NDP backtracks on carbon tax

[jdobbin]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...carbon-tax.html

B.C. New Democrats are backing away from their opposition to the government's carbon tax and their call for an immediate moratorium on independent power projects (IPPs).

Premier Gordon Campbell couldn't be more pleased by the decision announced by NDP Leader Carole James on Thursday.

"I think Ms. James is now trying to repair a party that was badly damaged by the fact they were expedient instead of principled," the premier said Friday. "But they have been the most anti-environmental political party in the country."

The NDP lost a lot of the environmental vote by opposing the carbon tax.

For those that thought the Liberals were doomed for initiating it, it looks like it hurt the NDP a whole lot more.

[Borg]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...carbon-tax.html

The NDP lost a lot of the environmental vote by opposing the carbon tax.

For those that thought the Liberals were doomed for initiating it, it looks like it hurt the NDP a whole lot more.

LOL!

NDP - provincial or federal - an excellent way to waste a vote.

Borg

[Smallc]

yeah, since they form the government in two provinces.

[madmax]

The NDP lost a lot of the environmental vote by opposing the carbon tax.

For those that thought the Liberals were doomed for initiating it, it looks like it hurt the NDP a whole lot more.

The Liberal and NDP numbers pretty much stayed the same, status quo.

The NDP were neither hurt nor helped, and the same is true for the Liberals.

It didn't become a ballot question.

The Carbon Tax is greenwashing garbage, and I think the NDP is wrong to try to give it legitimacy by making it better.

This move looks like it could hurt the NDP...a whole lot more.

[jdobbin]

The Liberal and NDP numbers pretty much stayed the same, status quo.

The NDP were neither hurt nor helped, and the same is true for the Liberals.

I don't think that is exactly true. Even the NDP admit the stance hur them in the polls and with their members.

It didn't become a ballot question.

I don't know that was true either. Many believed the Liberal's choice would defeat them. Instead it is becoming more popular.

The Carbon Tax is greenwashing garbage, and I think the NDP is wrong to try to give it legitimacy by making it better.

This move looks like it could hurt the NDP...a whole lot more.

Some people think that any greehhouse policy is non-sense along with any other environmental laws. I think the NDP wants to make sure they are not on the wrong side of the issue. There are other things to oppose the government on.

[Machjo]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...carbon-tax.html

The NDP lost a lot of the environmental vote by opposing the carbon tax.

For those that thought the Liberals were doomed for initiating it, it looks like it hurt the NDP a whole lot more.

Iwouldn't be surprised if alot of Dippers ended up plugging their noses and voting Liberal over the Carbon Tax.

[Borg]

yeah, since they form the government in two provinces.

True - they ruined ontario and saskatchewan - now they have two more to go.

Ask the folks in Ontario if they want those bastards back

Borg

[Machjo]

And to those who think the environmental movement is all a scam, what about the basic principle of preserving limited resources, environmental concerns notwithstanding?

[WIP]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...carbon-tax.html

The NDP lost a lot of the environmental vote by opposing the carbon tax.

For those that thought the Liberals were doomed for initiating it, it looks like it hurt the NDP a whole lot more.

So the B.C. NDP is finally realizing it's not smart to crap where you eat? You can't wrap yourself in a green flag and call yourself an environmentalist if you're going to dump the issue over the side as an election campaign strategy.

[Machjo]

So the B.C. NDP is finally realizing it's not smart to crap where you eat? You can't wrap yourself in a green flag and call yourself an environmentalist if you're going to dump the issue over the side as an election campaign strategy.

Not quite the way I would have expressed it, but essentially yes, you're right.

[Smallc]

They ruined Saskatchewan? Really? Saskatchewan started to grow rapidly under the NDP.

Have the NDP ruined Manitoba? We're now far less dependent on equalization than we were when they were elected.

[Riverwind]

And to those who think the environmental movement is all a scam, what about the basic principle of preserving limited resources, environmental concerns notwithstanding?

I am all for preserving limited resources but government mandates for inefficient "green" technologies simply waste more resources and create more waste in the long run.

If you concrete examples of my claim:

1) Wind turbines and solar panels require kilograms of rare earth elements which are in extremely short supply globally.

2) Carbon sequentration schemes burn 30% MORE fossil fuel in order to capture the CO2.

There was a time when people claimed the automobile would clean up cities which were drowning in horse crap at the time.

History tells us that all we did was trade one form of pollution for another.

It is simply not rational to claim that doing anything about CO2 will reduce pollution - it will do nothing trade one form of pollution for another.

[Machjo]

They ruined Saskatchewan? Really? Saskatchewan started to grow rapidly under the NDP.

Have the NDP ruined Manitoba? We're now far less dependent on equalization than we were when they were elected.

Parties are nothing mroe than composites of their members. If we look at it that way, then it's natrual to conclude that the BC NDP and the Manitoba NDP, in spite of their common name, will have policy differences. Same with the Federal Liberal party and the Liberal Party of Ontario, or the PC Party of Ontario and the PC party of another province, etc. They cannot always be so simply categorized according to name. In theory, it could even happen that the Liberal Party in one provicne is to the right of the PC in another, or the NDP in one province could be to the right of a Liberal Party in another. Same applies to the Green party of course, as with any other party.

Also, it may be that the members of a particular political party are more competent than the member of a party bearing the same name in another province, or at the federal level, etc.

In the end, it makes more sense to consdier your own local candidates on their own independent merits rather than try to stereotype them according to any kind of party affiliation. After all, in a given riding, you could end up with a Liberal who's more to the right than his Conservative counterpart, or a Dipper who's more to the right than his Liberal counterpart, os simply a competent member of a frindge party or an incompetent member sporting a major brand... er, I mean party, name. In the grand scheme of things, party affiliation says little about the members who comprise that party.

[WIP]

1) Wind turbines and solar panels require kilograms of rare earth elements which are in extremely short supply globally.

2) Carbon sequentration schemes burn 30% MORE fossil fuel in order to capture the CO2.

There was a time when people claimed the automobile would clean up cities which were drowning in horse crap at the time.

History tells us that all we did was trade one form of pollution for another.

It is simply not rational to claim that doing anything about CO2 will reduce pollution - it will do nothing trade one form of pollution for another.

So your solution is just to keep on with business as usual! Those alternative technologies can be improved. I don't know about your claim that wind turbines "require" precious metals. Offhand, I'd like to know how the Dutch built windmills for centuries without needing precious metals.

Aside from that, we do know that oil is running out; even oil industry analysts are starting to take the issue of peak oil seriously. But, maybe that's a good thing since burning fossil fuels means continued increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. And there are consequences to elevated CO2 levels, including enhancing the greenhouse effect and making the world's oceans more acidic. Doing nothing is worse than making failed attempts to bring the Age of Oil to a close.

[Machjo]

WIP, I noticed your signature. Following the same logic, could we not arugue that socialism is a gateway drug to communism? Id don't agree with that, but then again, neither do I agree with its opposite.

[Riverwind]

So your solution is just to keep on with business as usual!

Give the choice between letting the market find the solutions and letting corrupt politicans craft rules designed to reward their supporters I would choose the market.

Those alternative technologies can be improved. I don't know about your claim that wind turbines "require" precious metals. Offhand, I'd like to know how the Dutch built windmills for centuries without needing precious metals.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/go...-dependence.php

A single three-megawatt wind generator (modest, as utility-scale wind turbines go) contains more than a ton of super magnets, more than 700 pounds of which is neodymium.

Dutch windmills did not need to keep to lights on 24/7

Aside from that, we do know that oil is running out; even oil industry analysts are starting to take the issue of peak oil seriously.

So? The price will go up and we will need to find alternatives when it does. The difference is the alternatives will be driven by economics and not by incompetent politicians trying to pick winners. Edited June 13, 2009 by Riverwind

[WIP]

WIP, I noticed your signature. Following the same logic, could we not arugue that socialism is a gateway drug to communism? Id don't agree with that, but then again, neither do I agree with its opposite.

It could be! In Europe, after WWII there were many collaborations between socialist and and the Euro-communist parties in France, West Germany and Italy. And many nations undergoing a collapse into anarchy end up with a struggle between extreme left and extreme right factions.

Right now, I'm not sure if there are leftwing equivalents to the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground being organized, but the right side of the political spectrum is losing, or has already lost all respect for democratic principles -- especially since 9/11.

For example: conflating disagreement with the former Republican President with disloyalty to the nation; using fear of terrorist attacks to invade privacy and disregard rule of law with the excuse of combating terrorism; increasing emphasis on military spending at the expense of domestic needs; invoking religious authority for political goals, and buying church support with faith-based initiatives; religion also plays a pivotal role in the fascist goal of reinstituting patriarchy -- the religious right is pushing "covenant marriage," creepy father/daughter "purity balls," and removing feminine influence on government policy by making sure that most women are busy having babies....and that's why there is so much emphasis placed on the fight against abortion and birth control; creating scapegoats -- race, ethnic or religious minorities, or godless liberals, to blame when things go wrong.

I could probably add more to the list, but these seemingly disparate conservative policies and ideals all have the effect of subordinating individual rights to an authoritarian state. Needless to say, the right sort of leader has to be in charge, so we can expect more violence and crazy talk like former SBC Vice President Wiley Drake, who claims to be making "imprecatory prayers" for the death of Barack Obama http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=co...6&Itemid=53

[WIP]

Give the choice between letting the market find the solutions and letting corrupt politicans craft rules designed to reward their supporters I would choose the market.

I don't care what strategy is used as long as they can start getting results! If you like market-based solutions so much, you should be a supporter, at least in principle, of carbon taxes. Cap and trade systems are an open invitation to corruption and secret deal-making....and the costs can be hidden from public view.

Also, if you want to practice real free market economics, you should also be opposed to hidden subsidies to oil companies, like the ones mentioned on that Treehugger site, quoting from a Cato Institute report: subsidies for corn-based ethanol production, which are in fact indirect oil subsidies, and Cato estimates that the U.S. military spends 30 to 60 billion per year safe-guarding oil shipments from the MiddleEast -- why not send that bill to Exxon/Mobil or to the European and Far East nations who buy most of that oil?

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/go...-dependence.php

Dutch windmills did not need to keep to lights on 24/7

Well, then other solutions have to be found. But necessity is the mother of all invention, so shift the tax burden on to the production of greenhouse gases, and make the oil companies pay the costs for getting their product to market. This will drive the discovery of new technologies

[Riverwind]

I don't care what strategy is used as long as they can start getting results!

All strategies will ultimately fail since cost effective alternate technologies do not exist and it is not likely that they will magically appear. The problem is the laws of thermodynamics which ensure that exploiting diffuse renewable energy sources will always cost a lot more than exploiting concentrated resources such as fossil fuels. These additional costs will have to be paid by the consumer who will end up being a lot poorer as a result. Consumers are also voters who are not likely to support policies that make them poorer unless they believe that the burden is being shared 'fairly'. The trouble is 'fair' is a relative concept and people generally take the position that making them pay is 'unfair' but making someone else pay is 'fair'.

Well, then other solutions have to be found. But necessity is the mother of all invention, so shift the tax burden on to the production of greenhouse gases, and make the oil companies pay the costs for getting their product to market. This will drive the discovery of new technologies

At the end of the day the consumer pays the bill and bill to reduce emissions will be huge. We are already seeing healthcare services in BC being sacrificed to pay the carbon tax which is currently too small to change any behavoir. Edited June 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

CARBON TAX! I don't even know what that means....how can you tax polluters out of existance when who ever has the most money gets to do the most polluting? The generation of more money driven by greed creates pollution and climate disruption....so --------------------I still don't get it......You give a break to the greatest destroyers who pay up via a carbon tax and it just becomes the price of doing buisness - and full steam ahead with the same old - same old ---- what are we nuts?

[WIP]

All strategies will ultimately fail since cost effective alternate technologies do not exist and it is not likely that they will magically appear. The problem is the laws of thermodynamics which ensure that exploiting diffuse renewable energy sources will always cost a lot more than exploiting concentrated resources such as fossil fuels.

Just looking at wind turbines for example, how "diffuse" wind energy is depends on where you place the turbines! How much energy is lost in power grids that have to extend for miles to get electricity to remote, rural locations? Wind turbines placed in selected areas along the way would be a great help to lessen the demands placed on the system. And this Dutch report from about ten years ago mentions many of the technological improvements made to make windmills more efficient.

Conclusion

The potential of wind energy is large, with the technical potential

of generating electricity onshore estimated at 20,000–50,000

terawatt-hours a year.

When investigating the potential, special attention should go to

possibilities offshore. Studies for Europe indicate that the offshore

wind resources that can be tapped are bigger than the total

electricity demand in Europe.

The average growth rate of the cumulative capacity over the last

six years has been about 30 percent a year, bringing the cumulative

installed wind turbine capacity to about 10,000 megawatts at the

end of 1998 and about 13,500 megawatts at the end of 1999—

and wind energy production to 18 terawatt-hours in 1998 and 24

terawatt-hours in 1999.

Wind turbines are becoming larger, with the average size

installed in 1998 at 600 kilowatts, up from about 30 kilowatts in

the mid-1970s. Turbines of megawatt size are being developed

and should soon be commercially available.

Costs have to come down further, requiring development of

advanced flexible concepts and dedicated offshore wind energy

systems. Cost reductions up to 45 percent are feasible within 15

years. Ultimately wind electricity costs might come down to about

$0.03 a kilowatt-hour.

Although wind-generated electricity is an intermittent resource, it

can be transformed to baseload power supply if combined with

energy storage. For compressed air energy storage the additional

costs may be limited to about $0.01 a kilowatt-hour, opening the

possibility of exploiting good wind resources remote from markets.

The environmental impacts of wind turbines are limited, with

noise and visibility causing the most problems, increasing public

resistance against the installation of new turbines in densely

populated countries.

Interest in small turbines is being revived for standalone and

autonomous systems in rural areas.

http://www.undp.org/energy/activities/wea/pdfs/chapter7.pdf

These additional costs will have to be paid by the consumer who will end up being a lot poorer as a result. Consumers are also voters who are not likely to support policies that make them poorer unless they believe that the burden is being shared 'fairly'. The trouble is 'fair' is a relative concept and people generally take the position that making them pay is 'unfair' but making someone else pay is 'fair'.

Do you understand that this is a life or death issue that may be in fact too big to fix without first undergoing an environmental catastrophe and a dramatic degradation of the quality of life for most people? Let em bitch about gas prices! It's running out anyway -- at least the cheap, easily accessible oil is running out.

At the end of the day the consumer pays the bill and bill to reduce emissions will be huge. We are already seeing healthcare services in BC being sacrificed to pay the carbon tax which is currently too small to change any behavoir.

Could you explain how a carbon tax (which they claim will be revenue neutral) cuts funding for health care? The government there has added almost 3 billion to health care spending over the next three years......at least according to last year's budget:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...ial-budget.html

[Riverwind]

Just looking at wind turbines for example, how "diffuse" wind energy is depends on where you place the turbines!

The basic laws of physics required that the infrastructure required to collect and distribute wind power will always be more expensive than the infrastructure required to collect, burn and distribute fossil fuel power.

Here is the most realistic analysis of renewable power that I have seen. Yet it concludes:

The first half gives two clear conclusions. First, for any renewable facility

to make an appreciable contribution – a contribution at all comparable

to our current consumption – it has to be country-sized. To provide one

quarter of our current energy consumption by growing energy crops, for

example, would require 75% of Britain to be covered with biomass plantations.

To provide 4% of our current energy consumption from wave

power would require 500 km of Atlantic coastline to be completely filled

with wave farms. Someone who wants to live on renewable energy, but

expects the infrastructure associated with that renewable not to be large or

intrusive, is deluding himself.

It goes on to say:

Second, if economic constraints and public objections are set aside, it would

be possible for the average European energy consumption of 125 kWh/d

per person to be provided from these country-sized renewable sources.

The two hugest contributors would be photovoltaic panels, which, covering

5% or 10% of the country, would provide 50 kWh/d per person;

and offshore wind farms, which, filling a sea-area twice

Ultimately, the plan fails because it would require that a large portion wealth of the society would have to be devoted to building and maintaining a massive renewable infrastructure. Such as massive outlay is not economically sustainable even if it was possible to secure the political support. The funniest part was where the report suggests that Europe could live on renewables if it built a massive solar array in the Sahara. Politically that would never fly. Europeans are already nervous about depending on russia for gas and there is no chance that they would willingly make themselves dependent on north africa.

How much energy is lost in power grids that have to extend for miles to get electricity to remote, rural locations? Wind turbines placed in selected areas along the way would be a great help to lessen the demands placed on the system.

Completely wrong. People demand 24/7 power which means wind always needs 100% backup from reliable sources.

And this Dutch report from about ten years ago mentions many of the technological improvements made to make windmills more efficient.

Technological improvements which require rae earth metals that are already in short supply.

Do you understand that this is a life or death issue that may be in fact too big to fix without first undergoing an environmental catastrophe and a dramatic degradation of the quality of life for most people? Let em bitch about gas prices! It's running out anyway -- at least the cheap, easily accessible oil is running out.

Do you understand that there are no alternatives? The price of fossil fuels will rise and the markets will find economic alternatives in the long run and those alternatives will likely include a lot of nuclear. However, governments that try to pick winners will only end up wasting billions without actually accomplishing anything useful. Spain's experience with a "green energy" strategy ended up destroying two jobs for every one created yet it had a neglible impact on Spain's GHG emissions.

Could you explain how a carbon tax (which they claim will be revenue neutral) cuts funding for health care?

See http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/sur...s/47823327.html

Hospital services are going to get cut. People will likely be laid off. $4 million year wasted on carbon credits may sound like small change compared to $300 deficit but you cannot deny that health services are now being cut to pay for "green" policies. It is only going to get worse and when it does political support for green policies will evapourate.

[madmax]

See http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/sur...s/47823327.html

Hospital services are going to get cut. People will likely be laid off. $4 million year wasted on carbon credits may sound like small change compared to $300 deficit but you cannot deny that health services are now being cut to pay for "green" policies. It is only going to get worse and when it does political support for green policies will evapourate.

You could be right.

[WIP]

The basic laws of physics required that the infrastructure required to collect and distribute wind power will always be more expensive than the infrastructure required to collect, burn and distribute fossil fuel power.

Here is the most realistic analysis of renewable power that I have seen. Yet it concludes:

It goes on to say:

Ultimately, the plan fails because it would require that a large portion wealth of the society would have to be devoted to building and maintaining a massive renewable infrastructure. Such as massive outlay is not economically sustainable even if it was possible to secure the political support. The funniest part was where the report suggests that Europe could live on renewables if it built a massive solar array in the Sahara. Politically that would never fly. Europeans are already nervous about depending on russia for gas and there is no chance that they would willingly make themselves dependent on north africa.

Completely wrong. People demand 24/7 power which means wind always needs 100% backup from reliable sources.

Technological improvements which require rae earth metals that are already in short supply.

Who says renewable energy has to be all about windmills? Your report is negative on windmills but seems to be high on solar energy. And it mentions the topic of population reduction as essential to longterm success for any strategy. That's a topic we haven't been hearing about since conservative religious forces managed to kneecap birth control strategies, but it's only sensible - the more people, the more energy and resources they need - especially when they are striving to achieve Western living standards.

Do you understand that there are no alternatives? The price of fossil fuels will rise and the markets will find economic alternatives in the long run and those alternatives will likely include a lot of nuclear.

And there are environmental impacts with nuclear as well as well, and big startup and security costs.

However, governments that try to pick winners will only end up wasting billions without actually accomplishing anything useful. Spain's experience with a "green energy" strategy ended up destroying two jobs for every one created yet it had a neglible impact on Spain's GHG emissions.

See http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/sur...s/47823327.html

Hospital services are going to get cut. People will likely be laid off. $4 million year wasted on carbon credits may sound like small change compared to $300 deficit but you cannot deny that health services are now being cut to pay for "green" policies. It is only going to get worse and when it does political support for green policies will evapourate.

When I read the story, I couldn't help thinking this sounds like the usual one where local politicians try to blame their own budgetary mistakes on the provincial or federal governments. If they got a share of the increased health spending in last year's budget, why did they have to pull money from health care instead of cutting spending in other departments?

[Riverwind]

Who says renewable energy has to be all about windmills? Your report is negative on windmills but seems to be high on solar energy.

The report only looked that the theoretical maximum output we could expect from the various renewable sources. Solar does come out ahead on that front but his analysis ignored technical problems like the need to constantly clean solar panels to keep them operating a peak efficiency - a requirement that is a challenge in a desert evironment with limited access to water. It is worth noting that Spain invested heavily in solar and does not have much to show for it.

And it mentions the topic of population reduction as essential to longterm success for any strategy. That's a topic we haven't been hearing about since conservative religious forces managed to kneecap birth control strategies, but it's only sensible - the more people, the more energy and resources they need - especially when they are striving to achieve Western living standards.

You won't get any disagreement from me there except you forget that unfettered immigration from poor to rich countries is something encouraged by socialist anti-religious forces. This has a least as much impact on GHG emissions as having more children in developing countries.

And there are environmental impacts with nuclear as well as well, and big startup and security costs.

The difference with nuclear is you end up with a extremely reliable energy source which can actually replace coal power stations. No renewable will ever be able to do that.

If they got a share of the increased health spending in last year's budget, why did they have to pull money from health care instead of cutting spending in other departments?

It does not make a difference why the budget shortfall exists. The point is it exists and the BC government has decided that buying pointless carbon credits is more important than providing healthcare. Most people don't realize that this CO2 obession is going require them to sacrifice things like healthcare. I wonder how much the public will support green initiatives once the true cost becomes clear.