How would the Liberals win affect those in the 2-5% range?

ToadBrother · October 9, 2015

The revenue neutral element of Carbon taxes is hilarious because if governments really going to be happy with reduced if people do what they actually want? They know people can't avoid using carbon, it's engrained in society. We live in Canada? Most of the year people need Fossil fuels just to live in this cold country.

This is condemning an initiative based solely on what you think will happen. And even it does, the real point which is to make fossil fuels reflect the true cost of their use is the most important part of the initiative.

Sooner or later even Canada is going to have to get away from using fossil fuels, and frankly, it should be sooner rather than later.

Boges · October 9, 2015

This is condemning an initiative based solely on what you think will happen. And even it does, the real point which is to make fossil fuels reflect the true cost of their use is the most important part of the initiative.

Sooner or later even Canada is going to have to get away from using fossil fuels, and frankly, it should be sooner rather than later.

We'll get away when technology allows us to. Not because governments pass punitive taxes.

It's funny, Fracking allows us to move away from more carbon intensive fuels but that gets banned in parts of Canada.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Boges

waldo · October 9, 2015

It's funny, Fracking allows us to move away from more carbon intensive fuels but that gets banned in parts of Canada.

as I've related in prior threads, when neophytes speak to emission reductions associated with fracking... natural gas is a, 'bridge to nowhere'... notwithstanding the significant related methane leak/discharge issues.

ToadBrother · October 9, 2015

We'll get away when technology allows us to. Not because governments pass punitive taxes.

It's funny, Fracking allows us to move away from more carbon intensive fuels but that gets banned in parts of Canada.

Um, how does extracting more fossil fuels make us less dependent on fossil fuels?

And really, the technologies are already exist, their chief problems are efficiency and cost. So long as they have to compete with cheap fossil fuels, they won't get the volume needed to lower costs, but if you price fossil fuels for the full extent of what they produce, and not just on the extraction price and joules produced, then they will become competitive.

Artificial scarcity is hardly a new concept.

Boges · October 9, 2015

Um, how does extracting more fossil fuels make us less dependent on fossil fuels?

And really, the technologies are already exist, their chief problems are efficiency and cost. So long as they have to compete with cheap fossil fuels, they won't get the volume needed to lower costs, but if you price fossil fuels for the full extent of what they produce, and not just on the extraction price and joules produced, then they will become competitive.

Artificial scarcity is hardly a new concept.

So the only way for those technologies to flourish is to make the alternative too expensive? What will that do to people's quality of life?

HDTVs used to cost $10,000 as technologies advance, prices come down.

Boges · October 9, 2015

as I've related in prior threads, when neophytes speak to emission reductions associated with fracking... natural gas is a, 'bridge to nowhere'... notwithstanding the significant related methane leak/discharge issues.

Ontario seems to have gone that way with all the Natural Gas Power plants they've built.

Boges · October 9, 2015

I wonder where governments will get their tax revenue when energy is generation 100% from the sun and wind.

ToadBrother · October 9, 2015

So the only way for those technologies to flourish is to make the alternative too expensive? What will that do to people's quality of life?

HDTVs used to cost $10,000 as technologies advance, prices come down.

It wasn't the technology advance that made HDTV come down in price, it was the reduction in cost during the manufacturing cycle as the number of HDTVs sold grew as compared to standard TVs.

Even now we're seeing alternative energy capture techniques gaining, even in Texas of all places. But if we make fossil fuels more expensive, we will replicate a real scarcity situation, and that will decrease the differential in pricing between fossil fuels and alternatives, which will make alternatives more economically viable. This will speed up the positive feedback loop that alternatives are already beginning to gain, as well as encouraging development of other energy technologies.

It's pretty basic economics. It will raise prices in the short to medium term, but in the long term it will even out.

ToadBrother · October 9, 2015

I wonder where governments will get their tax revenue when energy is generation 100% from the sun and wind.

From energy sales.

Boges · October 9, 2015

From energy sales.

You're going to charge people for energy that comes from the Sun? If Solar becomes cheap enough, every private owner would use Solar power to generate their own power.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Boges

Boges · October 9, 2015

It's pretty basic economics. It will raise prices in the short to medium term, but in the long term it will even out.

Except it's not because the ACTUAL price of Oil in Canada is tax. You're asking the government to inflate the price of a commodity that's really low priced right now.

Even so, people saw the high prices for gasoline as early as a year ago. People aren't that reactionary. I drive an Eco, car and only fill up twice a week. But I'm still not doing enough, I have to pay more. Says you.

waldo · October 9, 2015

Ontario seems to have gone that way with all the Natural Gas Power plants they've built.

this is a thread distraction - if you're inclined do a MLW search on "bridge to nowhere"

Shady · October 9, 2015

The Ontario Liberals have run Ontario into the ground.

ToadBrother · October 9, 2015

Except it's not because the ACTUAL price of Oil in Canada is tax. You're asking the government to inflate the price of a commodity that's really low priced right now.

Even so, people saw the high prices for gasoline as early as a year ago. People aren't that reactionary. I drive an Eco, car and only fill up twice a week. But I'm still not doing enough, I have to pay more. Says you.

Yes, I'm asking the government of Canada, and indeed the governments of most if not all nations to inflate the price of oil. And you'll end up paying more eventually, no matter what. In fact, if you're buying insurance, AGW is already being factored into the price. Actuaries have been factoring it into premiums for quite some time now.

waldo · October 9, 2015

The Ontario Liberals have run Ontario into the ground.

off-topic; unrelated to this thread... perhaps you meant to post this in the Provincial Politics forum.

ToadBrother · October 9, 2015

You're going to charge people for energy that comes from the Sun? If Solar becomes cheap enough, every private owner would use Solar power to generate their own power.

So? I guess some future government will have to raise taxes on something else.

Boges · October 9, 2015

So? I guess some future government will have to raise taxes on something else.

But they reduced Income taxes getting people off of fossil fuels already.

dre · October 9, 2015

You're going to charge people for energy that comes from the Sun? If Solar becomes cheap enough, every private owner would use Solar power to generate their own power.

ALL energy comes from the sun including oil, and all revenue comes from consumers. Futhermore even if what you are saying did in fact happen and everyone produced their own energy... the government wouldnt need as much revenue.

dre · October 9, 2015

So? I guess some future government will have to raise taxes on something else.

Not necessarily. The government spends a lot of money on maintaining our current energy paradigm, both in direct and indirect costs. Any lost revenue might not even need to be replaced.

Wilber · October 9, 2015

ALL energy comes from the sun including oil, and all revenue comes from consumers. Futhermore even if what you are saying did in fact happen and everyone produced their own energy... the government wouldnt need as much revenue.

How do you figure that?

dre · October 9, 2015

How do you figure that?

It would no longer have to susidize energy companies, fund large public utilities, pay to mitigate the damage done by dirty energy, fund foreign policy geared towards trying to keep oil rich parts of the world politically stable.

Wilber · October 9, 2015

It would no longer have to susidize energy companies, fund large public utilities, pay to mitigate the damage done by dirty energy, fund foreign policy geared towards trying to keep oil rich parts of the world politically stable.

So you don't think the energy industry contributes more to the economy than it removes. I hate to break it to you but the number one reason our dollar has gone from parity with the USD to 75 cents is due to the decline in energy and other commodity prices.

Before you get so excited about getting rid of something, give a little thought to what you will need to replace it. That includes the revenues needed to pay for all the things you want from government.

ToadBrother · October 9, 2015

So you don't think the energy industry contributes more to the economy than it removes. I hate to break it to you but the number one reason our dollar has gone from parity with the USD to 75 cents is due to the decline in energy and other commodity prices.

Before you get so excited about getting rid of something, give a little thought to what you will need to replace it. That includes the revenues needed to pay for all the things you want from government.

I think the contributions of that industry to the economy don't factor in the true costs of using fossil fuels, and if the long term plan is to end the use of fossil fuels, then while you're correct that it could lead to a revenue downturn, that doesn't seem a very strong argument for continuing to use fossil fuels.

Besides which, I doubt very much that personal energy production is ever going to be a significant part of total national or global energy production. Power plants of some kind will still be needed, whether that's wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, hydro, nuclear or whatever, and the sale of energy certainly is and will forever be taxable.

dre · October 9, 2015

So you don't think the energy industry contributes more to the economy than it removes. I hate to break it to you but the number one reason our dollar has gone from parity with the USD to 75 cents is due to the decline in energy and other commodity prices.

Before you get so excited about getting rid of something, give a little thought to what you will need to replace it. That includes the revenues needed to pay for all the things you want from government.

You need to follow the thread. I never expressed any excitement about getting rid of anything. I responded to a hypothetical scenario where the poster asked how the government would make up for lost revenue resulting from a move to local solar installations. The hypothetical isnt even possible anyways. Local solar can only potentially work to power lowrise buildings in certain areas.

I hate to break it to you but the number one reason our dollar has gone from parity with the USD to 75 cents is due to the decline in energy and other commodity prices.

You dont have to break that to me, im well aware of it. But the correlation of our currency value to oil prices does not necessarily mean that we are benefiting from the industry.

Wilber · October 9, 2015

I think the contributions of that industry to the economy don't factor in the true costs of using fossil fuels, and if the long term plan is to end the use of fossil fuels, then while you're correct that it could lead to a revenue downturn, that doesn't seem a very strong argument for continuing to use fossil fuels.

Besides which, I doubt very much that personal energy production is ever going to be a significant part of total national or global energy production. Power plants of some kind will still be needed, whether that's wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, hydro, nuclear or whatever, and the sale of energy certainly is and will forever be taxable.

I'm not saying reducing dependence on fossil fuels shouldn't be a goal but it goes farther than just producing electricity. Fixed power plants are fine but fossil fuels will still be the most concentrated form of portable energy for the foreseeable future.