Carbon tax announced December 2020

[digits_]

I guess the people in the prairies will now have to calculate if it's cheaper to pay the extra 5 cents on the fuel they use in their burn barrels, or if it's cheaper to pay the tax on the fuel they use to drive to the dump. Which then gets torched by the municipality.

In all seriousness though, if the concern is the carbon emission, then a carbon tax on fuel works great in areas where it is actually an issue: densely popuplated areas, where there are alternatives available. Big metropoles with a proper public transit system. With alternatives that can be used that are better for the climate. Realistically, people in rural areas will just pay, because there is no viable alternative. Nobody is going to move to a city if they prefer rural living, only to save 500 dollars/year in fuel costs for example. For farmers, it's impossible either way. They need to be close to their fields.

An interesting perverse effect, is that the "big fancy luxury cars" usually have less carbon in their exhaust, as they can be made more efficient. Lots of extra systems can be built in to limit the pollution. The most damaging cars to the climate are the cheap old beaten up cars. If climate is truly the concern, we should tax those more so it becomes uneconomical to drive them. Socially, that would be terrible....

An easy fix would be for the government to prohibit the import of cars that burn more than XX carbon per km. That would force manufacturers to build cleaner cars. It's also the government that decide what energy production is being used. No ordinary citizen can choose to only buy "clean" energy. There is jut no way to decide that.

[dstechnical]

Here's how it worked out for me and my wife. We spent in the ballpark of $4000 on gasoline last year. AFAIK, out of that, 5¢ on every litre was due to the carbon tax. Gasoline averaged $1/litre in 2019 according to my records - and I track gas very well. So I think the carbon tax cost us about $200 on our gasoline purchases. I drive an Outback and she drives an SX4 sedan.

We received a $350 tax rebate earlier this year. I can't remember what they called it, but $350 of our total rebate was on account of this carbon tax.

Now, our heating is included in our rent, so we are somewhat insulated from this tax. The heating cost for our building has roughly doubled in five years (all electric baseboard heat) and rent controls have been kind to us. But I also drive twice as much as most people do (driving is my happy place when I'm not flying). So while yes, it's a tax, I have the numbers on my budget to tell me that we're more than breaking even on it.

My only issue with this tax is that it takes money now - and returns it at some unspecified point in the future. When you're barely putting food on your table and choosing between paying the gas bill or the phone bill, $350 six months from now doesn't help.

So while I don't disagree with carbon taxes on principle, I don't like the way it's been implemented. It hurts the poorest the most. The timing of this one also leaves something to be desired.

That's my 2 carbon tax cents on the matter.

Carbon tax on gas is, 8 cents per liter
Natural gas heating is around 18% of you bill. Plus hydro. Let's not forget all the passed on costs now in everything you buy. Tax is not much use if it is revenue neutral. If you think this one is revenue neutral , I got a unicorn for you buy. Lol I own an apt building I would love to be able topp put the carbon tax on the rent. As it is now we absorb it and everyone should know the tax they are paying so as not to fooled trudeaus b.s.

[dstechnical]

Here's how it worked out for me and my wife. We spent in the ballpark of $4000 on gasoline last year. AFAIK, out of that, 5¢ on every litre was due to the carbon tax. Gasoline averaged $1/litre in 2019 according to my records - and I track gas very well. So I think the carbon tax cost us about $200 on our gasoline purchases. I drive an Outback and she drives an SX4 sedan.

We received a $350 tax rebate earlier this year. I can't remember what they called it, but $350 of our total rebate was on account of this carbon tax.

Now, our heating is included in our rent, so we are somewhat insulated from this tax. The heating cost for our building has roughly doubled in five years (all electric baseboard heat) and rent controls have been kind to us. But I also drive twice as much as most people do (driving is my happy place when I'm not flying). So while yes, it's a tax, I have the numbers on my budget to tell me that we're more than breaking even on it.

My only issue with this tax is that it takes money now - and returns it at some unspecified point in the future. When you're barely putting food on your table and choosing between paying the gas bill or the phone bill, $350 six months from now doesn't help.

So while I don't disagree with carbon taxes on principle, I don't like the way it's been implemented. It hurts the poorest the most. The timing of this one also leaves something to be desired.

That's my 2 carbon tax cents on the matter.

Carbon tax on gas is, 8 cents per liter
Natural gas heating is around 18% of you bill. Plus hydro. Let's not forget all the passed on costs now in everything you buy. Tax is not much use if it is revenue neutral. If you think this one is revenue neutral , I got a unicorn for you buy. Lol I own an apt building I would love to be able topp put the carbon tax on the rent. As it is now we absorb it and everyone should know the tax they are paying so as not to fooled trudeaus b.s.

[dstechnical]

[quote=montado post_id=1136916 time=1607734104 user_id=54503]
Well the carbon tax doesn’t have to cost anyone anything. Basically everyone puts money into the pool with the carbon tax and then they divide that money evenly and redistribute it back to the tax payers.

So if you use more carbon you pay more taxes however you get the same credit back as the other guy who rides a bike to work etc. The more you travel, the more you drive, the larger your home to heat the more tax you pay and the less the offset credit covers from your use. Basically you price people out of living large. This way people use less... but you can get around things by switching to green energy. Buy an electric car, ride your bike, live in a smaller home, or make your home more efficient.

I think the tax would be effective, but in a global market you need everyone else in board. No sense in having a carbon tax on our airlines if an American airline competes and doesn’t have the same tax. I guess the question is do you agree with wealth redistribution based on use of carbon resources. It is definitely effective at reducing consumption. The younger generations will retract from what their parents had... the 2k square foot home normal will change to 1k, and then their kids will live in a condo and so on. Life in 100 years will either be living with less or finding in ways to live with more that are green, and don’t abuse the planet.
[/quote]

Canada is a LARGE COLD RURAL COUNTRY. should I freeze when its -40 or move to a more temperant climate. We all cant or dont want to live in a city. There is no such thing as a revenue neutral tax. B.C. the first with a carbon tax stopped that facade after the first year. The pbo has already said this tax is nowhere near revenue neutral. There is also debate for all the passes on costs and let's not forget hst on the tax that is not part or rebate

[montado]

Oh I fully understand. I was taking the “trust the science approach” where you giver zero fucks about anything except for the specific issue at hand. Does the carbon tax reduce consumption of energy... yes. Problem solved. And like JT said if we can trust him with our health and covid policies, then we should trust him and the science behind climate change... we are in this together too!

So using dr. Roger’s word. I will follow JT like a lemming and fully support his climate change policy because it’s what the experts say we need to do. So we all need to fully support this! Don’t be anti carbon tax because you would ruin this for everyone just like the anti maskers. In fact if anything, covid has been a test run for what’s to come.

[ayseven]

It is going to be hard on those in BC, where fuel prices are a LOT higher than Ontario right now. I don't feel too bad about Alberta, because they have had successive governments who don't seem interested in diversification of their economy. But really, they are just going down the easy path, as most Canadians like to do: You know, why process a tree or crude oil in Canada, when you can just export it? Why should I care about the rest of the economy? It won't impact me for at least 3 months.

[altiplano]

An interesting perverse effect, is that the "big fancy luxury cars" usually have less carbon in their exhaust, as they can be made more efficient. Lots of extra systems can be built in to limit the pollution. The most damaging cars to the climate are the cheap old beaten up cars. If climate is truly the concern, we should tax those more so it becomes uneconomical to drive them. Socially, that would be terrible....

An easy fix would be for the government to prohibit the import of cars that burn more than XX carbon per km. That would force manufacturers to build cleaner cars. It's also the government that decide what energy production is being used. No ordinary citizen can choose to only buy "clean" energy. There is jut no way to decide that.

.A couple points...

1. You are likely to make a smaller footprint if you continue with the car you have vs. buying that new efficient car - even electric car. The difference in emissions is negligible vs. all that plastic and metal processing, manufacturing energy, shipping, etc. etc. New stuff is more wasteful.

2. Higher emission standards = lower MPG - think dieselgate. So we burn more and are taxed more to emit a cleaner burn, seems counterintuitive.

[Inverted2]

Same thing with electric cars. People think they’re saving the world but they are worse for the environment than keeping your old car.

1. Keeping an old car longer involves less manufacturing pollution.

2. Batteries for electric cars contain exotic materials that are mined in areas where they cause massive destruction to the landscape.

3. Batteries don’t last forever and are not easy to recycle.

4. The electricity to charge your electric car has to come from somewhere. Likely natural gas, coal or nuclear.

5. If you live in extremely cold areas (Canada winters) your battery strength is greatly diminished.

[iflyforpie]

It is going to be hard on those in BC, where fuel prices are a LOT higher than Ontario right now. I don't feel too bad about Alberta, because they have had successive governments who don't seem interested in diversification of their economy. But really, they are just going down the easy path, as most Canadians like to do: You know, why process a tree or crude oil in Canada, when you can just export it? Why should I care about the rest of the economy? It won't impact me for at least 3 months.

It’s not going to be hard on BC.

BC has had a carbon tax for over a decade, and this isn’t subject to a federal carbon tax on fuel. Don’t feel sorry for us. We’ve already adjusted our lives accordingly and we don’t whine nearly as much as the province next door.

And between rebates for more efficient appliances and home improvements, job creation and investment in renewables, the elimination of MSP, and some of lowest provincial income taxes for the lower brackets in the country.. it is revenue neutral. Only those who chose to live carbon intensive lives are more affected. The price on food isn’t enough to notice and for the most part the price on fuel isn’t either. There seems to be no shortage of expensive and unhealthy food that’s subject to sales taxes in people’s grocery carts as they wheel them out to their enormous trucks that never haul or tow anything.

But most people don’t know that federal carbon tax doesn’t apply to most of BCs carbon emissions. Most people think BC means Bring Cash as they watch 10% of their income get taken away right from the get-go in Alberta.

Most people think that the federal carbon tax applies to BC.. which is why they blamed the federal government when gas prices jumped overnight when the federal carbon tax was first implemented elsewhere rather than the oil companies who were getting the double benefit of political leverage and increased profits based on people’s ignorance.

[montado]

Same thing with electric cars. People think they’re saving the world but they are worse for the environment than keeping your old car.

1. Keeping an old car longer involves less manufacturing pollution.

2. Batteries for electric cars contain exotic materials that are mined in areas where they cause massive destruction to the landscape.

3. Batteries don’t last forever and are not easy to recycle.

4. The electricity to charge your electric car has to come from somewhere. Likely natural gas, coal or nuclear.

5. If you live in extremely cold areas (Canada winters) your battery strength is greatly diminished.

While you are not completely wrong, whether or not an EV is better for the environment is based off its service life and how the energy used to charge the vehicle is produced. If you crash a brand new tesla and write it off, that vehicle had more environmental impact than a similar ICE car in the same situation. However in Ontario, with how we produce energy I think most EVs take over as better for the environment after a couple years of life. Something like a cyber truck would take more years due to the size of battery.

As for end of life, the technology can only improve from here onwards. So maybe we don't have all the answers yet, but EV is definitely a better answer than to continue on the path of ICE cars. We should not dismiss EVs because people think they are worse for the environment because that is just not true for most cases. As grids are powered by cleaner energy and end of life recycling improves EVs will become the way better option from the environmental standpoint.

[fish4life]

The problem is unless Africa, India and China reduce carbon emissions it doesn’t make a difference what Canada does. I would like to see if Canada is net carbon negative once you factor in all of the trees including one of the worlds largest forests with a low population.
Ontario introduced a jet fuel tax as part of a green initiative so what happens? Airlines tanker fuel out of cheaper US locations, in doing so they actually burn more fuel. If we have a carbon tax on jet fuel in Canada airlines will just fill the tanks out of the US and burn a ton more fuel carrying the weight of it back to Canada.
I guess I’ll burn more wood that I cut down with a 2 stroke chain saw to reduce my heating cost as well, once again a carbon tax is going to introduce much more carbon into the government because they don’t tax wood.

[altiplano]

Same thing with electric cars. People think they’re saving the world but they are worse for the environment than keeping your old car.

1. Keeping an old car longer involves less manufacturing pollution.

2. Batteries for electric cars contain exotic materials that are mined in areas where they cause massive destruction to the landscape.

3. Batteries don’t last forever and are not easy to recycle.

4. The electricity to charge your electric car has to come from somewhere. Likely natural gas, coal or nuclear.

5. If you live in extremely cold areas (Canada winters) your battery strength is greatly diminished.

While you are not completely wrong, whether or not an EV is better for the environment is based off its service life and how the energy used to charge the vehicle is produced. If you crash a brand new tesla and write it off, that vehicle had more environmental impact than a similar ICE car in the same situation. However in Ontario, with how we produce energy I think most EVs take over as better for the environment after a couple years of life. Something like a cyber truck would take more years due to the size of battery.

As for end of life, the technology can only improve from here onwards. So maybe we don't have all the answers yet, but EV is definitely a better answer than to continue on the path of ICE cars. We should not dismiss EVs because people think they are worse for the environment because that is just not true for most cases. As grids are powered by cleaner energy and end of life recycling improves EVs will become the way better option from the environmental standpoint.

A couple years of driving your new electric car does not make up for the fact that you bought a new car and all the energy that went into mining and production and getting that car to you. The environment would have been better off had you reduced your consumption, tuned up your V8, and kept going with it.

I laugh at one of my neighbours up the street, I've seen everything in their driveway over the last 8 or 9 years from a Toyota Prius to a Nissan Leaf to a BMW i3 to a Tesla Model S to a Volvo XC90 T8.

They're saving the world one hybrid/EV at a time every other year or so. Meanwhile I'm trucking along with my 13 year old car still running great.

it is revenue neutral. Only those who chose to live carbon intensive lives are more affected.

I think what is meant is revenue neutral for the government. Of course it's never been revenue neutral for carbon intensive consumers. But that's how it started, revenue neutral for the provincial gov, returning the carbon tax in the form of income tax cuts to the population. Since then though, first the Libs, now the NDP, can't keep themselves from dipping their fat fingers in a bit and getting a taste... won't be long before they will need all that revenue and change it exactly like you have here... "revenue neutral for low carbon lifestyles" which of course is impossible, if you are a consumer you will be paying somehow if even only a bit.

[Inverted2]

I've been driving the same car for almost 19 years so I figure I'm the greenest car driver out there. Most people would have had 4 or 5 cars in that time. I get it oil sprayed every year and do a lot of my own repairs.

I read a CBC article about a Nissan Leaf owner who can only go about 80km now because his battery is shot. He tried to replace it but they said they can't because it's too old and its better to just buy a new car instead. We live in a throwaway society now.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/nissan ... -1.5769998

[montado]

Altiplano and inverted2 you are missing a very simple concept.

If I own a car for 3 years whether it's EV or ICE, if it still has life in it I can sell it to someone else to use it. I don't need to own a car 19 years for a car to last 19 years being passed around different owners.

Not everyone wants to be in an older car, while others are mechanically inclined and don't mind or enjoy older vehicles.

Also the concept that electric cars are not built to last compared to ICE is a myth. The technology is improving. I will bet EVs will have longer life than ICE cars. Right now the only problem is battery however all the other components are way more simple and less to go wrong. Just ask Nissan rogue owners who are tossing 7 year old CVT transmission drive vehicles into the scrap yard because they want 5k to replace the transmission.

So if you are in the market for a car an EV is an environmentally better option. You guys have bought into many myths, nothing wrong with buying a new EV and selling or handing down your ICE to another owner who needs a vehicle.

[altiplano]

That person woukd have bought a different car if you didn't sell yours, you're consumerism buying a new car every 3 years is bad for the environment. What is everyone bought a new car every couple years? That's bad. So the fewer people that do it, better.

I read a report a few years ago that roughly 1/3 of a vehicle's emission footprint is from before it even drives off the lot new.

So you, with your new vehicle every 3 years, even assuming zero emission EV - although we all know there is an environmental footprint charging with natural gas or nuclear generated electricity, and a large footprint in the manufacturing process esp. wrt batteries - have a larger footprint than me and 13 years of burning gas.

I don't care if buy a new car every month, but if you want to talk about having a smaller footprint and what's good for the environment keep your old car.

[rookiepilot]

That person woukd have bought a different car if you didn't sell yours, you're consumerism buying a new car every 3 years is bad for the environment. What is everyone bought a new car every couple years?

It's also a fast way to the poorhouse, but I digress.

[montado]

Ah I see so I your comments are not about EV specifically but just in general for all cars. So how is this an argument against EV?

For every car that goes to the wrecking yard a new car hits the road, whether it be EV or ICE. Lots of studies have shown the full life of vehicles from manufacturing, to operation to end of life recycling, and most times the EV comes out ahead as the more environmentally better option.

[Fanblade]

https://financialpost.com/opinion/learn ... ate-change

Learn the science before you follow it: Fact-checking Justin Trudeau on climate change
Opinion: Before the prime minister gets 'straight to work' on economy-toppling policies, he should get his facts straight

Author of the article:Robert J. Muir, Special to Financial Post

Announcing his new plan for getting to net-zero on carbon emissions, Justin Trudeau told Canadians: “If we trust scientists with our health, as we do, then we must also trust their research and their expertise when it comes to other existential threats. And that includes climate change. There is no vaccine against a polluted planet. It’s up to us to act. Because there is a real cost to pollution. We’re paying the price already with record storms, wildfires, floods, and heat waves, which all carry real economic costs and real risks to our health. We chose to get straight to work on cutting pollution.”

We should indeed trust scientific research and expertise, and above all data. But so far, data shows no such existential threats due to climate change.

Learn the science before you follow it: Fact-checking Justin Trudeau on climate change

Has Canada experienced record storms? No. Environment and Climate Change Canada’s “Engineering Climate Datasets” show no overall increase in rainfall intensities. In Canada’s Changing Climate Report they clearly state, “For Canada as a whole, observational evidence of changes in extreme precipitation amounts, accumulated over periods of a day or less, is lacking.” Has the prime minister bothered to check this basic fact? Apparently not.

So far, data shows no such existential threats due to climate change
Has Canada experienced record wildfires? No. Natural Resources Canada’s Canadian National Fire Database shows the number of fires and the area burned declining in recent decades. A Fraser Institute study shows fire activity peaking in 1989. Ignorantly stating that we have had record wildfires does not change the data. It needlessly panics the public.

Record floods? Yes. Due to records in the number of exposed people and runoff from urban growth, but not bigger storms. A record in insurance premiums, with 2019 personal property premiums approaching four times 1996 values, not surprisingly, results in a record number of flood losses. Effective policies to mitigate flooding must address the true causes, not pet policy goals.

Has Canada experienced record heat waves? Yes. In the 1930s and 1940s. The Climate Research Branch of the Meteorological Service of Canada published these trends in the Journal of Climate and stated, “No consistent trends are found for the higher percentiles of summer daily maximum temperature, indicating little change to the number of extreme hot summer days.” The data shows that minimum temperatures have increased, which increases averages, despite no increase in maximum temperatures. Is it time to have running fact checks on Trudeau just like they had on Donald Trump? It seems so.

Before the prime minister gets “straight to work” on economy-toppling policies to combat this existential threat, he should put some trust in scientific data and get his facts straight.

Robert J. Muir is a licensed professional engineer based in Toronto.

[montado]

I think climate change has the potential to be exponentially worse than covid. If we trust the experts with covid and follow all the guidelines, I don't see why anyone would question the experts when it comes to climate change.

Trusting experts in things we don't have an education in is the forefront of arguments made by anyone who thinks we need to wear masks.

[Fanblade]

I think climate change has the potential to be exponentially worse than covid. If we trust the experts with covid and follow all the guidelines, I don't see why anyone would question the experts when it comes to climate change.

Trusting experts in things we don't have an education in is the forefront of arguments made by anyone who thinks we need to wear masks.

Yes there is a difference between following the science and following scientists or experts.

Science is provable fact. Science is not an educated guess by a scientist. That is called Theory. An educated guess that needs further vetting to determine if it is Fact, fiction or partly correct. If partly correct we formulate another theory based on the new understanding and then get those results get vetted against the real world.

THEORY MUST MATCH THE REAL WORLD BEFORE IT IS CONSIDERED SCIENCE.

Interchanging the words science and theory is a manipulative slight of hand.

When someone has to resort to claiming science to justify what they are peddling, when in fact it is theory, start questioning everything they say. Particularly if a scientist does it. They know better.

Not suggesting Theory isn’t import. It is. It is how we learn. But never ever should science and theory be considered equal.

One is truth. One is moving toward truth.

[rookiepilot]

https://financialpost.com/opinion/learn ... ate-change

Learn the science before you follow it: Fact-checking Justin Trudeau on climate change
Opinion: Before the prime minister gets 'straight to work' on economy-toppling policies, he should get his facts straight

Author of the article:Robert J. Muir, Special to Financial Post

Announcing his new plan for getting to net-zero on carbon emissions, Justin Trudeau told Canadians: “If we trust scientists with our health, as we do, then we must also trust their research and their expertise when it comes to other existential threats. And that includes climate change. There is no vaccine against a polluted planet. It’s up to us to act. Because there is a real cost to pollution. We’re paying the price already with record storms, wildfires, floods, and heat waves, which all carry real economic costs and real risks to our health. We chose to get straight to work on cutting pollution.”

We should indeed trust scientific research and expertise, and above all data. But so far, data shows no such existential threats due to climate change.

Learn the science before you follow it: Fact-checking Justin Trudeau on climate change

Has Canada experienced record storms? No. Environment and Climate Change Canada’s “Engineering Climate Datasets” show no overall increase in rainfall intensities. In Canada’s Changing Climate Report they clearly state, “For Canada as a whole, observational evidence of changes in extreme precipitation amounts, accumulated over periods of a day or less, is lacking.” Has the prime minister bothered to check this basic fact? Apparently not.

So far, data shows no such existential threats due to climate change
Has Canada experienced record wildfires? No. Natural Resources Canada’s Canadian National Fire Database shows the number of fires and the area burned declining in recent decades. A Fraser Institute study shows fire activity peaking in 1989. Ignorantly stating that we have had record wildfires does not change the data. It needlessly panics the public.

Record floods? Yes. Due to records in the number of exposed people and runoff from urban growth, but not bigger storms. A record in insurance premiums, with 2019 personal property premiums approaching four times 1996 values, not surprisingly, results in a record number of flood losses. Effective policies to mitigate flooding must address the true causes, not pet policy goals.

Has Canada experienced record heat waves? Yes. In the 1930s and 1940s. The Climate Research Branch of the Meteorological Service of Canada published these trends in the Journal of Climate and stated, “No consistent trends are found for the higher percentiles of summer daily maximum temperature, indicating little change to the number of extreme hot summer days.” The data shows that minimum temperatures have increased, which increases averages, despite no increase in maximum temperatures. Is it time to have running fact checks on Trudeau just like they had on Donald Trump? It seems so.

Before the prime minister gets “straight to work” on economy-toppling policies to combat this existential threat, he should put some trust in scientific data and get his facts straight.

Robert J. Muir is a licensed professional engineer based in Toronto.

And the conflict of interest is........?
I'm sure it's an unbiased editorial.

[montado]

So fanblade is masks stop covid a scientific fact or theory?

And is carbon emissions change climate a scientific fact or theory?

[Fanblade]

So fanblade is masks stop covid a scientific fact or theory?

And is carbon emissions change climate a scientific fact or theory?

Currently they are both theory.

Will either of them become science?

Maybe, maybe not.

My point was simply we should never lose sight of the difference.

If you want an example and you have Amazon watch Fat: A documentary. A perfect example of what happens when government begins to acts on theory before it is confirmed as science.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

If you want an example and you have Amazon watch Fat: A documentary. A perfect example of what happens when government begins to acts on theory before it is confirmed as science.

All science is theory. Some theories have stood the test of time, some have not. I am not wrong when I say that Newton's theories are wrong. It has been demonstrably proven that Newton's theories are wrong at speeds close to c. It therefore follows that they are also wrong at speeds significantly lower than c. But they predict subliminal flight well enough it's all we need. This changes with orbital "flight".

So unless you are willing to argue that Newton's theories are wrong, you cannot rightly argue that acting on theory is prima facie wrong.

[photofly]

subliminal flight

That would be flight below the threshold of consciousness; perhaps you mean subluminal flight?