain CO2. There ain't no O in oil so to speak. CO2 is produced when the fuel is burned and the carbon in it combines with oxygen in the atmosphere to produce CO2.

I am aware that a liter of diesel contains more carbon than a liter of gasoline. Using your numbers 16% more but if the VW diesel goes over 50% farther (federal government figures) on that liter it has to emit over 30% less per kilometer than the gas engine. The carbon just isn't there in that liter of fuel for it to do otherwise. Why is it so difficult for you to understand something so simple? It really isn't any more complicated than simple arithmetic.

The carbon tax taxes carbon. By adding an additional tax to diesel and not gasoline, it puts a new tax on the more efficient and lower emitting technology while leaving the more wasteful and higher emitting one alone. It really is that simple and if you really are serious about reducing CO2 emissions perhaps you should rethink that particular policy.

jdobbin · August 12, 2008

The carbon tax taxes carbon. By adding an additional tax to diesel and not gasoline, it puts a new tax on the more efficient and lower emitting technology while leaving the more wasteful and higher emitting one alone. It really is that simple and if you really are serious about reducing CO2 emissions perhaps you should rethink that particular policy.

Once again, gas is not left alone. It is taxed at 10 cents per litre.

Diesel still comes off better than gas. That won't change.