I want Canada to ban tax deductions on carbon emitting products and services

First, welcome aboard the good ship Babble.

Second, where did you hear that the government is interested in decreasing GHGs?

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

In order for a plan like this to work, you'd have to draw some lines. For instance, public transit emits carbon. But we get a tax break for taking it because it emits less carbon than cars. And hybrid cars emit less carbon than regular cars. And regular cars emit less carbon than SUVs.

You see where I'm going with this...

I think it can be done, but it wouldn't be as simple a formula as merely, "ban tax deductions on carbon emitting products and services". Because every product and service, somewhere along the line, emits carbon - even bicycles, if you think about the carbon emissions that go into making them!

Some sort of determination would have to be made, about which products help reduce emissions by replacing higher-emission products, and where to draw the line would be the political argument between real environmental justice activists and the pretend conservative green types.

ATBIG, I think you are making some assumptions that may not be accurate.

First of all, very few businesses are out to waste energy. I'd love to put my crew in a hybrid or Smart Car, but heckgoshdarn, a van works better when you've got 3 or 4 people, a camera package and lighting equipment. I also challenge someone to show me how to light an interview on portable wind or solar power. Please, go right ahead. Because, frankly, the technology isn't there yet.

No company gives its employees carte blanch on filling up their vehicles - certainly not many that stay in business for any length of time. If they use their own vehicles, they are being paid on a mileage basis that takes kilometres traveled and adds on some for wear and tear on the vehicle. Alternatively, if the employee is driving a company car, there is often a specific allowance provided on average km driven within a reasonable figure for the purposes of business. Sometimes gas is paid directly on a project basis, but you can bet your booty that somebody's keeping track.

This isn't counted as a tax deduction, btw. These are counted as business costs and are paid out of pocket by the business, the same as paper and pencils and other related costs are. You are not subsidizing any of it, to my knowledge.

I really don't know where you figure you're subsidizing our electricity, either...

It can also be that building a new building creates more footprint in terms of having to build outside the area one would do business out of in an older building and have to commute, or be a factor in creating more sprawl. It could be that retrofitting a building might make more sense -- if, that is, you own the building. Many businesses rent office space. How much carbon does it create to build, anyway? Will city ordinances allow newer green building techniques and materials? Often they don't. I know of at least one business in my city that erected a small wind turbine to generate some of their power and the city demanded they take it down.

I appreciate your green sentiments, but it strikes me that you haven't entirely thought out the implications of your proposal or given much time to how business expenditures and taxes actually work.

[ 12 June 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

Too cumbersome to travel with, for one -- power storage units, or batteries are large and heavy. Too many variables, ie: you can't recharge with solar power overnight, and cloudy days are a problem.

ETA: We don't tend to power light kits, for example, with portable power, for the most part. With cameras and sound equipment it's possible to use batteries, but you don't necessarily have the luxury of good available lighting.

[ 13 June 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

Germany is not a small country.

And the problem here isn't surface area, but car-created sprawl. If you go to old Quйbec you can walk everywhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by It's Me D:
[b]My point was that for rural areas the government must make investments in public transit that they've completely neglected. In fact there is no public or even private transit here...[/b]

---

So the government should subsidize the ultimate "urban" sprawl?! [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]

What is the density in your rural area? 1 inhabitant per 10 square kilometers?

quote:

---

So the government should subsidize the ultimate "urban" sprawl?!

---

If this was a serious comment it is just disgusting.

We are all supposed to huddle together in cities where we can be closely supervised (for our benefit of course) while all the resources we consume are shipped in from... where exactly? Once you've moved all the rural producers into the cities what do you plan to eat? To wear? Etc. Arrogant city folk [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] . How about we do a little test, to see what is really more sustainable? I'll bet you anything that we are better off without you then the reverse.

Cities are the backbone of consumptive capitalist living and fascist state control; I want nothing to do with them. So yes, stop urban sprawl; stop urbanity all together. Come live with nature, its really very pleasant.

And Kropotkin our blueberries really are very good [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

A bit of back ground material about "rural sprawl".

[url=http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/planning/rural/daniels.aspx]What to Do About Rural Sprawl?[/url]

Scooter thank you for elaborating on your comment.

quote:

---

Take a look outside of most any major city in North America where you will see the single homes sitting on large acre sized lots.

---

I would have called this suburbia, as it is surrounding an urban centre. This is very different than rural villages and towns which, in this area anyway, have existed for hundreds of years. I certainly agree suburbia is a problem.

quote:

---

It is a serious issue in Southern Alberta.

---

I will be attending a conference of rural municipalities in Alberta in a couple weeks, I hope I will learn more about this. It is certainly not such a problem here; but then again I assume it is a problem associated with "prosperity" and we are short on that here [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

The article's description of "rural sprawl" (divided into two types) is a little different than yours:

quote:

---

The first is low-density residential development that is scattered outside of villages, suburbs, and smaller cities. The second type of rural sprawl is commercial strip development along arterial highways leading into and out of villages, suburbs, and smaller cities.

---

As the article suggests this is a planning problem, and one that most municipal administrators and planners here are quite aware of. The article suggests seven steps to be taken in dealing with this phenomenon, I want you to know that (here) most of these steps are actually required of municipalities and in fact most exceed these requirements and have taken all seven steps. I am surprised that these steps are novel or new in the US; if that is also the case in Alberta I'm sure I will find out when I come out there shortly.

Thanks for mentioning this. It doesn't change my opinion on rural life as both more sustainable and more pleasant than its urban equivalent, however I will certainly acknowledge that making/keeping it this way takes serious work on the part of municipal administrators like myself.

ETA: cross-posted with Timebandit. That website is interesting and I certainly wish them well on their project however I don't think building new rural communities is really necessary or pheasible here; in fact there is a lot to be learned from traditional rural living (much of which was forcibly un-learned which is most unfortunate).

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]