Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021

[KevinB]

Ah yes, democracy.

democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.

I'm not disagreeing with you there - I was just pointing out reality.

Still works on free market principles.

Individuals who reduce their carbon output spend less on the carbon tax, and get back the same amount, which means more money in their pocket.

Individuals who do not get back what they spent on the carbon tax, less money in their pockets. It behooves people the reduce their carbon output if they want more money come tax time.

So it changes behavior while still not hurting the little guy.

In one specific economic theory yes, in others no.
The end of the day the individual has little choice on carbon tax - they buy what they need/want.
The supply/manufacturing sector is where the carbon tax issue truly cones into to play.

Your premise if flawed. There are still multinational and local businesses in Canada who this applies to. This situation doesn't make every company in Canada company A, to state otherwise is asinine.

You where the one who made the Company A versus B argument initially.
My point was it was not so black and white - and the true odds where something like a Company C that will defeat the Carbon Tax but manufacturing overseas is a lot more plausible for many industries than you believe.

Asinine.

Still asinine.

Yes you are - but don't feel bad, you are just a representative.

There are energy companies that were developing more climate friendly ways of resource extraction before the carbon tax, and they have only accelerated research since the carbon tax. The energy industry in Canada has made it clear that they want to be amongst the most ethical and green energy extraction companies on the planet. And with many of them still working in Canada, its stupid to say that they offshore their production. And this applies to companies as a whole. You make it sound like the carbon tax went into effect and every company took off to other countries. The carbon tax has been in effect in many provinces since the mid 2000s and guess what? Still multinational and local businesses operating there.

I worked briefly in the Energy sector - I went back to Iraq as the face that companies put on publicly make me sick when I saw what was actually going on - and rather than become an ecoterrorist, I decided to get back to the business of war.

Look to Europe. France, UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland are amongst the nations with a carbon tax, and they still have multinational and local businesses working under the same premise. So I reject your notion of companies simply moving away to escape it as a widespread phenomenon.

Certain industries can, and some cannot. A lot of European countries have exceptionally high tax rates too, I am not sure that is something to want to emulate...

Companies that adapt best to the premium so they do not need to pass it on to consumers will do better than companies that do not. That's how the free market works. And compared to other more interventionist methods of tackling carbon emissions, a carbon tax is amongst the most efficient and simply ways to do it.

Unless you can think of another? But you don't. You shit all over the carbon tax but do not bring any replacement to the fore. You simply say that its useless despite the fact that its already doing what it set out to do. And that's why I don't take it seriously. If there is another way to reduce emissions by 30 to 40 percent by 2030, be my guest and share them, otherwise...

I never said it was useless, I pointed out as have others, that the Western nations are not nearly the biggest issue for direct creation - but they are a major issue - as the consumer in the West contributes massively to the carbon emissions of the largest polluters (cough China cough).
If We as Westerns consumed less, and did more ethical purchases then it would be less of an issue - but gain we go back to my point about the average voter having the attention span of a gnat - and the fact we consume way beyond our own needs.

The two major problems are 1) the indirect creation - and that is something I personally don't have a clue on how to stop - 2) the other problem is global development - and removal of wetland carbon sinks - too many areas are being built up - and it is releasing that carbon, and failing to trap more.

The end of the day, there needs to be a GLOBAL culture shift to do anything meaningful - a carbon tax in Canada isn't going to do diddly in the grand scheme - and while it can be great to be a roll model - there needs to be pressure on the worst offenders (again see China) before anything that actually means more than a hill of beans.

 

[Altair]

So carbon taxes are an "expense", which is way of repeating what I said ("cost"). That consumers get rebates is irrelevant to the companies' costs. That other factors are involved in compensation negotiation is trivially true and irrelevant to the point that costs of the employer are a factor.

Businesses work hard all the time to reduce expenses and increase their profit margin.

You missed the point entirely, which is that companies are not limited to the course of action that allows carbon taxes to "work the best", so "Companies do not want the extra costs, and will find ways to reduce the carbon output to pay less in taxes" is overoptimistic (wishful) thinking.

Yet the rate of Canada's carbon emmisions output has been slowing.

Where companies elect to pursue other courses of mitigation, it is not the companies that pay. The unintended consequences of adding a cost can and will result in burdens that fall on customers, employees, and investors.

And if a company can reduce emmisions they are competitive than companies that cannot.

All likely effects of a policy change ought be considered, not just the obvious benefits cited by proponents who either deliberately or ignorantly ignore the adverse effects.

Present an alternative.

 

[Altair]

I'm not disagreeing with you there - I was just pointing out reality.

Agreed.

In one specific economic theory yes, in others no.
The end of the day the individual has little choice on carbon tax - they buy what they need/want.
The supply/manufacturing sector is where the carbon tax issue truly cones into to play.

The individual can use less gas, drive less, buy a more fuel efficient car, buy electric cars, make their home more energy efficient, there are a bunch of things individuals can do.

But agreed, supply and manufacturing is where the carbon tax really comes into play.

You where the one who made the Company A versus B argument initially.
My point was it was not so black and white - and the true odds where something like a Company C that will defeat the Carbon Tax but manufacturing overseas is a lot more plausible for many industries than you believe.

The carbon tax has been in place in many jurisdictions for over a decade, and I have not witnessed a stampede of businesses overseas.

I worked briefly in the Energy sector - I went back to Iraq as the face that companies put on publicly make me sick when I saw what was actually going on - and rather than become an ecoterrorist, I decided to get back to the business of war.

Thankfully there are many others who see the wisdom in reducing emmisions and protecting the planet.

Certain industries can, and some cannot. A lot of European countries have exceptionally high tax rates too, I am not sure that is something to want to emulate...

The tax will force the strong to adapt and reduce emissions and the weak to die...and still reduce emissions. Win win.

I never said it was useless, I pointed out as have others, that the Western nations are not nearly the biggest issue for direct creation - but they are a major issue - as the consumer in the West contributes massively to the carbon emissions of the largest polluters (cough China cough).
If We as Westerns consumed less, and did more ethical purchases then it would be less of an issue - but gain we go back to my point about the average voter having the attention span of a gnat - and the fact we consume way beyond our own needs.

The two major problems are 1) the indirect creation - and that is something I personally don't have a clue on how to stop - 2) the other problem is global development - and removal of wetland carbon sinks - too many areas are being built up - and it is releasing that carbon, and failing to trap more.

The end of the day, there needs to be a GLOBAL culture shift to do anything meaningful - a carbon tax in Canada isn't going to do diddly in the grand scheme - and while it can be great to be a roll model - there needs to be pressure on the worst offenders (again see China) before anything that actually means more than a hill of beans.

Okay, so the world comes together and create the Paris agreement. A multinational agreement to collectively limit the amount of carbon that humanity produces annually. Most every nation signs on to this framework.

And yet, despite this being a multinational agreement that requires every nation to reduce emmisions, you....focus on China.

Well, I agree. China should do more. But you are making it sound as if Canada can afford to do less. I won't stop anyone from ripping into China and their coal powered tomfoolery. But that doesn't absolve Canada and others from doing our part, in fact we should be doing everything in out power to meet our targets so that when we point the finger at China and tell them that they are not meeting the terms of the agreement that they cannot turn back and point to use saying that neither are we.

So again, talk shit about the carbon tax all you like, and man do people on the right side of the political spectrum love to do that but until you can present a reasonable alternative it really doesn't matter does it?

Is the carbon tax perfect? No. But just like democracy, unless you have a better alternative you're stuck with what currently works.

The CPC went down this road since Dion and his green shift plan, demonizing the carbon tax, but at the end of the day they came up with their own because it's the best of a bunch of bad options for reducing carbon emmisions. Other plans have more market disruption or less effectiveness and in many cases, both.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Present an alternative.

Expedite exploration, extraction, and export of LNG to Asia (specifically, China). Potentially huge carbon emission gains for moving their thermal electricity generation capacity away from coal.

 

[Altair]

No, you stated Policy was what most Canadians decided to vote on. Dismissed the others until you didn’t.

You obviously missed my sarcasm in my response.

Issues are not policy. Issues fall under short term motivators when it comes to electoral behaviours.

You yourself voted mainly on a short term factor (strategic voting) and not policy as your primary reason to vote and how you placed it. You may feel like you voted for policy but you stated here that your vote was to help create a split vote on the right. That’s short term voting behaviour. Not policy which is long term.

That does not mean there isn’t overlap.

You miss time and again the correlation between a leader’s popularity (or general dislike of) and electoral outcomes. There is a reason they poll for who would make the best PM. It’s significant whether you accept that or not. It was significant enough to keep the LPC from a majority again and significant enough to have 2/3rds of the voters opt for something else.

My order would be Issues, Leader, Policy if i were to assess the voters. People often confuse issues with policy so it’s easy to see why they would think policy is a lead driver.

Housing crisis is a issue.

So...price of housing is rising. Who do I vote for knowing that the price of housing is rising? Well, I don't know what Trudeaus Aga Khan trip, bollywood fiasco, SNC Lavalin interference and whatever other ethics scandal is going to do about housing.

I don't know what O'Toole and complaining about a 610 million dollar election is going to do about housing.

I do known Jagmeet Singh is emphatic and he's on tik tok so that's kinda cool, but I don't know how that is going to address housing.

I know Paul couldn't walk her dog around the block without getting into a fight with it, but beyond that I don't know what she would do about housing.

I know Blanchet would only buy a house in Quebec, hopefully with federal money, but beyond that I don't know what he would do about housing.

I know Bernier wouldn't want the Feds to step in to help housing, hoping that less taxes will somehow help but beyond that I don't know how he would deal with housing.

So I have the issue. I have the leader. Nothing I know about the leader helps me address the issue. Policy. Policy helps.

 

[Altair]

Expedite exploration, extraction, and export of LNG to Asia (specifically, China)

So the Paris agreement says that all nations need to reduce emmisions and you want to increase ours.

. Potentially huge carbon emission gains for moving their thermal electricity generation capacity away from coal.

Again, zero plan for domestic emmision control.

So yeah, I don't disagree with your course of action, ON TOP of the carbon tax.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Housing crisis is a issue.

So...price of housing is rising. Who do I vote for knowing that the price of housing is rising?

You should vote for Trudeau.

 

[Altair]

You should vote for Trudeau.

Well, drat.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The individual can use less gas, drive less, buy a more fuel efficient car, buy electric cars, make their home more energy efficient, there are a bunch of things individuals can do.

I doubt consumers change their driving or home energy use habits much - in economic terms, those are inelastic.

I have no intention of spending money to make the home more energy efficient - $175.00 worth of carbon taxes on $160.00 worth of gas (tax is also levied on storage and transport). Not really any savings worth the cost of any worthwhile improvements.

"The individual" will, I expect, mostly react to price changes on other goods and services at several removes from where the tax liability exists. And in current economic conditions, that's just noise compared to everything else going on.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So the Paris agreement says that all nations need to reduce emmisions and you want to increase ours.

The aim is to reduce worldwide emissions. Contracting our economy a little may not be the best way of achieving the aim. Activities which increase net emissions here can lower net emissions worldwide.

 

[Remius]

Housing crisis is a issue.

So...price of housing is rising. Who do I vote for knowing that the price of housing is rising? Well, I don't know what Trudeaus Aga Khan trip, bollywood fiasco, SNC Lavalin interference and whatever other ethics scandal is going to do about housing.

I don't know what O'Toole and complaining about a 610 million dollar election is going to do about housing.

I do known Jagmeet Singh is emphatic and he's on tik tok so that's kinda cool, but I don't know how that is going to address housing.

I know Paul couldn't walk her dog around the block without getting into a fight with it, but beyond that I don't know what she would do about housing.

I know Blanchet would only buy a house in Quebec, hopefully with federal money, but beyond that I don't know what he would do about housing.

I know Bernier wouldn't want the Feds to step in to help housing, hoping that less taxes will somehow help but beyond that I don't know how he would deal with housing.

So I have the issue. I have the leader. Nothing I know about the leader helps me address the issue. Policy. Policy helps.

And if they actually read the policies and understanding why we actually have a housing crisis, they would realise that no federal gvt policy is actually going to fix the issue. But they’ll belive the leader they trust more with their one line statements.

Want to fix your housing issue? Vote for your local mayor and municipal rep that will actually deal with and advocate for changes to zoning regulations and increase supply.

So while housing is an issue the policy is toothless and people didn’t actually look at it properly to understand it. The Liberal plan will increase more potential buyers and limit sellers options creating an even bigger supply issue. But the plan sounds good at first glance. It’s the small print people don’t look at.

You have the issue and the guy that says he can fix it. If you trust the guy you’ll look into it. If you don’t you likely won’t.

Abortion and LGTB was a created issue last election before this one. It boiled down to leaders. There was no policy to look into about abortion but people believed or didn’t based on the leaders. So don’t think that way of thinking isn’t signifiant as a factor. Do you remember the policies? Or do you remember Scheer mishandling their messaging?

You have constantly brought up abortion as being a significant issue that sank the CPC. Not policy. You still do. But the policy is no different that the LPC at its core. But people will believe one leader or not believe the other.

Why else did the LPC try to find a wedge issue this time? They know it works. Left wing populism is their current strategy. Don’t kid yourself.

Like I said even you placed your vote for short term factors and not policy. Your choice to vote PPC demonstrates that nicely.

 

[KevinB]

The aim is to reduce worldwide emissions. Contracting our economy a little may not be the best way of achieving the aim. Activities which increase net emissions here can lower net emissions worldwide.

This is the biggest take away - What IMHO the Paris Accord fails is to understand/accept that some countries are significantly more efficient with a given carbon footprint.

Short of me taking over the world - I don't know how one can sort that aspect out Globally -

 

[Halifax Tar]

Not sure if this was posted before. From the Sun so bias accepted.

TERRAZZANO: Canada needs to take Alberta's equalization grievances seriously

Alberta’s referendum on equalization is more than a vote on a federal program: it’s an urgently needed conversation about a deep crack in Confederation. So far, Can…

torontosun.com

 

[RangerRay]

While I agree that the carbon tax may be the best market-based COA, it is based on some huge assumptions.

It assumes that markets are rational. They are not. The easiest thing for producers to do to counteract the cost of the tax is to increase prices, lower worker wages, etc. Not many will invest in more efficient capital while keeping their prices low and wages high, no matter what the long term savings are.

It assumes people will use their rebates on more fuel efficient vehicles and furnaces. I would hazard that for most people, it goes into “General Revenue” to be used on groceries, fuel, heat, bills, etc.

It assumes the tax will change the behaviour of people’s fuel consumption. While that may be true for wealthier people who can afford a new furnace or car, it’s not enough to help those who own beaters or 40 year old furnaces and can’t afford newer models.

Until they start making more fuel efficient work vehicles, 4X4’s and heavy equipment, many producers won’t be able to upgrade, even if they are willing to front the extra costs in capital.

I’m not even going to go into the whole inflationary nature of the tax.

If I knew of a better solution, other than regulation and technology, I would be rich.

 

[CBH99]

When my wife got me a kindle for Christmas my book reading went from 3-4 a year to 24-36 a year

Hurts the pocketbook more though, but worth it.

I actually very much regret returning my Kindle.

Years ago, my girlfriend at the time bought me a Kindle as a Christmas present. It wasn’t the developed platform it is today, back then I thought of it as an ‘iPad that only does books…’

I’ve tried to resist technological change the best I can. It was only a few years ago my mom got me an iPhone for Christmas after I had resisted getting a smart phone for years.

I still enjoy a good paper back. But I feel like I missed the boat on a lot of books that I could have known about, but dont.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I actually very much regret returning my Kindle.

Years ago, my girlfriend at the time bought me a Kindle as a Christmas present. It wasn’t the developed platform it is today, back then I thought of it as an ‘iPad that only does books…’

I’ve tried to resist technological change the best I can. It was only a few years ago my mom got me an iPhone for Christmas after I had resisted getting a smart phone for years.

I still enjoy a good paper back. But I feel like I missed the boat on a lot of books that I could have known about, but dont.

On the plus side you can get a tablet with a reasonable sized screen for about $100, and if your local library has ebooks, use one of the cross platform apps to borrow books.

Ottawa public library has that feature, and they've partnered with Hamilton, Burlington and Mississauga, so you can check out books from any of them on the same app. Really easy to put things on hold and grab them when they eventually come available, and usually you only need connectivity to do the actual check out/download, so great for traveling, and doesn't matter if you happen to actually be home either.

I probably have 2-3 books on the go at any one time, with a mix of non-fiction, fiction, and pulp fiction for depending on what I feel like at the time. I like hard copies as well, but this is a lot more portable, and also meant I could read all through COVID, even when the branches were shut down for in-library pickup.

I occasionally buy books that I want to re-read, but have switched almost entirely to ebooks for general reading, as well as for some specialized textbooks that cost a fortune to ship from out of country and have a long lead time. Lose a bit not being able to flip back and forth to cross reference, but saved me hundreds of dollars, so there is that.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I doubt consumers change their driving or home energy use habits much - in economic terms, those are inelastic.

I have no intention of spending money to make the home more energy efficient - $175.00 worth of carbon taxes on $160.00 worth of gas (tax is also levied on storage and transport). Not really any savings worth the cost of any worthwhile improvements.

"The individual" will, I expect, mostly react to price changes on other goods and services at several removes from where the tax liability exists. And in current economic conditions, that's just noise compared to everything else going on.

I burn about $5.00/month in actual natural gas. I pay $20-25/month, total. The taxes and fees are 400% of the actual good Be consumed. A little excessive, if you ask me.

 

[lenaitch]

I burn about $5.00/month in actual natural gas. I pay $20-25/month, total. The taxes and fees are 400% of the actual good Be consumed. A little excessive, if you ask me.

Part of it is the way the charges are visibly broken down. If your jug of milk was posted with product cost, transportation, etc. it would look largely similar. One benefit might be that the public might come to realize how little/litre the farmer actually gets.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Of course. But taxing the cost of storage and transport as part of a "carbon tax" seems excessive. Surely the gas doesn't emit that much CO2 while it's in tanks and pipes.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I burn about $5.00/month in actual natural gas. I pay $20-25/month, total. The taxes and fees are 400% of the actual good Be consumed. A little excessive, if you ask me.

My last gas bill was also in the neighbourhood of $5.00 in actual natural gas. While the "taxes and fees" are high, higher than yours apparently, most of that doesn't go to taxes.

Energy Charge $5.20
Admin Charge 6.54
Transaction Fee 1.91
Delivery Charges ATCO Gas
Fixed Charge 22.85
Variable Charge 1.56
Rate Rider 5.46
Municipal Franchise Fee 4.03
Federal Carbon Tax 4.06

The big winner is ATCO Gas. They are not my gas provider, they just own the pipes in Calgary.