The only way you ever answer questions is by asking unrelated questions.
Politics, policy and climate change...and maybe the aftermath of the BC election
Wed, 2009-05-13 23:06
#52
Wed, 2009-05-13 23:07
#53
I did. You didn't like the answer. Now it's your turn.
eta: You seem to be under the impression that I'm adamantly opposed to a cap-and-trade system. I'm not. But an intelligent policy has to deal with those three questions. (I've added the fourth for you as a special exercise; I already know the answer to that one).
Wed, 2009-05-13 23:09
#54
It's amazing that light can escape the irony of that post.
I'm going to bed.
Wed, 2009-05-13 23:11
#55
They cant stop new oil sands projects. Just imagine the lost carbon tax revenue. How else could they rack up a decent slush fund? What would Exxon-Imperial and Encana execs think - that Canada is closed to business as usual?
Wed, 2009-05-13 23:41
#56
remind
I am glad that a carbon tax proved not to be guaranteed political death in BC, because that would have put a damper on climate-change policies of whatever sort elsewhere in the country.And what's a few crappy old rivers nobody gives a damn about stacked up against that, after all?
Ya, insanity at its finest with these people Peter!
Thu, 2009-05-14 00:43
#57
"Sigh" is exactly why you guys lost the election. Cos you cannot explain yourselves and do not even try.
Another problem with communication (for you guys) is that it is a 2 way street. Studiously ignoring feedback means that your points never make it in the real world. Maybe, if you answered my questions, you might make the connection wiith the common man and woman that you have failed to make so far?
Finding an answer in plain english really can free you.
"Sigh" just keeps your brilliance hidden.
Actually, I do not know what a progressive tax is and what a regressive tax is either... ...Anyway, can someone let me know in laymans terms what is so terrible about the carbon tax? (From the NDP left wing bible if you like) but translate from russian to english for me.
Sigh...
Thu, 2009-05-14 01:24
#58
I have not heard one so called expert place a price on what it will cost to implement a carbon tax or cap and trade on an individual or family. Bring forth this info into the public realm and see how the public reacts. Policy change, behaviour change and technology change will require a generation to achieve the results wanted.
That's because no-one will have a clear answer; it depends on how the carbon tax or cap and trade system is structured, and how an individual or family consumes products and services. We don't really need technological change so much as deploy the technology we already have (not that even more technological breakthroughs in solar photovotaics and energy storage wouldn't help). There are other measures beside carbon pricing to do that, such as far access and pricing laws, mandatory capacity targets for renewable energy, and changes to building codes to conserve energy. All it takes is the political will.
Thu, 2009-05-14 01:41
#59
Price goes up; demand goes down.
Now it's your turn.
How much demand goes down with a given price increase depends on a number of factors.
Thu, 2009-05-14 02:03
#60
PW - it still requires hard financial numbers. Also the cost of todays technology is very inefficient. Sasks grid is roughly 3800 mega watts. A one mw wind mill costs $1 million to build and is only 35% efficient. more than half of our grid is coal. To reduce the ghg by 50% that means 1140 mw would have to be replaced. To replace that power, 3,200 windmills ($3.2 billion) need to be built. The capital and maintance cost to the consumer would be so large no one would vote for it. Another problem is that in the winter when it is 30 below or colder there is usually no wind, so how do you recoup that missing power.
Again no one explains how they will cost this or how it will work? I believe that they know, but since the cost and huge inconvenience would kill any public support they have now. All we have to do is look at last summer when gas hit $1.40 l, people were complaining like crazy, now compound that cost across all aspects on ones life and see how far you get with support. The simple fact is no political party is going to bring forth the policy to force ghg reduction down to the publized levels. Even if we shut down all the coal plant in Sask. we would still be over Kyotos targets by 15%. I do not think Canadians want to go back to the dark ages. Once you have the candy it is very hard to take it away with out a whole lot of fighting.
Thu, 2009-05-14 02:04
#61
double post removed
Thu, 2009-05-14 02:22
#62
They cant stop new oil sands projects. Just imagine the lost carbon tax revenue. How else could they rack up a decent slush fund? What would Exxon-Imperial and Encana execs think - that Canada is closed to business as usual?
Lack of natural gas (which is also needed for more direct energy and fertilizer) will limit tar sands production at some point I think, possibly as early as 2015 or 2020. Perhaps water shortages too but I would bet more on natural gas being the limiting factor. It's not just a question of using a relatively clean form of energy to produce a dirtier form of energy, but natural gas is also a source of hydrogen for upgrading the bitumen. I don't know if natural gas production declines will be as steep as portrayed in this article http://www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2009/01/Over-the-Cliff-f..., but predictions of 5-6 million barrels a day by 2030 will probably never pan out even if there were no limitations for environmental reasons.
Thu, 2009-05-14 02:40
#63
PW - it still requires hard financial numbers. Also the cost of todays technology is very inefficient. Sasks grid is roughly 3800 mega watts. A one mw wind mill costs $1 million to build and is only 35% efficient. more than half of our grid is coal. To reduce the ghg by 50% that means 1140 mw would have to be replaced. To replace that power, 3,200 windmills ($3.2 billion) need to be built. The capital and maintance cost to the consumer would be so large no one would vote for it. Another problem is that in the winter when it is 30 below or colder there is usually no wind, so how do you recoup that missing power.
Again no one explains how they will cost this or how it will work? I believe that they know, but since the cost and huge inconvenience would kill any public support they have now. All we have to do is look at last summer when gas hit $1.40 l, people were complaining like crazy, now compound that cost across all aspects on ones life and see how far you get with support. The simple fact is no political party is going to bring forth the policy to force ghg reduction down to the publized levels. Even if we shut down all the coal plant in Sask. we would still be over Kyotos targets by 15%. I do not think Canadians want to go back to the dark ages. Once you have the candy it is very hard to take it away with out a whole lot of fighting.
You leave out the cheapest method of GHG reduction, which I alluded to with respect to changing building codes, and doesn't require replacing generating capacity. If you don't know what that is you have nothing to offer to the discussion. Obviously you didn't read the Pembina report on greening the grid in Alberta, which has even more coal plants than Saskatchewan. And it doesn't require going back to the dark ages, unless we leave it too late, in which case we won't have a choice.
Thu, 2009-05-14 05:14
#64
There's nothing wrong with cap-and-trade, if it's done intelligently. The problem is that so far, we've not seen an intelligent cap-and-trade proposal in Canada. Such a proposal will have to deal with the following points:
- How will the initial permits be distributed? Ideally, they should all be auctioned off, so the govts will receive revenues corresponding to those generated by a carbon tax. If they are given out to existing emitters, then the plan should explain why giving emitters a free monopoly is a good idea.
- How will the prices facing consumers be affected? So far, it has pleased Canadian proponents of cap-and-trade to pretend that the answer to this question is they they won't be. They should stop this pretense.
- How will low-income households be protected? Concrete measures - based on realistic estimates of those costs - should be a part of the package.
You've got a lot of nerve Gordon poking at people for what you call 'not ansering questions'. You, who don't answer questions that you don't find convenient to your politically driven narrow scope of 'what the issues are' .... who does not even answer crtiticisms to those repeated narrow and facile points of yours if you don't find the terrain of the criticisms convenient.
As to your list...
1. I don't think anyone is any longer seriously suggesting the giving away of permits. Thats a no-brainer lesson from the European experience. At any rate, the NDPs plan sees them auctioned off.
2. "So far, it has pleased Canadian proponents of cap-and-trade to pretend that the answer to this question is they they won't be [affected by price increases]." It is Stephen Gordon's arrogant pretension that no one ever addresses this question. This time at least, I'm not going to play the game of answering and being waved off.
3. The short answer is that if you are only trying to protect low income households, rather than trying to buy off the whole population, this is the easiest part of the overall policy package. But one third of carbon pricing revenues seems to be sufficient. The Dion Green shift plan put considerably less then a third into credits for low income households, but its coverage of the cost increases for those households was also substantially incomplete. Again, SG just waves away the full explanation, so I'll not bother with it again.
4. Carbon pricing that has produced results has been teamed with aggressive green spending initiatives that give households and enterprises the tools to actually realize the market incentives that come from carbon price driven cost increases. The NDP plan included these initiaves [financed out of the bulk of carbon pricing revenues that the Liberal plans use to buy off everyone], the Liberal plan had an empty cupboard and tax cuts that would also make financing agressive green initiatives from general revenues impossible. Proponents of the actual carbon plans we get need to address how this empty cupboard is going to be addressed; or evidence of some kind that the market incentives of the carbon tax cost increases, by themsleves, can reasonably be expected to bring down emissions sufficiently. This is one of those inconvenient things that SG simply ignores. Period.
Thu, 2009-05-14 05:27
#65
The recent rapid increase in the price of fuel (prior to its more recent downslide) did change people's behaviours. I for one sold my vehicle, and have transitioned to being carless. All the data I saw suggested that people's consumption preferences changed quite quickly. Did they make these changes willingly? Perhaps not. But rapid change can occur within a generation, e.g. the take off of recycling within a short period of time. Since our politicians will not champion a reduction in consumption, we will have to do it on our own.
The price of fuel had been increasing steadily for a few years before the big spike in 2007-8. Prior to that spike gasoline prices had doubled in something like 2 years. And the increases had stretched from before that. Yet, before the big spike in price, there had been very little change in miles driven or size and horsepower of vehicles purchased.
And the price spike came at the same time as the financial crises that made people worried about their job and income security. Thats not an assuring example of what it will take for market incentives alone to bring down consumption and emissions. If we need a sledge hammer like that to bring modest decreases for every product and sector... it does not look good.
See point 4 of the list above.
Thu, 2009-05-14 07:58
#66
I'm a bit confused KenS. Generally market incentives require market participation, and the notion of a competitor when you're talking about comparative advantage. Point 4 makes sense in the context of enterprises, but I don't understand it in the context of households. For enterprises, there is already a government program to encourage conversion to green energy, but I agree with you that more programs would be needed.
For households, I believe that the what is needed to drastically reduce our GHG emissions already exists - a large part of it is a reduction in consumption.
On the price of fuel...while the nominal price has been increasing for a number of years, the real price of fuel was actually falling. In wasn't until recently that the real price actually began to rise. Fuel consumption is relatively inelastic, and yet consumers began to change their preferences. At least one major gas guzzling manufacturer is going bankrupt as a (partial) result.
Thu, 2009-05-14 09:48
#67
remind
For households, I believe that the what is needed to drastically reduce our GHG emissions already exists - a large part of it is a reduction in consumption.
For some people that is possible, for others it isn't, and thus your comment is a bit simplistic.
However, getting rid of plastics, would reduce GHG's, halt water and land pollution, decrease consumption of fossile fuels, and indeed halt over usage of water that is needed to make plastics.
Just targeting that one area would do much for over all pollution, and GHG's, and why some people are not hitting hard on it, is beyond my comprehension
Thu, 2009-05-14 10:33
#68
However, getting rid of plastics, would reduce GHG's, halt water and land pollution, decrease consumption of fossile fuels, and indeed halt over usage of water that is needed to make plastics.
What would you replace plastics with? Wood? Paper? Metal? Hemp?
Thu, 2009-05-14 10:33
#69
I'm a bit confused KenS. Generally market incentives require market participation, and the notion of a competitor when you're talking about comparative advantage. Point 4 makes sense in the context of enterprises, but I don't understand it in the context of households. For enterprises, there is already a government program to encourage conversion to green energy, but I agree with you that more programs would be needed.
'market incentive' = pricing incentive. Carbon tax pushes up price of goods, they cost more, market incentive to use less of them.
So we're talking about both households and enterprises- although in practice, most proponents of the carbon tax talk is if it is only households we are talking about.
The government programs in place already are a trifle compared to what is required. Ditto to the paltry proposals by Dion [which were the totally inadequate rewarmed offerings of the do-nothing Martin government].
And if you agree "we need more" then shouldn't it be a fundamnetal part of the discussion to address the criticisms that the overall Liberal climate change packages not only have nothing for green spending, but redistributing all the carbon tax revenues and living up to the tax cuts kneecaps the fiscal capability for future green spending as well.
On the price of fuel...while the nominal price has been increasing for a number of years, the real price of fuel was actually falling. In wasn't until recently that the real price actually began to rise. Fuel consumption is relatively inelastic, and yet consumers began to change their preferences.
You are just plain wrong. Like I said, before the big price spike of a year ago, gas prices doubled in two years and had a steady rise for the few years before that. That is no nominal price increase. Heating fuel increases were less sharp, but the same trend. Diesel fuel, which accounts for a huge chunk of consumption, rose even faster than gas [and furnace heating oil with it depite the general smaller increases of other heating fuels].
So again: if it takes that kind of price increase [which most definitely is not nominal], and a financial crisis scaring people to boot, before they react to price increases.... what does that tell us about the prospects for a carbon tax that intends entirely on pricing effects to bring down consumption?
Thu, 2009-05-14 10:42
#70
The observation that all environmental issues are connected to the climate change problem is neither profound nor interesting. Of course it is true.
And useful in addressing these social and environmental issues along with climate change. If you don't find some of the specific connections interesting then you must have little interest in anything but ignoring facts. Ignoring the connections only feeds sceptics.
Thu, 2009-05-14 10:56
#71
I should have been more clear. I was using "nominal" and "real" in their economic meaning, where nominal is the price paid in current dollars, and real is the price paid in inflation corrected dollars. You can see here http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/AOMC/Overview.html that according to the Official Energy Statistics of the US Government that the nominal price of oil has been increasing since the mid-1980s. If you click on that graph, it will download an excel spreadsheet with a graph showing the price of oil in real terms. What this shows is that for the period 1980-1998 the price of oil in real terms fell. It has been rising ever since, but has only reached the 1980 price in real terms as of about the last few years. Since real price, not nominal price, is what matters most for consumer behaviour, the recent return to high real prices can be seen to be causing changes in consumer decision-making.
The use of the term "market incentive" does not make that much sense if what folks are saying is that the government must intervene because the transaction costs are too high or the technology does not exist for firms to be more competitive. I'm not sure that market incentive is equivalent to pricing incentive, but at least I understand what you are trying to say now.
And yes, how the government spends carbon tax revenues, or redistributes them, or doesn't redistribute them, ought to be a fundamental part of the discussion.
Thu, 2009-05-14 11:06
#72
For households, I believe that the what is needed to drastically reduce our GHG emissions already exists - a large part of it is a reduction in consumption.For some people that is possible, for others it isn't, and thus your comment is a bit simplistic.
There are many people living in poverty in Canada. However, even these folks over consume relative to how the rest of the world lives. It's certainly not the elite "some" that over consume in North America, but the vast majority of citizens. Yes, certainly some people do not overconsume to the same degree, but if we define poverty in relative terms to median overconsumption (as I think we should), then even people living in poverty likely over consume in some areas.
[ETA] The biggest changes need to come from the biggest polluters, i.e. industry and those with higher incomes.
Thu, 2009-05-14 11:25
#73
remind
What would you replace plastics with? Wood? Paper? Metal? Hemp?However, getting rid of plastics, would reduce GHG's, halt water and land pollution, decrease consumption of fossile fuels, and indeed halt over usage of water that is needed to make plastics.
Glass, paper and hemp would be a good start.
Thu, 2009-05-14 11:31
#74
Pembina report - been awhile since I read it. It does talk about policy change that would be constructive, but the policy would only apply to new construction. It says on page 11 of the report the biggest barrier to change is the capital cost required to bring in the new codes. I looked at new windows for my modest house and a new EE furnace quote came in at $17,500 minus the 7 window x $60 and furnace $3,000 rebate still leaves a $14,000 bill. Even if we assume they are correct in that this would generate a 21% heating reduction cost the recovery time in my case is 35 years based on current n gas costs. Now in order for me to change my habit the government would have to bring in a CT or C&T that would double or triple my heating cost, thus the changes become necessary. No political party will do that, but they can bring in policy that over time changes behaviour.
Thu, 2009-05-14 11:33
#75
remind
There are many people living in poverty in Canada. However, even these folks over consume relative to how the rest of the world lives. It's certainly not the elite "some" that over consume in North America, but the vast majority of citizens. Yes, certainly some people do not overconsume to the same degree, but if we define poverty in relative terms to median overconsumption (as I think we should), then even people living in poverty likely over consume in some areas.[ETA] The biggest changes need to come from the biggest polluters, i.e. industry and those with higher incomes.
I am really not interested in comparing the poor in Canada to the rest of the impoverished in the world, in order to make it appear as if they are not really poor, but are over consumers who need to be targeted. Your edit notwithstanding.
Thu, 2009-05-14 11:43
#76
What would you replace plastics with? Wood? Paper? Metal? Hemp?Glass, paper and hemp would be a good start.
It's going to take a lot of energy to ship those heavy and bulky glass contains back and forth and keep them clean.
It's going to take a lot of chemicals to recycle all that paper and trees to maintain paper quality.
It's going to take a lot of farmland to grow that hemp.
Thu, 2009-05-14 12:12
#77
Pembina report - been awhile since I read it. It does talk about policy change that would be constructive, but the policy would only apply to new construction. It says on page 11 of the report the biggest barrier to change is the capital cost required to bring in the new codes. I looked at new windows for my modest house and a new EE furnace quote came in at $17,500 minus the 7 window x $60 and furnace $3,000 rebate still leaves a $14,000 bill. Even if we assume they are correct in that this would generate a 21% heating reduction cost the recovery time in my case is 35 years based on current n gas costs. Now in order for me to change my habit the government would have to bring in a CT or C&T that would double or triple my heating cost, thus the changes become necessary. No political party will do that, but they can bring in policy that over time changes behaviour.
I think you have the wrong report. Page 11 deals with electrical supply. http://alberta.pembina.org/pub/1764. If you believe current low gas prices will persist for 35 years I have a few bridges to sell you. There could also be further incentives introduced to retrofit homes and other existing buildings.
Thu, 2009-05-14 12:25
#78
it's been helpful here to have the NDP policy clarified, and i'm sorry it didn't get the voter support.
Doug, your comment re: 'any carbon tax is better than no carbon tax' is kind of quirky, as if just the term will magically reduce GHG emissions, without considering that the way the tax is structured, in the current financial system, will actually help increase GHG emissions in the bigger picture where solid policy does not exist, as noted by various posters above and in the earlier thread.
will this reality become obvious ? it depends on if proper measurements are done, and if they're properly reported on.
generally in my mind i've had this story which some of you may know, of the farmer whose horse ran away, then his son found the horse, but in doing the son broke his own leg. with each down and up the neighbours either bemoaned or celebrated. meanwhile the farmer just said, 'maybe, we'll see if its bad or good'. in the last clip the army comes to draft soldiers, and the farmer's son was exempted because of his injury. and on it goes.
point being that, and this can be debated of course, but my only gleam of hope coming out of the BC election is that the implementation of this tax may show how NOT to design structures for GHG emissions. and alternatives might be given consideration. if the ecologically-regressive Campbell tax had been defeated, a better structure might have been put in place. that is not to be, at present. and we have to deal with all the other crap that the Campbell gov't is shoving down the throats of people and the environment. but what goes around comes around, and this isn't over yet. the work goes on in any case, and maybe it will have larger ramifications at the federal level as well, for truly useful policies.
Thu, 2009-05-14 13:03
#79
I should have been more clear. I was using "nominal" and "real" in their economic meaning, where nominal is the price paid in current dollars, and real is the price paid in inflation corrected dollars.
I knew exactly what you meant by nominal and real, and that should be obvious in what I wrote.
I guessed you were talking over a really long term that energy prices had not increased in real terms. But since I had been talking about prices and consumer behaviour over the last several years, I figured I should give you the benefit of the doubt you had read and understood that.
You can see here http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/AOMC/Overview.html that according to the Official Energy Statistics of the US Government that the nominal price of oil has been increasing since the mid-1980s. If you click on that graph, it will download an excel spreadsheet with a graph showing the price of oil in real terms. What this shows is that for the period 1980-1998 the price of oil in real terms fell. It has been rising ever since, but has only reached the 1980 price in real terms as of about the last few years. Since real price, not nominal price, is what matters most for consumer behaviour, the recent return to high real prices can be seen to be causing changes in consumer decision-making.
Quite the irony in receiving a pendantic lecture from someone who either can't read, or for some reason misses the relevance of what is being discussed.
As you pointed out, the chart covers 1980 to 1998.
But I had pointed out that real prices had doubled in about two years, and had risen steadily for another 2 years before that.
When you talked about consumers having an [allegedly] quick reaction to the price surge of last year- you are only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Over a time period of several years sufficient to get a good idea of what is going on consumers did not change behaviour at all until very deep into the sustained price increases. [And on average bought and sold and bought again a vehicle without changing what size or horsepower at all.] And when they did finally begin to change it was with the boost from the onset of finacial crises that impacted spending across the board.
Those are massive increases compared to the addition of single digit percentage price increases that come with carbon taxes.
And yes, how the government spends carbon tax revenues, or redistributes them, or doesn't redistribute them, ought to be a fundamental part of the discussion.
That vastly understates the relevance of the issue. It is not a general question of distribution/allocation of the revenues.
The point is that one way or another there has to be a means for green initiative spending that is aggressive by North American government fiscal standards. The Liberal plans do not have any such spending plans, and they kneecap future spending because of the tax cuts joined at the hip with their carbon tax plans, which follow on the Harper government already choking off future government revenues to hobble future governments.
Thu, 2009-05-14 13:10
#80
"Sigh" is exactly why you guys lost the election. Cos you cannot explain yourselves and do not even try.
Another problem with communication (for you guys) is that it is a 2 way street. Studiously ignoring feedback means that your points never make it in the real world. Maybe, if you answered my questions, you might make the connection wiith the common man and woman that you have failed to make so far?
Finding an answer in plain english really can free you.
"Sigh" just keeps your brilliance hidden.
sigh...
Thu, 2009-05-14 13:27
#81
And useful in addressing these social and environmental issues along with climate change. If you don't find some of the specific connections interesting then you must have little interest in anything but ignoring facts. Ignoring the connections only feeds sceptics.
It is not interesting (in the sense of being a prod to curiosity) because it is obviously and unavoidably true. With respect, only somebody who has no idea how nature works would find anything novel in the the observation. Interconnectedness is a characteristic of environmental phenomena generally, including climatic ones. Temperature affects water levels and carbon dioxide levels and vegetation distribution, etc.. And water levels affect climate and vegetation and.. All of these factors affect each other. Anybody who understands the most basic theory of ecosystem function knows these things.
The idea that climate enjoys some sort of primacy among other factors is neither interesting nor true. Climate has immediate political impotance because of the things we're doing to (among other things) atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not because there is any heirarchy of ecological effects with tempoerature at the top. The use of the interconnectedness of things as justification for subordinating all other concerns to climate change activism is neither justified by the facts nor politically smart.
Thu, 2009-05-14 13:33
#82
Point 1. We have an economic downturn, why not use the stimulus money here to pay people to build the windmills? Instead of giving it to gm?
How efficient is coal? 33% or so? Combined heat and power (Siteing smaller coal or oil fired electricity generators closer to centers of population) and using the waste heat from electricity generation to heat buildings or greenhouses is about 80% efficient. I do not believe a little plant in an appartment building, heating the building and sending electricity into the grid is even allowed in canada! Or if it is they basically end up giving away the electricity.
Windmills can also power the geothermal thing they do in central canada. They grab extra heat from the hot surface of the land in summer and pump it down into the ground. I only know about this because I worked with a guy who's brother has a farm there and he uses it. What is special about the canadian government?
The can't do mentality. They can't change the regulations cos it will hurt the hydro companys. They do not allow windmills to compete because the oil companys will stop giving "donations".
Lots should be done. I guess the reason Canadian governments are not willing to identify national goals and objectives (which we need to protect our people in the future) is because they are not loyal to the country as a whole.
Hard financial numbers are just sticks to beat people with. Ever seen a public project (Coming from the government) on time and on buget?
And private industry is not much better. I worked on a hotel that had eaten up the entire buget half way through construction!
I worked in germany 20 years ago. I saw 2 public projects come in under buget and AHEAD of schedule. One was a combined heat and power station in Ludwigshafen. Electricity and heat for 6,000 or more homes.
Aparently we are too stupid to do the same thing.
Brian
PW - it still requires hard financial numbers. Also the cost of todays technology is very inefficient. Sasks grid is roughly 3800 mega watts. A one mw wind mill costs $1 million to build and is only 35% efficient. more than half of our grid is coal. To reduce the ghg by 50% that means 1140 mw would have to be replaced. To replace that power, 3,200 windmills ($3.2 billion) need to be built. The capital and maintance cost to the consumer would be so large no one would vote for it. Another problem is that in the winter when it is 30 below or colder there is usually no wind, so how do you recoup that missing power.
Again no one explains how they will cost this or how it will work? I believe that they know, but since the cost and huge inconvenience would kill any public support they have now. All we have to do is look at last summer when gas hit $1.40 l, people were complaining like crazy, now compound that cost across all aspects on ones life and see how far you get with support. The simple fact is no political party is going to bring forth the policy to force ghg reduction down to the publized levels. Even if we shut down all the coal plant in Sask. we would still be over Kyotos targets by 15%. I do not think Canadians want to go back to the dark ages. Once you have the candy it is very hard to take it away with out a whole lot of fighting.
Thu, 2009-05-14 13:44
#83
Anyone else from the NDP wish to explain in laymans terms why the Carbon Tax is so evil? Peter3 is not up to the task.
It is a serious question and it deserves a serious answer.
Why not use some of the carbon tax money to protect rivers and to retrofit insulation on old houses?
You can mandate the retrofits and have it paid for with the tax money. Also, BC hydro have their 2 tiers for electricity consumption. Electric heat is extremely inefficient, the retrofit of insultation and the tiers could be used to reward houses where more people live while penalizing the people who have one couple palaces and every room at tropical temperatures.
Any of the NDP policy wonks want to work on that one? Lets face it, the old leadership couldn't defeat the most crooked government in decades. It is time for a purge and some new blood.
"Sigh" just keeps your brilliance hidden.
sigh...
Thu, 2009-05-14 13:51
#84
As you pointed out, the chart covers 1980 to 1998.
But I had pointed out that real prices had doubled in about two years, and had risen steadily for another 2 years before that.
When you talked about consumers having an [allegedly] quick reaction to the price surge of last year- you are only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Over a time period of several years sufficient to get a good idea of what is going on consumers did not change behaviour at all until very deep into the sustained price increases. [And on average bought and sold and bought again a vehicle without changing what size or horsepower at all.] And when they did finally begin to change it was with the boost from the onset of finacial crises that impacted spending across the board.
Those are massive increases compared to the addition of single digit percentage price increases that come with carbon taxes.
The chart actually covers a much wider period than 1980-1998 - check it out. After falling in real terms for almost twenty years, the real price of oil began to rise in 1998, i.e. just a little over ten years ago. The price is only only now getting back to its peak, in real terms, of 1980. For an inelastic good, it is expected that change will be slow, and yet consumers have responded to increases in the real price of oil over the past 10 years. When you look at the market share of Toyota and Honda in North America, it is hard to argue that consumers have not changed their behaviour "at all". People have not stopped driving in droves, but there certainly has been a shift away from the types of cars made by the Big 3; this shift was happening before the recent economic collapse. But perhaps I am digressing into pedanticalness.
Thu, 2009-05-14 14:01
#85
Anyone else from the NDP wish to explain in laymans terms why the Carbon Tax is so evil? Peter3 is not up to the task.
It is a serious question and it deserves a serious answer.
Why not use some of the carbon tax money to protect rivers and to retrofit insulation on old houses?
You can mandate the retrofits and have it paid for with the tax money. Also, BC hydro have their 2 tiers for electricity consumption. Electric heat is extremely inefficient, the retrofit of insultation and the tiers could be used to reward houses where more people live while penalizing the people who have one couple palaces and every room at tropical temperatures.
Any of the NDP policy wonks want to work on that one? Lets face it, the old leadership couldn't defeat the most crooked government in decades. It is time for a purge and some new blood.
вздох...
The information you claim to seek has been provided over and over here, and you either never get it or choose to ignore it. You freely admit to not understanding the basic concepts of subjects you post about voluminously (like regressive and progressive in the context of discussing tax policy) but feel no obligation to inform yourself and feel it is up to the rest of us to bring you enlightenment. I think answering your demands is a waste of bandwidth.
So I have a modest proposal to make here, Brian. Let's agree to ignore each other from now on. If you'll refrain from responding to my posts, I'll ignore yours, however much they boggle my mind.
Deal?
Thu, 2009-05-14 14:54
#86
Thu, 2009-05-14 15:21
#87
No one believes that prices will stay level for 35 years. The point is that one still needs significant capital up front to do the changes. Do you believe that the average Canadian will make decisions based on instant gratification? Do I spend the 17 grand on boring retro fits that will only give me 21% gratification or spend that money on a new boat, RV, or other item that gives me 100% instant gratification? That is the behaviour that has to be changed. And the only way to do that is to price things to the point change is required. Smoking is a prime example, high taxes along with an educational campaign. Look how long it took to change that behaviour. Double the price of fuel and maybe people will change.
As for co-generation projects, sounds good to me. However the staffing costs for smaller units would become too expensive to operate. Boilermen, instrumentation specialists, electrical/mechanical engineers and maintance are required for this power production. So larger projects in manufacturing might me more cost effective. That is a policy change that can be instituted and many would be in favor of it. There are issues though that have to be addressed to be fair to all.
Example - the Prince Albert Pulp mill had a co-gen project, great idea. The problem was that they had to sell the power at below market price to the provincial utility and then buy it back at market price. There was no real advantage for them to do it. The capital cost and operating cost ended up being a net cost greater than when they they just bought power from the utility. The provincial government of the day and utility would not flex on that issue.
It still all boils down to what it is going to cost to the average Canadian. No one will actually place a cost on this ghg issue because they know they will lose on the financial side.
Thu, 2009-05-14 15:33
#88
remind
It's going to take a lot of energy to ship those heavy and bulky glass contains back and forth and keep them clean. It's going to take a lot of chemicals to recycle all that paper and trees to maintain paper quality. It's going to take a lot of farmland to grow that hemp.What would you replace plastics with? Wood? Paper? Metal? Hemp?Glass, paper and hemp would be a good start.
Why am I not surprised that you come back with this short sighted reply? Oh, it would be because I knew you would. Apparently the continued infiltration of plastics into soil and water supplies, and contamination of our bodies, is just dandy fine with you, as long as energy consumption is allegedly decreased by using plastics. Which if you actually did some thinking, isn't the case.
Hemp claims, or reclaims, marginal land, it does not have to be grown on food producing "farm land". In fact, here in BC, and in AB, we are going to have 100's of thoudsands hectares available to plant hemp on, for paper and fibre use, on land that could never be used for farming food until it loses its acidity. Moreover, think of the available carbon sinks it would provide if grown!
Then we have the reality of prairie farmers and indeed other farmers in windy areas, being able to grow it for wind breaks, plus market it after the fact for its fibre. As opposed to watching their top soil blow away.
Hemp fibre can be developed for uses that plastics now play, check out on line sources fot it's uses. They even have a type that can be used for vehicle bodies, as opposed to fibreglass plastics.
Cotton growing depletes soil nutrients extremely fast, and thus requires chemicals, as such cotton farms could be replaced with hemp farms, for natural fibres that are better than cotton. And there would be several product sources available, as opposed to just the 1 in cotton. Hemp cellulose can be used for paper, and the fibres can be used for products, and indeed the remaining root systems rebuild margianl soils.
Hemp fibre cellulose does not require the chemicals that wood fibre cellulose does to produce paper, and indeed it actually is not a disposable paper product like wood fibre, that degrades because of acidity. It is a sustainable and environmentally friendly resource for cellulose, and in a society that is not going to stop using paper, it needs to be developed, now.
Glass containers are reuasable for years at the personal use level, while plastics are not. And they do not contaminate the environmet and food chain for thousands of years, like plastics.
Plastics require fossil fuels for their content, their creation and their transportation, so if one is worried about extra transportation fossil fuel usage because glass is heavier, it woudl probably be less than, or equal to, plastic containers of the same sort. And as I aid above glass does not pollute us, nor the environment, and the more we use plastics the more that is going to build up in the environment, its use is not sustainable, and it is toxic.
Plus there is the reality that argricultural land is being used to provide plastics that are made from vegtable oil, what a waste of argricultural land that is needed for food products.
Value added wood products, derived from trees at the end of their life cycle, such as storage containers/chests, could be used in place of large plastic storage containers in use in the home.
Hemp fibres could be used for furniture coverings and carperts, as opposed to plastics, that are toxic to our environment when fire occurs, and the danger for firefighters, and people caught in fires, would also be lowered.
I could of course go on, but hopefully you get a larger view point from what I have detailed. And I did not even mention how many green jobs would be created from the simple act of getting rid of plastics.
Thu, 2009-05-14 18:49
#89
I think I was misunderstood. There's no question that the re-election of the BC Liberals is bad news for BC's environment. I was talking about the impact elsewhere. Had they been defeated and that defeat was interpreted in the media as being caused by their carbon tax, governments in the rest of the country would be seriously thinking twice about implementing any climate change policy that would increase the cost of fossil-fuel energy for consumers - which basically excludes any useful kind of policy.
Thu, 2009-05-14 19:02
#90
The chart actually covers a much wider period than 1980-1998 - check it out. After falling in real terms for almost twenty years, the real price of oil began to rise in 1998, i.e. just a little over ten years ago. The price is only only now getting back to its peak, in real terms, of 1980. For an inelastic good, it is expected that change will be slow
I guess the problem isn't pedantry now. And maybe it never was.
You appear to be muddled.
Explain to me what the relevance is that we are just now getting back to the 1980 price of oil in real dollars. [Leaving aside its not true- we got there a while ago. And that people don't buy barrels of oil, they buy gasoline. We're looking at consumer behaviour and the price of gasoline recovered to 1980 levels even earlier.]
But I digress. Whenever we got back to 1980 prices, we're agreed that real prices dropped for most of 2 decades, and in the last decade they have risen.
What relevance is your looking at the whole 30 year period? You would think that the last ten years of price increases is what is relevant for our purposes here. IE, some evidence of what people have done before under conditions of steady price increases.
You did actually say that, but you keep talking also about the whole 30 year period, for what reason? I could hardly have got this far without understanding the relevance of slow change for [relatively] inelastic goods. 10 years isn't a long enough 'test'?
For an inelastic good, it is expected that change will be slow, and yet consumers have responded to increases in the real price of oil over the past 10 years.
But as I keep pointing out, they did not repond to the steady increases of the first few years of that 10 year rise, nor to its doubling in two years. So it took something like a tripling of the price of gas over 10 years, before consumers finally responded [and even then its hard to know how much of that is due to the general financial crisis that also unfolded before change in behaviour kicked in.
What does this imply for the expected effect on consumption of carbon taxes- at far smaller price increase rates?
When you look at the market share of Toyota and Honda in North America, it is hard to argue that consumers have not changed their behaviour "at all". People have not stopped driving in droves, but there certainly has been a shift away from the types of cars made by the Big 3; this shift was happening before the recent economic collapse.
Maybe being fundamentally mistaken in your information is a good part of the muddle. You think you observed evidence that consumers were changing over those 10 years.
They weren't.
Allowing for the slow change of an inelastic good, we can expect essentially zero change for the first 5 of the 10 years. But in year 6,7, and 8 of the period there was still no significant change in miles driven or size and horsepower of vehicles purchased. Essentially no change after several years of steady price climbs and even while gas prices were doubling. So it took 9 years of those increases, and a financial meltdown that worried everyone, before price increases finaly resulted in consumption changes.
Your impression of the basis of Toyota and Hondas success, and the implications, is a commonly held one. But most people aren't parking that incorrect impression in a larger analytical edifice.
Toyota and Honda gained market share because their production processes were more profitable- and they made vehicles small and large that consumers liked better.
Even Toyota and Honda don't make very much money on small cars. They make more than say Ford's few hundred dollar profit per car on the wildly successful Focus... but not that much more. They may have broken in on the smaller car and continue to do better at producing and selling them. But they would not have got where they are now without selling lots of high margin big cars, SUVs, and even trucks.... just liek the Big 3.
The Big 3 had the additional problem that everyone knew that some day the North American obssession with size and horsepower was going to fade, and the Big 3 had nothing in the cupboard for that day.
But Toyota and Honda were just as hooked on selling the bigger vehicles. They are losing just as much money- just coming into the bad weather with more resources and resiliency.
AndI never said that consumers did not change their behaviour at all. I said they did not change it at all until very late in the game. And thats the relevant point here.
Thu, 2009-05-14 19:18
#91
thanks for your clarification Doug.
we don't want to set up a division though of people vs. environment.
the whole question of 'how are we going to pay for the transition to clean energy' has to be dealt with at the broadest possible level, that of creating a fair financial system internationally and nationally, and switching subsidies from fossil fuels and nukes to wind/ sun/geothermal/conservation, along with fair transition for workers. using a variety of economic policy tools to do this, not just tax policy. turning the whole ecological and economic crisis into a question of how much extra consumers will pay at the pump is to let others determine our questions.
Thu, 2009-05-14 21:39
#92
No deal peter3, just answer the questions in ordinary person language with a direct answer.
I am not the only layman around and if you and your ndp upper class expect to speak for them, or even to them,
you might as well learn their language. Because they do not all have the benifit of a university education.
Dumb it down for us.
I suspect that the reason you do not say spending some carbon tax on river remediation or better walls for poor people is acceptable is because you do not care about the rivers or the poor people. You are more concerned with the bible definitions of regressive and progressive. Anyway, where are the other ndp spokespeople? They are strangely quiet about this.
Perhaps waiting for the new leader to redefine progressive and regressive?
Anyone else from the NDP wish to explain in laymans terms why the Carbon Tax is so evil? Peter3 is not up to the task.
It is a serious question and it deserves a serious answer.
Why not use some of the carbon tax money to protect rivers and to retrofit insulation on old houses?
You can mandate the retrofits and have it paid for with the tax money. Also, BC hydro have their 2 tiers for electricity consumption. Electric heat is extremely inefficient, the retrofit of insultation and the tiers could be used to reward houses where more people live while penalizing the people who have one couple palaces and every room at tropical temperatures.
Any of the NDP policy wonks want to work on that one? Lets face it, the old leadership couldn't defeat the most crooked government in decades. It is time for a purge and some new blood.
вздох...
The information you claim to seek has been provided over and over here, and you either never get it or choose to ignore it. You freely admit to not understanding the basic concepts of subjects you post about voluminously (like regressive and progressive in the context of discussing tax policy) but feel no obligation to inform yourself and feel it is up to the rest of us to bring you enlightenment. I think answering your demands is a waste of bandwidth.
So I have a modest proposal to make here, Brian. Let's agree to ignore each other from now on. If you'll refrain from responding to my posts, I'll ignore yours, however much they boggle my mind.
Deal?
Thu, 2009-05-14 22:40
#93
Anyone else from the NDP wish to explain in laymans terms why the Carbon Tax is so evil? Peter3 is not up to the task.
It is a serious question and it deserves a serious answer.
Why not use some of the carbon tax money to protect rivers and to retrofit insulation on old houses?
You can mandate the retrofits and have it paid for with the tax money. Also, BC hydro have their 2 tiers for electricity consumption. Electric heat is extremely inefficient, the retrofit of insultation and the tiers could be used to reward houses where more people live while penalizing the people who have one couple palaces and every room at tropical temperatures.
Any of the NDP policy wonks want to work on that one? Lets face it, the old leadership couldn't defeat the most crooked government in decades. It is time for a purge and some new blood.
"Sigh" just keeps your brilliance hidden.
sigh...
I think it's more ineffective than evil. No government will have the guts to raise it to levels that would make it effective, and if it worked tax revenues would go down for all programs because people would use less energy (less carbon-intensive alternatives not necessarily being immediately available). I think other people have discussed the problem of using it as a justification for lowering other taxes.
Thu, 2009-05-14 22:51
#94
And useful in addressing these social and environmental issues along with climate change. If you don't find some of the specific connections interesting then you must have little interest in anything but ignoring facts. Ignoring the connections only feeds sceptics.
It is not interesting (in the sense of being a prod to curiosity) because it is obviously and unavoidably true. With respect, only somebody who has no idea how nature works would find anything novel in the the observation. Interconnectedness is a characteristic of environmental phenomena generally, including climatic ones. Temperature affects water levels and carbon dioxide levels and vegetation distribution, etc.. And water levels affect climate and vegetation and.. All of these factors affect each other. Anybody who understands the most basic theory of ecosystem function knows these things.
The idea that climate enjoys some sort of primacy among other factors is neither interesting nor true. Climate has immediate political impotance because of the things we're doing to (among other things) atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not because there is any heirarchy of ecological effects with tempoerature at the top. The use of the interconnectedness of things as justification for subordinating all other concerns to climate change activism is neither justified by the facts nor politically smart.
It's not a question of whether they affect each other, it's how they affect each other. And that points to measures addressing climate change that will address other concerns more effectively (and vice versa if you like) than others. It's the way climate change will exacerbate other concerns because of their connectedness that is important (and interesting in a Chinese sense (may you live in interesting times)). Climate is a hell of a lot more than just temperature. And increasing carbon dioxide levels produce more than just increased temperatures. More acidic oceans, for example. Rapidly increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have been linked to most extinction events, including the biggest of them all. Not conclusively yet perhaps but enough to scare the shit out of some scientists.
I think you're missing the point entirely. It's not a question of subordinating all other concerns to climate change activism, it's finding ways to address climate change that also address other social and environmental concerns.
Thu, 2009-05-14 22:59
#95
Why am I not surprised that you come back with this short sighted reply? Oh, it would be because I knew you would. Apparently the continued infiltration of plastics into soil and water supplies, and contamination of our bodies, is just dandy fine with you, as long as energy consumption is allegedly decreased by using plastics. Which if you actually did some thinking, isn't the case.
Hemp claims, or reclaims, marginal land, it does not have to be grown on food producing "farm land". In fact, here in BC, and in AB, we are going to have 100's of thoudsands hectares available to plant hemp on, for paper and fibre use, on land that could never be used for farming food until it loses its acidity. Moreover, think of the available carbon sinks it would provide if grown!
Then we have the reality of prairie farmers and indeed other farmers in windy areas, being able to grow it for wind breaks, plus market it after the fact for its fibre. As opposed to watching their top soil blow away.
Hemp fibre can be developed for uses that plastics now play, check out on line sources fot it's uses. They even have a type that can be used for vehicle bodies, as opposed to fibreglass plastics.
Cotton growing depletes soil nutrients extremely fast, and thus requires chemicals, as such cotton farms could be replaced with hemp farms, for natural fibres that are better than cotton. And there would be several product sources available, as opposed to just the 1 in cotton. Hemp cellulose can be used for paper, and the fibres can be used for products, and indeed the remaining root systems rebuild margianl soils.
Hemp fibre cellulose does not require the chemicals that wood fibre cellulose does to produce paper, and indeed it actually is not a disposable paper product like wood fibre, that degrades because of acidity. It is a sustainable and environmentally friendly resource for cellulose, and in a society that is not going to stop using paper, it needs to be developed, now.
Glass containers are reuasable for years at the personal use level, while plastics are not. And they do not contaminate the environmet and food chain for thousands of years, like plastics.
Plastics require fossil fuels for their content, their creation and their transportation, so if one is worried about extra transportation fossil fuel usage because glass is heavier, it woudl probably be less than, or equal to, plastic containers of the same sort. And as I aid above glass does not pollute us, nor the environment, and the more we use plastics the more that is going to build up in the environment, its use is not sustainable, and it is toxic.
Plus there is the reality that argricultural land is being used to provide plastics that are made from vegtable oil, what a waste of argricultural land that is needed for food products.
Value added wood products, derived from trees at the end of their life cycle, such as storage containers/chests, could be used in place of large plastic storage containers in use in the home.
Hemp fibres could be used for furniture coverings and carperts, as opposed to plastics, that are toxic to our environment when fire occurs, and the danger for firefighters, and people caught in fires, would also be lowered.
I could of course go on, but hopefully you get a larger view point from what I have detailed. And I did not even mention how many green jobs would be created from the simple act of getting rid of plastics.
Great stuff hemp. You can even eat it.
Thu, 2009-05-14 23:00
#96
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/ee-in-prov-building-code-aeea.pdf
Thanks, it is a separate report. They missed passive solar, especially orientation, although it is related to daylighting. Not that I expect you to rotate your house to an east-west orientation if is isn't already. Also house size and thermal mass. I see conservation as both using energy more efficiently and not using it at all if you don't need to (e.g. LED lighting versus turning off the light when not required).
Thu, 2009-05-14 23:32
#97
Hemp needs good fertile soil if you want to get a good crop. In my opinion it will not do well on marginal land. Agricultural info usualy indicated that it has the same fertility requirements as winter wheat.
Fri, 2009-05-15 08:47
#98
Explain to me what the relevance is that we are just now getting back to the 1980 price of oil in real dollars. [Leaving aside its not true- we got there a while ago. And that people don't buy barrels of oil, they buy gasoline. We're looking at consumer behaviour and the price of gasoline recovered to 1980 levels even earlier.]
[ETA] I keep trying to post a graph, but am having no success, so here's a link to the EIA Statistics instead http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/fsheets/real_prices.html
I would have preferred to post the EIA statistics, but their graph is buried in an excel spreadsheet downloadable from their site.
The importance of looking at a 30-year period is this: we know historically that the price level of 1980 was important from the perspective of social change, and social response to oil price change. We know that oil is an inelastic good, and that the price change will have to be great to change consumer decision-making. Thus, it makes sense to compare the current price changes against historical price changes in order to put the recent changes in perspective.
But as I keep pointing out, they did not repond to the steady increases of the first few years of that 10 year rise, nor to its doubling in two years. So it took something like a tripling of the price of gas over 10 years, before consumers finally responded [and even then its hard to know how much of that is due to the general financial crisis that also unfolded before change in behaviour kicked in.
What does this imply for the expected effect on consumption of carbon taxes- at far smaller price increase rates?
Actually, it's more like a ten-fold increase in real price from 1998-present day. Consumer change was slow at the beginning of the 10-year period, which placed in a historical context is not that surprising, but change was very much there. Take transit ridership for example. According to this article http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070627/public_tran... transit ridership in Canada increased for the period 2002-2006 setting record highs in each of those years.
But we already know what this implies for the necessary size of a carbon tax - it has to be pretty high for consumer behaviour. For enterprises, it wouldn't necessarily need to be as high, but would need to be high enough to make it green changes actually deliver a comparative advantage to those firms willing and able to make the switch. We're likely to need a tax in the range of $100-150 per tonne. $10 per tonne (ala BC) will have an impact, but it will be negligible.
Maybe being fundamentally mistaken in your information is a good part of the muddle. You think you observed evidence that consumers were changing over those 10 years.
Yes I do (see above on transit ridership for example), but thanks for the dis, it strengthens your argument measurably.
Fri, 2009-05-15 09:07
#99
remind
Hemp needs good fertile soil if you want to get a good crop. In my opinion it will not do well on marginal land. Agricultural info usualy indicated that it has the same fertility requirements as winter wheat.
Perhaps if you want good "buds" marijuanna, as opposed to hemp cellulose and fibre.
My mom remembered when they criminalized hemp, due to lobbying efforts of the Hearst family, Dupont, and the the Eli Whitney family, all of whom collaborated, as they had products that hemp was hogging the market share of. She said her father literally cried tears and begged them not to, as they, the RCMP, were burning the hemp used for wind breaks and the reclaimation of marginal land in Saskatchewan, especially along the areas where the great sand banks are, that grow not much more than sage brush and grass. That single act alone can be viewed as one of the major contributors to the dirty 30"s and the environmental catastrophe that ensued across the prairies. Plus it is connected to the devastation of seed eating birds species.
I have seen wild hemp plants in marginal soil areas of Sask grow to upwards to10 ft high, with stalks as big as my wrists. Then of course, I have viewed bud producing hemp grown in all sorts of outdoor soil conditions across BC, even in glacial till soil filled with mica and other silicates. ;)
.
Fri, 2009-05-15 09:22
#100
remind
Great stuff hemp. You can even eat it.
yep, the seeds are extremely nutricious. So then we have 5 products available out of the growing of hemp, as opposed to 1 for cotton. And again cotton rapidly depletes soil nutrients, whereas hemp does not.
Fri, 2009-05-15 09:24
#101
You keep niddling with information that is either incorrect [consumers awitching to smaller cars for some ways back], or with information that does not support you contradicting the central point that through this 10 year period of steady price increases, changes in behaviour were either nil [miles driven / vehicle weight and horsepower purchased], or were negligible in relation to the fuel price increases.
Transit ridership increased at most 2-3% per year while gas prices were climbing at 10-40% per year. [And even that 2-3% owes some to transit improvements, especially in the US. Ridership did jump substantially more than that a year ago- consistent with consumers finally and belatedly responding with lower miles driven and smaller vehicles purchased.
And as noted- there was even less reaction in residntial and commercial heating and electrical consumption.