Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

That is the point, though - move people away from using resources which release chemicals in the air which increase global warming.

Here's a video explaining carbon taxes and various implementations.  It's simple enough even I understood it.

 

So you think people that live in homes that are heated by natural gas or oil furnaces in communities where that is the most common way of heating should abandon their homes or spend thousands of dollars?  Natural gas is known to be an extremely efficient form of heating and causes almost no air pollution.  It is a vast resource in the ground that creates thousands of jobs for Canadians.  We also sell huge amounts of natural gas to the U.S.  Billions of dollars in tax revenue for government pays for health care, education, etc.

[Wilber]

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If you believe that, I have a piece of real estate and a lot of other things to sell you.

As a senior, I paid over $2000 in direct carbon taxes in the last eight years in northwest B .C. on natural gas heating and auto gas.  The B.C. government claimed they gave a tax reduction to offset it as part of the so-called revenue neutral carbon tax.   Nobody seriously believes that.  The fact is only certain citizens paid the most carbon taxes while the rest of the population paid little or no carbon taxes.  People that did not use natural gas or oil heating paid no carbon taxes on that.  People with electric heating or wood stoves (which are air polluting) pay no carbon taxes.  People who live in apartment buildings and ride transit buses or skytrain pay almost no carbon taxes.  So it is a very discriminatory tax  Most of the rest of the world pays no carbon tax while some of us in B.C. have been used as the scapegoats in the great battle against climate change.  It is an unfair and discriminatory tax grab.  The slight reduction in income tax that might have been given was spread around to everyone in the province and would amount to a tiny fraction of what some of us paid in carbon taxes.  Therefore while some of us paid thousands of dollars in carbon taxes in the last eight years, that money was taken and given to mostly everyone else.  Hardly revenue neutral, which is phony political rhetoric.

The carbon tax has come back in the form of income tax cuts. Natural gas is still by far the cheapest way to heat homes and water in BC. Wood burning stoves are banned in most municipal areas and while they do polute, they are carbon neutral as long as we keep growing trees to replace the ones we burn.

That said, I am not a big fan of carbon taxes as the tax collected does not go to reducing CO2 emissions, it just goes into government coffers.

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, Wilber said:

The carbon tax has come back in the form of income tax cuts.

I agree with most of what you said.   Except the income tax cut did not compensate the people who paid the bulk of the carbon taxes.  That is a government deception.  Must go out for a few hours.

Edited March 13, 2017 by blackbird

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Except the income tax cut did not compensate the people who paid the bulk of the carbon taxes.

That is the point, is it not? Reward those who generate the smaller carbon footprint the most. Nothing wrong with heating with natural gas, perhaps you need to look at doing it more efficiently. Forced air heating systems have a very wide range of efficiencies, and there is a huge variance in hot water production between different otherwise equivalent families. There are many cases where people have invested in proper insulation and better heating systems and cut their heating (and A/C) bills significantly. Finally put on a sweater in the evening when you are sitting around, that change alone can save hundreds if not thousands a year. 

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

So you think people that live in homes that are heated by natural gas or oil furnaces in communities where that is the most common way of heating should abandon their homes or spend thousands of dollars?  Natural gas is known to be an extremely efficient form of heating and causes almost no air pollution.  It is a vast resource in the ground that creates thousands of jobs for Canadians.  We also sell huge amounts of natural gas to the U.S.  Billions of dollars in tax revenue for government pays for health care, education, etc.

 

Did you watch the video?

I think that as resources that contribute to climate change become more expensive, people will *choose* different solutions.   Suggesting I want people to 'abandon' their homes is ridiculous, but perhaps if they decide to renovate, they would make more 'green' choices.   I need to replace my hot water tank over the next year; I'd like to install an on-demand system, if possible, instead of heating and keeping hot 30 or 40 gals of water all the time, only heat the water I'm using 'right now'.    

Did you watch the video?   What did you think?   Did it help you understand how carbon pricing can make a difference and the different ways it can be implemented?   I found it quite interesting; it was part of a 'recommended' series from work.  I work with a BC Ministry which has to take the effects of climate change into account in their future planning.

 

 

[Wilber]

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I agree with most of what you said.   Except the income tax cut did not compensate the people who paid the bulk of the carbon taxes.  That is a government deception.  Must go out for a few hours.

No, it rewards those who have the smallest carbon footprint. That's the whole point of the tax and what consumption taxes area all about. Those who consume pay.

[?Impact]

37 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I need to replace my hot water tank over the next year; I'd like to install an on-demand system, if possible, instead of heating and keeping hot 30 or 40 gals of water all the time, only heat the water I'm using 'right now'.

I lived in Europe about 30 years ago now. We had 3 different places. 2 with hot water on demand (one was electric, the other natural gas), and one place with a water tank that only heated overnight at a lower rate. The water tank was great for having a shower/bath in the morning once you got used to how much you could use, but you would need to wait till the next day for moe hot water. I really liked the on-demand natural gas, because you basically had unlimited supply of hot water; the only problem was if you wanted scalding hot water (of course many tanks don't heat beyond a specific temperature anyway). The electric hot water also worked, but didn't quite get the same rate of flow as the natural gas but there were multiple units close to the point of use each with a small tank if you wanted a little bit of scalding hot water.

Edited March 13, 2017 by ?Impact

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I lived in Europe about 30 years ago now. We had 3 different places. 2 with hot water on demand (one was electric, the other natural gas), and one place with a water tank that only heated overnight at a lower rate. The water tank was great for having a shower/bath in the morning once you got used to how much you could use, but you would need to wait till the next day for moe hot water. I really liked the on-demand natural gas, because you basically had unlimited supply of hot water; the only problem was if you wanted scalding hot water (of course many tanks don't heat beyond a specific temperature anyway). The electric hot water also worked, but didn't quite get the same rate of flow as the natural gas but there were multiple units close to the point of use each with a small tank if you wanted a little bit of scalding hot water.

4

I'm in a townhouse, and natural gas comes in but I don't think running it to the hot water closet is going to be an option.   Last time I checked a few years ago, on-demand electric for the whole house needed a 220 outlet, and I don't know if that's available in the hot water closet.   I thought maybe a smaller hot water tank, with a point of use in the kitchen might be an option that would save electricity/money.   

 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Wrong on all counts.

Putting a price on carbon will improve the economy and decrease the cost of living and attract investment and job while reducing the rate of climate change. It is a win, win, win, win, win on all sides.

Thanks for that rousing vote of approval, Dalton McGuinty. And here we were wondering where you'd gotten to since you were run out of office...

I don't think we really need to demonstrate how additional taxes damage an economy, do we, especially when the money is spent on nothing useful?

[Argus]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

No, I am providing an opinion which is what you were doing. Now do you want to get into details why?

The world is slowing moving to a non carbon based energy paradigm. That is a given, for many reasons. Canada needs to be a leader or else we are giving away our future for the sake of the profit of a few foreign owned oil companies. That doesn't mean we stop oil today, but we create a roadmap to get us away from our dependence on it. Carbon taxes will incite the private enterprise to make the change,

The private enterprise which is leading the way is Elon Musk, but electric vehicles still only account for a fraction of a percent of cars being sold. Technology is also not boxed in by geographical borders. When someone invents a car which works well on electricity, when they invent batteries and solar panels and the like which make it more sensible to go electric, then we can do so. So far they have not done so, and they're not going to do so in Canada.

 

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Carbon taxes will not, repeat not increase the cost of living; government can reduce taxes in other areas to offset any carbon taxes.

But they won't, and they aren't.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

The carbon tax has come back in the form of income tax cuts.

Uh huh, and did those cuts grow each year? Nope. But the carbon tax did. So guess what...

[Argus]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

That is the point, is it not? Reward those who generate the smaller carbon footprint the most.

Government: Okay, Magna, you have way too big a carbon footprint. We're gonna tax your ass off.

Magna: No problem. We're leaving Canada anyway, transferring more and more of work to the US and Mexico. Have fun.

[Wilber]

49 minutes ago, Argus said:

Uh huh, and did those cuts grow each year? Nope. But the carbon tax did. So guess what...

I believe they have but this government is very attached to user fees so they can claim they haven't increased taxes, so it is hard to say how the actual tax burden has been affected.

[dre]

17 hours ago, bcsapper said:

How do think seven billion going on ten possibly fifteen billion people are going to change the atmospheric components enough to te reverse climate change without suffering?

The purpose of Carbon taxation is to create a market incentive by making companies internalize the costs of pollution. The hope is that creating an incentive for technologies that release no CO2, or less CO2 will increase investment in cleaner technologies and we are already seeing that. IF (and I realize its an if) a major breakthrough is made, then we could get off fossil fuels without much pain at all.

Carbon taxes could make the difference between entering the next "energy age" 50 years from now instead of 200. If you think that the problem can NEVER be solved by technology then its understandable why you would be against incentives designed to increase R&D. I however firmly believe that technology will, so I support modest attempts to speed that up, which is what we are seeing.

And CO2 is only one reason to get off fossil fuels. Energy costs have been rising and they are already an impediment to global economic growth. They are also very volatile because they are based too much on the price and availability of commodities instead of technology. I believe that at some point in the future energy will be virtual free... and I figure, the sooner the better.

Plus... I didn't even notice when carbon taxes were implemented in BC. I don't feel like I'm suffering. 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

No, it rewards those who have the smallest carbon footprint. That's the whole point of the tax and what consumption taxes area all about. Those who consume pay.

It punishes those who happened to own homes with a natural gas or oil furnace at the time this carbon tax was started eight years ago.  It would cost about ten thousands dollars to replace an older regular natural gas furnace with a new high-efficiency natural gas furnace.  Why should some people be punished while everybody else gets off free?   Also people who live in remote areas and must drive a lot, maybe pickup trucks, must pay more carbon taxes on their vehicle fuel.  The thing is this carbon tax makes absolutely no difference to climate change.  Even if one accepts that carbon emissions effects climate change, which is unlikely, Canada only emits 1.9% of the worlds' man-made carbon emissions;.  B.C. a tiny fraction of 1.9%.   Why do you think it is fair to hammer a small percentage of B.C. residents with this tax while the rest of the world pays nothing?   Seems totally unfair and a scam.  The people that brought the tax in, like former Premier Gordon Campbell, skipped off to the UK to take a job as a diplomat.  He is loaded with money as are other cabinet members who brought the tax in and put it on people like me who live on a pension.  Thanks for that.  It does nothing for the enviironment.  One big forest fire or volcanic erruption probably emits more CO2 than all the natural gas furnaces running a full year in B.C.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, dre said:

The purpose of Carbon taxation is to create a market incentive by making companies internalize the costs of pollution. The hope is that creating an incentive for technologies that release no CO2, or less CO2 will increase investment in cleaner technologies and we are already seeing that. IF (and I realize its an if) a major breakthrough is made, then we could get off fossil fuels without much pain at all.

Carbon taxes could make the difference between entering the next "energy age" 50 years from now instead of 200. If you think that the problem can NEVER be solved by technology then its understandable why you would be against incentives designed to increase R&D. I however firmly believe that technology will, so I support modest attempts to speed that up, which is what we are seeing.

And CO2 is only one reason to get off fossil fuels. Energy costs have been rising and they are already an impediment to global economic growth. They are also very volatile because they are based too much on the price and availability of commodities instead of technology. I believe that at some point in the future energy will be virtual free... and I figure, the sooner the better.

Plus... I didn't even notice when carbon taxes were implemented in BC. I don't feel like I'm suffering. 

That's my point.  You're not suffering.  Climate change isn't being stopped.  It will take more than a carbon tax in Canada to make a difference.  I don't have the numbers, and I'm not about to go and find them, (where's Waldo when you need him?) but I'll bet the new coal fired power plants coming on line in the next ten or twenty years make Canada's carbon tax contribution quite negligible.

Edited March 13, 2017 by bcsapper

[dre]

Just now, bcsapper said:

That's my point.  You're not suffering.  Climate change isn't being stopped.  It will take more than a carbon tax in Canada to make a difference.  I don't have the numbers, and I'm not about to go and find them, (where's Waldo when you need him?) but I'll bet the new coal fired power plants coming on line in the next ten or twenty years make Canada's carbon tax contribution quite negligible.

You didn't try to understand what I said at all. Carbon taxes themselves obviously will not stop climate change. Only new technology will. What carbon taxes CAN do is create an incentive in the market place to invest in those technologies. And yes... The break-throughs required to enter the next energy age COULD come from little old Canada.

Quote

but I'll bet the new coal fired power plants coming on line in the next ten or twenty years make Canada's carbon tax contribution quite negligible.

Again, you don't seem to understand the point of the taxes or what they are meant to do. They aren't MEANT to directly reduce our emissions. They are meant to encourage investment in technology.

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

That is the point, though - move people away from using resources which release chemicals in the air which increase global warming.

Here's a video explaining carbon taxes and various implementations.  It's simple enough even I understood it.

 

I watched this video, but I don't agree with it.  It has the look of propaganda.  Probably made or contracted to be made by the B.C. government.  There are many claims in it that are completely illogical, like somehow putting a carbon tax on some people is going to be fair.  Also, the claim that carbon tax reduces consumption.  I have heard that to be false.   People who use natural gas furnaces are not going to turn the temperature down as someone suggested and put on more clothes.   Canada is a cold climate with much of the country having long winters and low termperatures.  It is hyprocrisy for some people in cities to tell other people they should turn their temperatures down and put on more clothes.  It is unhealthy to live in house that is not properly heated.   Ignorant comment.  The whole video and carbon pricing is built on the premise that man-made climate change is a fact, when in fact it is only an unproven theory.  Check out the website Ten Reason why man-made climate change is a hoax.    http://www.globalclimatescam.com/opinion/top-ten-reasons-climate-change-is-a-hoax/

 

Edited March 13, 2017 by blackbird

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, dre said:

You didn't try to understand what I said at all. Carbon taxes themselves obviously will not stop climate change. Only new technology will. What carbon taxes CAN do is create an incentive in the market place to invest in those technologies. And yes... The break-throughs required to enter the next energy age COULD come from little old Canada.

Again, you don't seem to understand the point of the taxes or what they are meant to do. They aren't MEANT to directly reduce our emissions. They are meant to encourage investment in technology.

Sure, but your comments on taxes had nothing to do with any of my previous comments, so I figured relevance wasn't something we were too worried about.  The taxes might make you feel all warm and fuzzy but they aren't going to affect AGW.  

I'm not saying don't have them. I have no problems with taxes.  I'm just against making spurious claims for them. 

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

The private enterprise which is leading the way is Elon Musk

He is doing a very little bit on storage (mostly mobile), but there are far more out there that are addressing other issues than him.

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Magna: No problem. We're leaving Canada anyway, transferring more and more of work to the US and Mexico.

Then expect a huge tariff on what you import into Canada. The current for global corporate cheaters only so called free trade needs to change.

55 minutes ago, blackbird said:

It punishes those who happened to own homes with a natural gas or oil furnace at the time this carbon tax was started eight years ago.  It would cost about ten thousands dollars to replace an older regular natural gas furnace with a new high-efficiency natural gas furnace.  Why should some people be punished while everybody else gets off free?   Also people who live in remote areas and must drive a lot, maybe pickup trucks, must pay more carbon taxes on their vehicle fuel.

Nobody is being punished, and when the salesman wants to see you that expensive furnace you should run the other way because it is most likely a scam. Sometime the easiest and most productive changes are the cheapest.

A lot of those hillbillies driving their pickup trucks are speeding down country lanes with one person in them and nothing in the back, I know I spend a lot of time in the country. They should be punished, because they are the worst offenders of all. They are already benefiting from super low real-estate and municipal taxes, they have nothing to complain about.

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

TOP TEN REASONS CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX

Top reason why threads on Carbon tax degrade, because people just can`t accept reality.

[blackbird]

13 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Top reason why threads on Carbon tax degrade, because people just can`t accept reality.

Oh... OK,  so your opinion is the only reality we should accept.  I need to change my thinking...

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Oh... OK,  so your opinion is the only reality we should accept.  I need to change my thinking...

or stop drifting from a discussion on carbon tax to unrelated nonsense.

[blackbird]

Somebody just pointed out to me in an Email that I am not allowed to post the complete article in a link, but can only post the link.  I apologize for posting the article.  It looks like somebody has removed the article from the debate.   I noticed somebody has posted a video introduction screen.  Wonder if that is allowed.  It is more than a link.  There is also a button to drag files here to attach.  and another button to insert other media.  If I have a file on my computer that I downloaded from the internet, and I attach it, wouldn't that amount to the same thing as copying an article from another website? 

Here is my link.   The Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax:  www.globalclimatescam.com/opinion/top-ten-reasons-climate-change-is-a-hoax/

[OftenWrong]

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I don't think so.  For all the efforts made so far the CO2 continues to increase in our atmosphere, and we're getting to the stage where methane is going to release from frozen hydrates at an accelerated rate. I don't think we can change it at all in any meaningful way without suffering.  (And I'm not suggesting that that is what will happen.  What I'm suggesting is that we're doomed)

There there not to worry. Eventually the impending suffering outweighs the preeminent suffering, so that we actually do things.