Carbon Tax?

[john10]

Im against the carbon tax

Well, for one, the proposed tax cuts are flat, while the costs of fuel are not, unless you cap them, which the greens and liberals dont plan to do. Since none of the parties really plan to, I doubt its realistic anyways. What about people on fixed incomes ? People having pensions, etc Will that be shifted ? is there subsidies ? I havent heard about any. This will also hurt trucking companies, and increase their costs to offset fuel prices, and as a result the food industry will have to pay more to meet the rates, or the truckers are dead in the water. This will be passed onto canadians, and the increasing cost of food, etc will likely offset tax cuts.  Not to mention taxes are collected once a year, there is a lot of "in-between".Also, many regions like the parairies and atlantic canada arent big polluters, will be the biggest hit by the carbon tax, so its really pointless. This is what is wrong with centralist one-shoe-fits-all policies, isn't it. Instead of going after regions like the toronto/southern Ontario that have high pollution, they hit everyone regardless of pollution levels. Also, rural/lower income individuals are bigger users of pollutants, very often lacking the ability to afford "green technology", so as a result they have to bear a bigger burden.This is also smeels a bit like a liberal cash-grab.

So, essentially, if you're rural, lower income, or even middle income, the carbon tax effects you negatively. I thought a party that 24-40 MP's from rural ridings wuld have a bit of a better understanding of rural regions.

You make good points Prairie. Certain economic activities (trucking) and lifestyles (rural vs urban) will become more expensive, but that's exactly the point of the Green Shift; to induce changes in our behaviour by better integrating the environmental cost of our decisions into the price of things like trucking or living in a rural area.

The green shift in fact does have plenty of subsidies and credits for groups that will be affected though.

There is no reason why rural lifestyles should be supported beyond what the market already supports.

 

[john10]

My point is their premise is laughable because they can't provide the calculation if you asked them too.


Matthew. 

No, the premise (that man-caused climate change is a serious problem that needs to be addressed) is not laughable.

You're right, there's a lot of uncertainty regarding the exact extent of the cost and the potential effect. However, there is not any question that if something costs more (carbon emissions), demand for it will be lower. You can always adjust the tax as you get data on how it has affected consumption.

 

[George Wallace]

There is no reason why rural lifestyles should be supported beyond what the market already supports.

???

I think you will find that those in rural areas are a lot more "Green" than their urban counterparts.

 

[George Wallace]

No, the premise (that man-caused climate change is a serious problem that needs to be addressed) is not laughable.

OK.  Just for you: it is supposed to be a point of contention that cattle produce too much methane and that is one of our largest causes of Green House Gases.  I have a simple solution; eat more beef.

What does eating more beef mean to our economy?  It means that our farmers stave off bankruptcy and produce a product that would be cheap for consumers.  It would put food on the table of millions.  We could send excess beef to those starving in far off nations. 

 

[john10]

???

I think you will find that those in rural areas are a lot more "Green" than their urban counterparts.

I seriously doubt that. Rural living means a lot more car driving to get around, and I suspect, higher heating costs on average than urban people.

This isn't a moral judgment, it's just an observation on the environmental impact of the lifestyle.

 

[john10]

OK.  Just for you: it is supposed to be a point of contention that cattle produce too much methane and that is one of our largest causes of Green House Gases.  I have a simple solution; eat more beef.

What does eating more beef mean to our economy?  It means that our farmers stave off bankruptcy and produce a product that would be cheap for consumers.  It would put food on the table of millions.  We could send excess beef to those starving in far off nations. 

I'm not sure what the point of this post is.

 

[George Wallace]

I seriously doubt that. Rural living means a lot more car driving to get around, and I suspect, higher heating costs on average than urban people.

This isn't a moral judgment, it's just an observation on the environmental impact of the lifestyle.

Really?

Where are you more likely to find homes with Geothermal heating?  Solar power and Solar heated water?  Windmills?  Some even use water powered generators.  Who are more likely to grow their own food?  Who are more likely to be hunters and fishers?  Who are less likely to be consumer orientated and more into conservation.  Who are more likely to buy things that will be multi purpose and recycle?  Who are more likely to compost?  Who are less likely to park on a freeway?  Just an observation.

 

[a_majoor]

OK.  Just for you: it is supposed to be a point of contention that cattle produce too much methane and that is one of our largest causes of Green House Gases.  I have a simple solution; eat more beef.

What does eating more beef mean to our economy?  It means that our farmers stave off bankruptcy and produce a product that would be cheap for consumers.  It would put food on the table of millions.  We could send excess beef to those starving in far off nations. 

This particular solution is more akin to strip mining. If you ate the current herds of beef, then you would have a short term spike in farm incomes and a long term reduction in methane etc. Producing more beef to keep up with escalating demand would indeed lower the overall price of beef, and create a revenue stream for farmers, but also put stress on other aspects of the food, water and energy chain, particularly high "input" crops like corn (maize) and grain used to feed cattle.

Raise goats instead.

 

[George Wallace]

Well.  We still have the Hog Farmers, Poultry Farmers, Elk Farmers, Ostrich Farmers,...........

I would get sick of beef on a three to five meal a day, seven day a week plan.

 

[Old Sweat]

John10

I am sure you are not, but you are coming across as a totalitarian. Who gives you or anyone else the right to tell Canadians where or where not they may choose to live? Doesn't that prohibition violate all sorts of provisions in the charter? What next, forcing people to live in the dreary vertical Gulags of the past and unlamented USSR?

 

[john10]

Really?

Where are you more likely to find homes with Geothermal heating?  Solar power and Solar heated water?  Windmills?  Some even use water powered generators.  Who are more likely to grow their own food?  Who are more likely to be hunters and fishers?  Who are less likely to be consumer orientated and more into conservation.  Who are more likely to buy things that will be multi purpose and recycle?  Who are more likely to compost?  Who are less likely to park on a freeway?  Just an observation.

Most of these things remain very marginal, and I'm not even sure you're more likely to find them in rural rather than urban settings (solar power for instance).

 

[john10]

John10

I am sure you are not, but you are coming across as a totalitarian. Who gives you or anyone else the right to tell Canadians where or where not they may choose to live? Doesn't that prohibition violate all sorts of provisions in the charter? What next, forcing people to live in the dreary vertical Gulags of the past and unlamented USSR?

Respectfully, you should re-read my posts, because I've made no such suggestion.

I am saying that the full environmental cost of certain economic activities and lifestyles should be integrated into their price, and that if this is done, I suspect living in a rural area will prove more expensive, and that there is no reason to subsidize this lifestyle over the long term, beyond what the market is able to sustain in terms of people living in the country.

 

[George Wallace]

Respectfully, you should re-read my posts, because I've made no such suggestion.

I am saying that the full environmental cost of certain economic activities and lifestyles should be integrated into their price, and that if this is done, I suspect living in a rural area will prove more expensive, and that there is no reason to subsidize this lifestyle over the long term, beyond what the market is able to sustain in terms of people living in the country.

One could turn around and ask why it is that we have to subsidize urban dwellers?  Why does the Government (on several levels) have to subsidize urban transportation systems?  Why does the Federal Government subsidize Airports?  Why is there a reason for them to subsidize Water Treatment, Sewers, and Garbage removal?  Why does the Government have to subsidize urban Schools?  Universities?  Colleges?  Why does the Government have to subsidize urban infrastructure?  Policing, Fire and Ambulance? 

I am really unclear as to what you are getting on about when you comment "subsidize this lifestyle"?

 

[TCBF]

Respectfully, you should re-read my posts, because I've made no such suggestion.

I am saying that the full environmental cost of certain economic activities and lifestyles should be integrated into their price, and that if this is done, I suspect living in a rural area will prove more expensive, and that there is no reason to subsidize this lifestyle over the long term, beyond what the market is able to sustain in terms of people living in the country.

- Interesting. Let's start with these newfangled flat-screen LCD and similar TV and computer monitors.  We have the EnerGuideStaatsPolizie slapping efficiency stickers on fridges, stoves, washers, dryers and furnaces, yet we have more TVs than appliances, and the TVs are getting LESS efficient.  Your average flat-screen uses about four to five times more energy than a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) screen.

- Lets kick-off this carbon gig with a $100 per flat-screen monitor tax.  Watch the Larry Lunchboxes and Suzy Sewingkits of the country pee themselves.

 

[john10]

One could turn around and ask why it is that we have to subsidize urban dwellers?  Why does the Government (on several levels) have to subsidize urban transportation systems?  Why does the Federal Government subsidize Airports?  Why is there a reason for them to subsidize Water Treatment, Sewers, and Garbage removal?  Why does the Government have to subsidize urban Schools?  Universities?  Colleges?  Why does the Government have to subsidize urban infrastructure?  Policing, Fire and Ambulance? 

I am really unclear as to what you are getting on about when you comment "subsidize this lifestyle"?

Imposing a tax on carbon would make life more expensive for rural people, since their lifestyle is more carbon-intensive. My point is that governments should not try to subsidize the lifestyle and should instead let whatever natural migration occurs take place.

There is no particular benefit to having people live in the countryside rather than cities, so if we do eventually move toward "internalizing" the environmental cost of economic activities into their price, we should let the process take its course and let people deal with the new economic reality of more expensive life in rural areas.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well,  John10, I see you have attracted the attention of the rest of the group here.  Just a few of my thoughts.

In the country the sanitary needs of a family can be met with a hole in the ground for quite a few years.  In the city it seems we need billions of dollars of infrastructure to prevent the inmates choking on their own excrement.
In the country a well meets the needs of the family.  In the city more billions are needed to bring water from distant places so that the denizens can drink and wash.
In the country when you drive from point a to point b you get there.  You don't spend hours parked in traffic with the engine running.
In the country you don't cover greenspace with asphalt and rock and people.

 

[a_majoor]

- Interesting. Let's start with these newfangled flat-screen LCD and similar TV and computer monitors.  We have the EnerGuideStaatsPolizie slapping efficiency stickers on fridges, stoves, washers, dryers and furnaces, yet we have more TVs than appliances, and the TVs are getting LESS efficient.  Your average flat-screen uses about four to five times more energy than a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) screen.

- Lets kick-off this carbon gig with a $100 per flat-screen monitor tax.  Watch the Larry Lunchboxes and Suzy Sewingkits of the country pee themselves.

LCD's use far less power than CRT's and far less materials to make as well. Do you have a citation for your claim? What sort of flat panel technology are you using for your basis of comparison?

WRT urban vs rural lifestyles, urban living is much more resource intensive (although the ability to manipulate energy and resources is the basis of creating real wealth). Rural dwellers can take advantage of alternative energy more easily than urban dwellers since alternative energy is low density energy, and they have lots of land to establish collectors and low population density to consume it. By contrast, I would have a great deal of difficulty placing solar panels on my property where they would not be shaded at some point during the day, or drilling a well for geothermal energy etc.

 

[john10]

- Interesting. Let's start with these newfangled flat-screen LCD and similar TV and computer monitors.  We have the EnerGuideStaatsPolizie slapping efficiency stickers on fridges, stoves, washers, dryers and furnaces, yet we have more TVs than appliances, and the TVs are getting LESS efficient.  Your average flat-screen uses about four to five times more energy than a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) screen.

- Lets kick-off this carbon gig with a $100 per flat-screen monitor tax.  Watch the Larry Lunchboxes and Suzy Sewingkits of the country pee themselves.

I agree with the basic idea but think it would be better to simply tax dirty energy in the first place. In a related matter, I don't think it makes sense to tax SUVs instead of compact cars. Instead, it's much simpler to tax gasoline uniformly, since what matters is how much gas is consumed, not what type of car it's being consumed in.

Your assimilation of EnerGuide to a Nazi organization is bizarre. EnerGuide doesn't compel anybody to do anything, all it does is provide information as far as I know.

 

[stryte]

Imposing a tax on carbon would make life more expensive for rural people, since their lifestyle is more carbon-intensive.

Yes a carbon tax will make life more expensive but it will do that for everyone. I, like others disagree with your opinion that living in the country is more cabon-intensive. I know here in Sask, plenty of country people who embrace technology in order to not only supply their own power but also contribute power back to the grid which everyone can use. SaskPower has built roughly 100 massive wind turbines some of which are found on these country folk land. Others I know have installed such things as furnaces which burn low grade grain (which they grow themselves) or homes with sod insultation. I could go on.

There is no particular benefit to having people live in the countryside rather than cities,

You might want to go tell that to all the people living out there then. I am sure they could give you a few benefits. One thing I can think of is the number who use their land as a primary or secondary source of income. Such as food! Which if you ate food today I think you have an interest in. Unless of course you'd rather we import all our grains, fruits, vegtables and meats. We can let China produce it all for us, send it across the ocean on a big ship than truck it into the cities just so a few city folk don't get upset about a country family recieving a subsidy their family doesn't.

 

[TCBF]

...Your assimilation of EnerGuide to a Nazi organization is bizarre. EnerGuide doesn't compel anybody to do anything, all it does is provide information as far as I know.

- Mea Culpa.  A grossly unfair statement on my part, made for dramatic effect.  Now, lets put their labels on everything electric.