CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I guess my point is all the carbon tax does is like you say favours certain consumption preferences. It hasn’t been proven to actually get people to change anything. The carbon tax isn’t high enough.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
darwink
Senior Member
It depends - you might not change your today consumption. But when you replace your furnace, hot water heater, car, could you honestly say you wouldn’t preference efficiency just a little bit more?
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
The entire point is that people don't need to analyze how much is due to what; just to see in the price tag that some things are getting more expensive than others, and make better choices. I agree with you that the carbon tax should be much higher; there's reasonable arguments for it being increased by a factor of 5 times or so; that will provide a stronger signal.
It would be great if people realized how much they were paying that was actually carbon tax, but only because that would stop people blaming inflation and increased corporate profits on the carbon tax.
Here's the cost of solar panel installs over time; I can't find a Canadian source.
Comparing today versus an article from 2015, The price of a ICE Toyota Camry has gone up 25%. For a hybrid Camry, that same price has only gone up 14%. A plug-in Prius Prime? 6% cheaper than it was in 2015.
Averaging the base and high-end prices, a hybrid Camry was about $4000 more expensive than ICE in 2015; it's under $2000 more expensive today. An entry level plug in Prius Prime was 30% more expensive than the average gas powered Camry in 2015; they're the same price now.
Last edited:
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Speaking personally, and I'm going to show my colours here... I bought a Chevy Volt in 2012 (drive EV now), take the bus to work in the winter, bike in the warmer months, use only a grocery bag of garbage for my whole house in a week, and use a refillery. So needless to say I probably take the situation more serious than most. We need people and industry to change what they're doing today. Waiting for people to get to the point where they change their furnace, hot water heater, and car is playing the long game.
Like you say that stuff will happen over time, so it's a waste to incentivize it. I'm also against incentivizing EV purchases, the economics have been clear to me since 2012, it simply costs less over the life of the vehicle to operate a EV.
The carbon tax payouts to the majority of people have done nothing but give people money to spend. The people who need the payouts get them long after the money is gone, unless you're very budget conscious no one in that situation is squirrelling the money away to cover the extra they pay because of the carbon tax.
I fully understand that very few people are like me, people here buy trucks for the one weekend a year they need one or choose to buy a big SUV over a more efficient van (truck sales have never been higher). If you priced things based on their environmental impact (which is well known) and forced recreational inefficient vehicle users to buy credits, then I think people would start to grasp the situation (if you need a truck for work (welder, farmer, etc.), you would be exempt through a rebate). And I fully endorse that EVs are not great for the environment either, so charge people for their environmental impact too. And when you take that money, don't give it back to people, spend it on transit, and renewable energy projects.
For industry, the government could sell them credits they need to buy (or be fined) if their environmental impact is over a certain amount (Cap) and then use the sale from those credits to build transit. If you're a renewables company you get credits for the renewable energy you create and can then sell that to a non-renewable or any other company to pay for projects and generation. To clarify I'm not just talking about oil and gas companies needing to buy credits, but all that have an impact over the cap. Either companies would continue to pollute and have to keep buying credits (especially as the cap drops) creating an incentive to create more renewable credits to sell them or companies innovate enough that we become carbon neutral. The goal isn't to abolish oil and gas, it's to get to carbon neutral. If we want to go for carbon negative, cross that bridge when we get to it.
Last edited:
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
darwink
Senior Member
To the contrary, it is way more efficient to incentivize it rather than just forcing everyone to buy the expensive tech the government of the day deems appropriate.
darwink
Senior Member
Except for the last part, this already exists.
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
I think she's so far been a terrible premier, but I also think we can do better around here than gendered and ableist insults.
artvandelay
Active Member
I imagine you're not a Buckcherry fan then.
UrbanRED
Active Member
Canadian pocahontas
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I wouldn't say the carbon tax is a proper incentive because it's not working, making it inefficient and wasteful. The benefits already exists, granted the barrier to entry is high but the incentives don't affectively lower that barrier, so you're just giving money to people who already have money.
I'd also say energy efficient things are not "tech the government of the day deems appropriate". These things are proven and accepted to increase efficiency. The problem is this has been made a partisan issue, it's not, it doesn't have to negatively affect people, but the choice has been someone who will do something or someone who will do nothing. That needs to change, give me a choice to make.
Yes, there is Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Offset Credit System but I think it only applies to new projects (if it does then my mistake). I think it should apply to completed ones that are generating renewable energy, and the website itself mentions voluntary targets.
My point really being, it's not enough, what else can we do?
darwink
Senior Member
wait for the existing plans to do their work, because they will, and we really shouldn't be doubling up measure wise if we don't need to.
The carbon tax is still on the path to more than triple by the end of the decade. The price for industrial scale emissions is on a similar path.
For pricing not to work, a whole lot of proven economic principles would need to be reversed. It worked for acid rain and smog. It worked for cleaning up effluent into rivers. It will work for greenhouse gas emissions.
darwink
Senior Member
Someone needs to give money to do it. Most of the money comes from California today.
And funding an otherwise existing thing is akin to funding people for not building a coal plant. Are you really changing any outcome?
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
My assumption would be that existing renewable generator would be motivated to generate more credits they could sell, so they'd build more renewable energy (they already have the expertise) and not only would they be able to sell what they generate, but also sell the credits for new projects, increasing revenue. Sure, they could just stand pat and bathe in the money they get from the existing generation credit sales but I think there's a profit motive.
Could also raise the value of existing generating assets.
In a way it already happens with home solar, you get a credit on your bill for what you generate, this would just be a credit from one industry needing to lower their emissions to another industry generating renewable energy.
To me, it's a simple way to get the cash really flowing but it's not without risk...
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
Lol I’m an openly mentally I’ll gay man who calls men c*nt and bitch just as often as I call women the same. Thanks for coming out though
Edit: Also got that insult from a queer show made by queer women, now that I think of it. Hilarious
#BroadCity