carepov Posted January 13, 2014 Report Posted January 13, 2014 Just pointing out that saving energy can make you poorer depending on the cost of saving energy. Of couse it can. And sometimes saving energy can make you richer. For example, if I teach my kids to turn off the lights and TV, use less water, and close the door. Or, if I spend $500 to save $100 per year. Here's an idea: let save energy in those cases where we get richer and not save energy in those cases where it makes us poorer? Quote
Boges Posted January 13, 2014 Report Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) When I did this I had a choice between the 97% efficient and the 93% efficient model because the math did not justify the extra cost (even assuming increases in energy costs). This is an example of why academics who estimate the "savings" to be had from energy efficiency are likely over stating their case. Also a reason why only the "well-heeled" purchase electric cars. You pay a premium for a car to have hybrid or electric capabilities that won't equal the potential savings in gas through the life of the car. Plus the cost of replacing the battery when it's no longer viable is way more than maintaining a car. Edited January 13, 2014 by Boges Quote
carepov Posted January 13, 2014 Report Posted January 13, 2014 They are demonstrably true, and very easy to verify. Just look at incomes over the last 30 years. It's also a fact that energy costs are decreasing because of falling natural gas and stabilizing oil prices. OK, please verify that: "We have been getting more efficient, but not richer. The average Canadian is overall poorer than years ago, as wages have fallen in real terms, and costs of living substantially increased. Because of increased energy harvesting and consumption in the domestic US, it is making them richer and driving their energy costs down" Quote
hitops Posted January 13, 2014 Author Report Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) OK, please verify that: "We have been getting more efficient, but not richer. The average Canadian is overall poorer than years ago, as wages have fallen in real terms, and costs of living substantially increased. Because of increased energy harvesting and consumption in the domestic US, it is making them richer and driving their energy costs down" Real wages falling, costs of living increasing in Canada: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canadian-paycheques-failing-to-keep-pace-with-cost-of-living/article4180793/ Natural gas excess making energy cheaper: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-17/electricity-declines-50-in-u-s-as-shale-brings-natural-gas-glut-energy.html Stabilizing oil prices: http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart The effect of shale oil on American labor market, wages etc http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-ticker/2013/05/08/north-dakotas-oil-boom-ripples-through-wages-unemployment-miles-away/ Recent article on US oil prices http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303722104579239831640276094 When your energy costs go down, your prosperity goes up in real terms. It's not hard to understand, if you spend less on gas to get to work, you have more money left over. Edited January 13, 2014 by hitops Quote
guyser Posted January 13, 2014 Report Posted January 13, 2014 I have no problem if those people and any signs are 100 feet from him, in front of him. But there is no fucking way that anybody should be anywhere near that close to any PM of any political stripe at any time. Epic fail by the security detail. Epic fail by Harpers staff if they don't change whatever caused that failure. Geez, it s the PM of Canada for heavens sake. The Pres of France was shown on TV this weekend walking around stores with a minor detail of three men walking behind him. All sorts of leaders do not nor want to be in some bubble. Maybe the guy down south needs it, but we are talking about the PM of Canada, which apparently you forgot Quote
carepov Posted January 13, 2014 Report Posted January 13, 2014 Real wages falling, costs of living increasing in Canada: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canadian-paycheques-failing-to-keep-pace-with-cost-of-living/article4180793/ What a POS article, here's the real story for Canadian wages: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-626-x/2012008/c-g/c-g01-eng.htm and: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/disposable-personal-income When your energy costs go down, your prosperity goes up in real terms. It's not hard to understand, if you spend less on gas to get to work, you have more money left over. I don't disagree. I am saying : when you conserve energy, your energy costs go down. If you cycle/car pool/use mass transit/live closer to work/telecommute/work 4x10 instead of 5x8, you use less gas and have more money left over. When we conserve energy, energy demand goes down. When energy demand goes down, energy prices go down - globally. Do you agree? Quote
PIK Posted January 13, 2014 Report Posted January 13, 2014 What a POS article, here's the real story for Canadian wages: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-626-x/2012008/c-g/c-g01-eng.htm and: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/disposable-personal-income I don't disagree. I am saying : when you conserve energy, your energy costs go down. If you cycle/car pool/use mass transit/live closer to work/telecommute/work 4x10 instead of 5x8, you use less gas and have more money left over. When we conserve energy, energy demand goes down. When energy demand goes down, energy prices go down - globally. Do you agree? And water rates go up because people used less water. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
carepov Posted January 13, 2014 Report Posted January 13, 2014 And water rates go up because people used less water. Oh really? "Since 1980, overall water use in Canada has increased by 25.7%." http://www.environmentalindicators.com/htdocs/indicators/6wate.htm http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=F25C70EC-1 Quote
cybercoma Posted January 13, 2014 Report Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) I wonder if those rates include the sewage fees. In some municipalities you pay for the delivery of water and then a sewage fee is automatically tacked on. Technically it's not a fee for your water, but you have to pay it because they calculate your sewage fee equal to your water delivery fee. In other words, the cost of water in some places may be double what the reported cost is. Granted its moot, since our fees appear to be much lower according to that chart. Even if they were doubled we'd still be much lower than some places. Edited January 13, 2014 by cybercoma Quote
PIK Posted January 13, 2014 Report Posted January 13, 2014 Oh really? "Since 1980, overall water use in Canada has increased by 25.7%." http://www.environmentalindicators.com/htdocs/indicators/6wate.htm http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=F25C70EC-1 My mistake, I should have said ottawa, people cut back so much they had to raise the rates. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
carepov Posted January 13, 2014 Report Posted January 13, 2014 My mistake, I should have said ottawa, people cut back so much they had to raise the rates. Good. If you were one of the smart people that cut back your water consumption then your total water bill should go down. The real problem in Ottawa and most municipalities is that the infrastucture is crumbling and cities need the money to maintain/upgrade. Should funds come from your water bill or your property tax bill? Quote
August1991 Posted January 14, 2014 Report Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Well, under the (dubious) premise that this is a serious question, you get the same answer you'd get if any other celebrity figure were the subject; if enough people tune out of Enright's show, he will be replaced. Sorry, you're wrong. Michael Enright does not have to answer to any bottom line. God knows who decides why Finkelman's Forty Fives or Michael Enright are on the CBC. Edited January 14, 2014 by August1991 Quote
PIK Posted January 14, 2014 Report Posted January 14, 2014 Good. If you were one of the smart people that cut back your water consumption then your total water bill should go down. The real problem in Ottawa and most municipalities is that the infrastucture is crumbling and cities need the money to maintain/upgrade. Should funds come from your water bill or your property tax bill? I live in the country, I just used ottawa as a example. I have no water bill and get nothing for property taxes. lol Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
hitops Posted January 14, 2014 Author Report Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) What a POS article, Naturally, you can't actually dispute it. here's the real story for Canadian wages: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-626-x/2012008/c-g/c-g01-eng.htm That graph shows falling real wages genius. Are you trying to make my point, or yours? It ends in 2011, if you continued it to 2013, it would show the same decline which began several years ago as shown in this graph. and: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/disposable-personal-income You understand how pointless this graph is right? - It doesn't account for increased costs of living - It doesn't account for loss of purchasing power from the fall in our dollar - It doesn't account for the vastly increased costs of future mortgage debt - It tells us that with a growing population, the total income increases. This says nothing about the financial situation per capita. The fact that's it's not in per capita terms is the biggest flaw. - Canadians debt to income ratio is around 170%, an all-time high and surpassing that of the US right before the housing crisis. - According to the same study, 51% of Canadians cannot come up with $10,000 in an emergency. - 59% of Canadians are retiring in debt, according to CIBC. This has never happened before. http://newsroom.bmo.com/press-releases/bmo-annual-rainy-day-survey-majority-of-canadians-tsx-bmo-201308070890662001 I don't disagree. I am saying : when you conserve energy, your energy costs go down. If you cycle/car pool/use mass transit/live closer to work/telecommute/work 4x10 instead of 5x8, you use less gas and have more money left over. When we conserve energy, energy demand goes down. When energy demand goes down, energy prices go down - globally. Do you agree? You talking about an unrelated issue, and trying to tie it to something it does not fit. Yes, if you turn your lights off, you use less money. No, forcing everyone to turn their lights off does not help poor countries. One is voluntary, one is coercive. For poor countries to improve, they need development. That means economic activity with the rest of the world. Tons of lights on in factories everywhere, illuminating tons of people building things, running plants and providing services is what will best help them. Forcing a reduction in that, will just mean less opportunities, and less development in poor countries. Edited January 14, 2014 by hitops Quote
guyser Posted January 14, 2014 Report Posted January 14, 2014 Sorry, you're wrong. Michael Enright does not have to answer to any bottom line. God knows who decides why Finkelman's Forty Fives or Michael Enright are on the CBC.Yes he does, ratings translate into dollars, ....dont get the ratings and the kickback clause comes alive. CBC pays people back and someone will be watching to either boost the ratings (they are #1 in many markets) or find a better show host. Quote
carepov Posted January 14, 2014 Report Posted January 14, 2014 That graph shows falling real wages genius. Are you trying to make my point, or yours? It ends in 2011, if you continued it to 2013, it would show the same decline which began several years ago as shown in this graph. If you call this "falling real wages" I am not going to continue discussing with you. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) You'd almost think they raised the minimum wage in nearly every province during that period, something you were almost certainly against. Even still, that's not annual personal income. Edited January 15, 2014 by cybercoma Quote
cybercoma Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 Aren't stats fun, the way you can abuse them? Quote
jbg Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) I don't think any previous PM has been as concerned with the peaseants the Canadian public getting close to them as Harper. What makes Harper so special? Do you like the Shawinigan Handshake? Or the Trudeau (the smarter one's) salute (link)? Edited January 15, 2014 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 Neil Young has an enormous carbon footprint compared to the average person. Neil Young is my second favorite singer, after Gordon Lightfoot. His politics have been maniacal and all over the place, from the lyrics of "Ohio", to the more sensible "Needle and the Damage Done", to his support of McGovern in "In the Morning", to his later support of Reagan and the passengers of Flight 93 in "Let's Roll" and now this. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
BubberMiley Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 What's political about the passengers of Flight 93? Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
jbg Posted January 20, 2014 Report Posted January 20, 2014 What's political about the passengers of Flight 93? Not the passengers, the song lyrics. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
hitops Posted January 20, 2014 Author Report Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) If you call this "falling real wages" I am not going to continue discussing with you. Your graph shows falling wages since 2008/09, and ends in 2011. Regardless none of this has anything to do with the point - more economic activity from us means more economic activity for them, which means development and an escape from poverty. Reducing our consumption of fuel, reduces that activity, and adversely impacts poor countries. Poor countries are particularly dependent on rich countries prosperity, in the same way that poor, low-education workers are the most dependent on a good economy at home. When times are bad, they are the first to get laid off. Restricting our consumption requires times which are bad, or at least worse than without restricting. The US had a fuel consumption slowdown in 2008-09. Why? Because they had the housing collapse and massive loss of personal wealth. Less wealth = less disposable income = less buying gas. Did this help other countries by reducing demand for fuel and lowering prices? Not even close, the overall decline in economic growth gave almost everyone a real beating. Edited January 20, 2014 by hitops Quote
PIK Posted January 20, 2014 Report Posted January 20, 2014 Imagine the price of living if those wages had kept going up?? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.