Carbon Taxes

[Tony Hladun]

Here's a good explanation of why carbon taxes don't work and are inflationary

 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/inelastic.asp

 

It's amazing that University Professors, Liberals, Conservatives, commentators and journalists don't seem to understand inelastic demand.  The Liberals quote "economists" saying that taxes are a good way to reduce consumption, but they and their experts miss this very simple fact.  Is "inelastic" a word that can't be spoken?   

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Tony Hladun said:

Here's a good explanation of why carbon taxes don't work and are inflationary

 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/inelastic.asp

 

It's amazing that University Professors, Liberals, Conservatives, commentators and journalists don't seem to understand inelastic demand.  The Liberals quote "economists" saying that taxes are a good way to reduce consumption, but they and their experts miss this very simple fact.  Is "inelastic" a word that can't be spoken?   

Well I think is they don't quote economists. They just say that economists make this claim without actually referencing any real economists. Most real economists agree that the problem with the model is that discretionary spending on energy was nowhere near as elastic as the original model suggested.

But you hit the nail on the head. When this model was originally proposed it was assumed that people had a great deal of power to make decisions about how much energy they bought and where they bought it from. When you look at it from that point of view even the conservatives were in favor of it. The model made sense

But it quickly became apparent to most sane people that as you say, there really wasn't a lot of room to stretch or alter spending around energy. You could put on as many sweaters as you like but the reality is you still need to heat your home in the winter, that's not a choice. Not everybody could rush out and afford to buy an electric car. Public transit is a great thing but mom's still wound up needing to take their kids to hockey practice and to go buy groceries I carrying a whole bunch of groceries home for your entire family on the bus just wasn't practical.

People could make little changes, but at the end of the day their energy consumption remain largely static and any changes they did make only made small differences. 

Bottom line is we've been paying the tax for 10 to 20 years now depending on where you live and climate change hasn't changed one slight bit.

[herbie]

Yes convince us how things intended to do A didn't do B, so therefore 'they're useless'.

Got a breakaway with the puck and didn't score a touchdown therefore hockey is useless.

[ExFlyer]

5 hours ago, Tony Hladun said:

Here's a good explanation of why carbon taxes don't work and are inflationary

 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/inelastic.asp

 

It's amazing that University Professors, Liberals, Conservatives, commentators and journalists don't seem to understand inelastic demand.  The Liberals quote "economists" saying that taxes are a good way to reduce consumption, but they and their experts miss this very simple fact.  Is "inelastic" a word that can't be spoken?   

The obvious is that any tax will have adverse effects on the economy.

If it costs more to get product to the consumer, the end is that the consumer pays more....Businesses pass tax on (as wellas writing it off as a business expense) and the public pays.

[Tony Hladun]

17 minutes ago, herbie said:

Yes convince us how things intended to do A didn't do B, so therefore 'they're useless'.

Got a breakaway with the puck and didn't score a touchdown therefore hockey is useless.

Carbon taxes have not reduced emissions in reality.  What I posted shows why they didn't work in theory since the Liberals have been hiding behind fake economics.  (You should take up a different sport.)

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Tony Hladun said:

Here's a good explanation of why carbon taxes don't work and are inflationary

 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/inelastic.asp

 

It's amazing that University Professors, Liberals, Conservatives, commentators and journalists don't seem to understand inelastic demand.  The Liberals quote "economists" saying that taxes are a good way to reduce consumption, but they and their experts miss this very simple fact.  Is "inelastic" a word that can't be spoken?   

There are some CO2 creating activities that are elastic, like plane trips.  Adding a tax on the costs allows private enterprise to figure out how to solve the problem, theoretically 

I don't think that anything is proven yet but I think we have seen a slowing in CO2 growth according to some.

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-will-reach-new-high-in-2024-despite-slower-growth/

[Army Guy]

41 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are some CO2 creating activities that are elastic, like plane trips.  Adding a tax on the costs allows private enterprise to figure out how to solve the problem, theoretically 

I don't think that anything is proven yet but I think we have seen a slowing in CO2 growth according to some.

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-will-reach-new-high-in-2024-despite-slower-growth/

Slowing as in the rate of climb per year in your graph's, but not the actual growth, year after year we have seen a growth in global emissions,exception being covid... and same in Canada despite the carbon tax our nations has increased it's emissions year after year...

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Yes convince us how things intended to do A didn't do B, so therefore 'they're useless'.

Got a breakaway with the puck and didn't score a touchdown therefore hockey is useless.

I think he has done that, but then again perhaps instead of just telling everyone he is full of sh!t why don't you give as a source that backs up your statement, show us where the carbon tax has decrease our emissions... when in actual fact they have continued to climb year after year, exception being covid...so how does the carbon tax reduce our emissions again...you do this all the time just go off half cocked...

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Tony Hladun said:

Carbon taxes have not reduced emissions in reality

Did they reduce YOUR emissions? They're not intended to reduce someone else's or some other country's.

They didn't reduce YOURS? Don't think about it every time you see it and try to reduce how much you drive, or to put on a sweater or change to LCD bulbs?
Are you just butt stubborn, have too much money on hand? You believe the shit the carbon tax added that $1 to a loaf of bread, made your potato chips go from $2 to $6?

Kind of the same argument as saying drug dispensaries and safe use sites don't work because the people who won't use them are still dying.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Slowing as in the rate of climb per year in your graph's, but not the actual growth, year after year we have seen a growth in global emissions,exception being covid... and same in Canada despite the carbon tax our nations has increased it's emissions year after year...

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

But if the rate of increase reduces it should hit zero at a certain point.  Like population growth.  It's just math not politics.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, herbie said:

Yes convince us how things intended to do A didn't do B, so therefore 'they're useless'.

 

They didn't do a either. So something that can't do what it was intended to do and also can't do something it wasn't intended to do and the only thing it does do is cause financial hardship is actually a useless thing.

Only the left needs this explained to them

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are some CO2 creating activities that are elastic, like plane trips.  Adding a tax on the costs allows private enterprise to figure out how to solve the problem, theoretically 

But it turns out they're not elastic. If you need to go somewhere in a relatively short period Of time a plane is the only practical solution. And driving still burns carbon fuel.

People don't just take air planes because they want to fly on an airplane, they want to go somewhere.

This is already been studied to death. Elasticity of energy expenditures is far far lower than was anticipated and the simple fact is the only way the carbon tax can help is if it hurts the economy so bad that people can't afford to do anything and just sit at home. That's not acceptable

[Legato]

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are some CO2 creating activities that are elastic, like plane trips.  Adding a tax on the costs allows private enterprise to figure out how to solve the problem, theoretically 

I don't think that anything is proven yet but I think we have seen a slowing in CO2 growth according to some.

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-will-reach-new-high-in-2024-despite-slower-growth/

You must not be a Taylor Swift fan.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Legato said:

You must not be a Taylor Swift fan.

Correct, but according to this thread she absolutely must fly somewhere when she needs to and we can't tax that under any circumstances.

[Tony Hladun]

To support my original post I asked AI about elasticity.  Here's part of the answer:

Short-Run Elasticity: The price elasticity of demand for oil is generally considered to be very low in the short run. Estimates suggest that the price elasticity of U.S. demand for oil is around -0.05. This indicates that a 1% increase in the price of oil would lead to only a 0.05% decrease in the quantity demanded. The reason for this low responsiveness is that consumers have limited immediate alternatives to oil; they cannot quickly change their driving habits or switch to alternative energy sources.

So to get a 40% reduction in demand oil prices would need to rise 800%.  Not likely.

Here's the full search

https://iask.ai/?mode=question&q=what+is+the+elasticity+between+oil+price+and+oil+consumption

Edited November 29, 2024 by Tony Hladun

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Tony Hladun said:

 

So to get a 40% reduction in demand oil prices would need to rise 800%.  Not likely.

 

Ok, well that's not the immediate goal in any case.

Do you support Andrew Scheer's alternative approach ?

[Tony Hladun]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, well that's not the immediate goal in any case.

Do you support Andrew Scheer's alternative approach ?

Not sure what Andrew Scheer proposes, can you help me here?

The Conservatives do have a problem with the "Axe the Tax" because it begs the question then what?  Really what Canada should have done is recognized we are two parts.  One is the Alberta Oil Sheikdom and the other is the rest of Alberta and Canada that are energy consumers.  We should have then implemented a cap and trade system (like Quebec).  The Sheikdom then could buy carbon credits and produce as much oil as Alberta wanted and the consuming part of Canada (including Alberta) could sell credits for their projects.

Here are the numbers. the oil industry produces 217 mega-tonnes of emissions and at $80/tonne to be carbon-neutral would cost $17.4 Billion starting with a zero cap (Alberta now gives Quebec ~$14 Billion in Equalization payments).  On the revenue side we produce about 4 million barrels per day.  At today's WCS price of $55.94USD the revenue is $0.3 Billion per day ($115 Billion annually).  I'm an Albertan and I blame Alberta's government for not being smart.  Do what Quebec does, cap and trade, because they get the best deal and today they pay $57/tonne.  The global average is $23/tonne (chump change).     

Edited November 29, 2024 by Tony Hladun

[taxme]

On 11/28/2024 at 8:29 AM, Tony Hladun said:

Here's a good explanation of why carbon taxes don't work and are inflationary

 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/inelastic.asp

 

It's amazing that University Professors, Liberals, Conservatives, commentators and journalists don't seem to understand inelastic demand.  The Liberals quote "economists" saying that taxes are a good way to reduce consumption, but they and their experts miss this very simple fact.  Is "inelastic" a word that can't be spoken?   

The liberals already know that we the people will still buy gas, even if it were sold for two dollars a liter. Carbon taxes are just another tax grab for the liberals to blow more of our tax dollars on stupid and useless Marxist programs and agendas. The liberals could careless about carbon. It's all just a bunch of climate change bullshit and we the people get stuck with paying for it. If the liberals could find a way to tax the air that we breathe, we would already have had that tax put on us all. 

[taxme]

23 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Slowing as in the rate of climb per year in your graph's, but not the actual growth, year after year we have seen a growth in global emissions,exception being covid... and same in Canada despite the carbon tax our nations has increased it's emissions year after year...

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

I personally believe that the majority of Canadians could give a rats ass about carbon emissions. I have not yet spoken to anyone who has some concern and problem about the environment. I certainly do not either because i am pretty sure that this carbon nonsense is all just that? Carbon bullshit nonsense. If we were supposedly fighting carbon emissions then why are there more vehicles on the road than ever before, and more land being used up to build more buildings on, which is surely helping the spread of more carbon emissions than ever before? Canada has brought in approx. 5 million new legal and illegal immigrants in the past five years to help spread even more carbon around. It is always the same old fools that believed the covid lies and hoax and who will now believe this climate change nonsense. What a world we live in. 👎

[Michael Hardner]

59 minutes ago, Tony Hladun said:

Not sure what Andrew Scheer proposes, can you help me here?

 

It was a carbon credit plan.

[Army Guy]

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But if the rate of increase reduces it should hit zero at a certain point.  Like population growth.  It's just math not politics.

If population growth from immigration decreases dramatically, and if the carbon price continues to rise, people are hurting right now, do we really want to see an increase at this time ?....besides it is a moot point really, if we do see one more increase the liberal polls will suck even more, and the Conservatives will cut that program...

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

1. If population growth from immigration decreases dramatically, and if the carbon price continues to rise, people are hurting right now, do we really want to see an increase at this time ?

2. ... if we do see one more increase the liberal polls will suck even more, and the Conservatives will cut that program...

1. How are these things connected ?  Population growth from immigration and carbon price ?
2. I think Poilievre will have to put something real together on the Climate file, when he gets in.  And it will cost money.

[Army Guy]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. How are these things connected ?  Population growth from immigration and carbon price ?
2. I think Poilievre will have to put something real together on the Climate file, when he gets in.  And it will cost money.

The more people our nation has the more emissions they create...which is what the carbon price was suppose to do right reduce emissions, but how can you do that when we have over 1 million new people, be it immigrant, student, refugee entering the country every year....It is part of the math equation...perhaps i'm wrong.

I think that will come in time, but lets face it he is not getting elected becasue of his climate change plans....He has already put out there he wants to use new tech to reduce emission, carbon capturing, Nuke,  etc... 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Army Guy said:

1. I think that will come in time, but lets face it he is not getting elected becasue of his climate change plans....He has already put out there he wants to use new tech to reduce emission, carbon capturing, Nuke,  etc... 

1. Right.  Trudeau is doing that too.  It's a bet worth making but it won't produce anything soon.

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Correct, but according to this thread she absolutely must fly somewhere when she needs to and we can't tax that under any circumstances.

do you notice how you never dispute anything directly or offer a suggestion as to how to do it better?

You whine, you cry, you make vegan salsa people, you criticize policy without having any intelligence alternatives, you're basically just a stain on this site.

Consider starting a thread someday. Or contributing meaningfully to a thread by offering an actual position or suggestion or putting forward an idea. I know I know, it sounds like crazy talk to you but trust me people will think better of you if you actually contribute meaningfully