• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Carbon Tax?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The concept of a carbon tax sort of sounds like buying a papal dispensation back in the day.  It won't do anything to reduce the carbon output, just effect the lives of those who are least able to afford it the hardest.  Taxing the hell out of us again won't do anything to fix the damage done.
 
The "science" behind Carbon-caused warming is iffy, especially given the trend of the last ~17 years or so (no increase in temperatures).  New tax?  No thank you.


This is, I think, a case of the truism that if you say something often enough, people will start to believe it, irrespective of any evidence to the contrary.

We are already taxed nearly to death, to the point that the very basic building block of our society, the family, is fragmented to the point where the kids are removed from the home as soon as possible,
both parents are required to work just to make ends meet, and our future, children, are discouraged as nothing more than burdens and we ought instead to be ought working (i.e. paying taxes)

So, to a new tax upon the other 1001 "sin" taxes, I say no.
 
Kat Stevens said:
The concept of a carbon tax sort of sounds like buying a papal dispensation back in the day.  It won't do anything to reduce the carbon output, just effect the lives of those who are least able to afford it the hardest.  Taxing the hell out of us again won't do anything to fix the damage done.


I like the analogy but it might be 180o out of phase. The purpose of dispensations was to recognize than we, humans, are very, very fallible and need some forgiveness, etc. Sin taxes, on the other hand, say that, given an appropriate incentive (a punishment in the case of tax) people can be persuaded to change their behavior ~ a "go forth and sin no more" sort of thing.

But the real aim of a carbon tax, as I read Hank Paulson's notion, is to make the most efficient (in economic terms) use of the available energy resources. Gasoline, refined from crude oil, for example, is, currently, the most efficient form of fuel for mobile applications. Crude oil and heavy oil (oil sands, etc) are both thought to be available in finite quantities so we should both a) reserve it for mobile (mainly transportation) applications, and b) encourage, by making gasoline more expensive, alternative (electrical?) sources of mobile power.

The theoretical advantage to a carbon tax is that it is a consumption tax and is, therefore, voluntary* somewhat discretionary. Some people (many? even most?) can reduce their tax burden by changing how they use carbon based energy and they can, by their actions (including votes), influence public and political opinion about e.g. nuclear energy. (I also recognize that, for now, anyway, someone living in a rural area is likely to find an electric car wholly impractical. (S)he is pretty much restricted to a big, gas guzzling (and highly taxed) pickup truck.)

As a matter of principle I would like to see more and more and more consumption taxes ~ always offsetting income taxes which should be reduced to zero for the lowest, then lower, then low and then lower middle and even middle income earners. (I know that the poor use → 99% of their income for consumption and the rich use only ← 1% of theirs, but the rich then save (invest) their income and that creates jobs for the (relatively) poor.)

_____
* We do have 'voluntary' taxes: lotteries ~ that's what Montreal mayor Jean Drapeau called the first big, million dollar (Olympic) lottery in Canada back in the 1970s.
 
The German Energiewende, is a big, complex and expensive programme to promote green energy and, concomitantly, reduce carbon use. A carbon tax would, probably, do much (most of?) the same at lower coasts and, indeed, with a revenue boost.

Have a look at what's happening in Germany in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Financial Times:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2ebd0eb4-ed6f-11e3-8a1e-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz35Yl1ZM2u
financialTimes_logo.png

Germany’s green energy transformation

By Jeevan Vasagar

June 23, 2014

On a bright but windy weekend in Germany last month, renewables set a new record. For an hour at lunchtime on Sunday May 11, wind and solar energy accounted for 70 per cent of the national electricity supply, illustrating the transformation brought about in Germany’s energy system.

The record reached that day also highlighted the challenge facing conventional power generators, as the glut of clean energy in the system pushed electricity prices into negative territory. On the intraday energy spot market, prices ranged as low as minus €48.19/MWh. For a brief period, utilities were paying grid operators to take their energy.

The renewable energy law which came into force in 2000 set guaranteed prices for 20 years and provided clean energy with favourable access to the grid, sparking a scramble to install solar power, wind and other renewable energy sources.

The consequences of the Energiewende, as Germany’s ambitious transition to green energy is known, are now visible across the country. Photovoltaic panels speckle the roofs of Bavarian farmers and community wind farms dot the windswept plains of northern Germany.

While established utilities were slow to respond, new businesses seized the opportunity. Renewables have gone from being the province of idealistic “Grüne Spinner” – crazy greens – to being firmly anchored in the mainstream, says Tim Loppe, a spokesman for one such business, Naturstrom.

The company, founded in 1998, has 240,000 customers across Germany and has signed a partnership deal with BMW to offer clean energy to buyers of the carmaker’s electric vehicles.

In March, Audi offered a similar deal to buyers of its electric A3. The Volkswagen-owned brand teamed up with Hamburg clean power provider LichtBlick, which has 600,000 private and business customers across Germany, to recharge its electric model with hydroelectric power.

For investors, the news from Germany’s traditional power providers has been bleak. Last year, RWE reported an annual loss for the first time since the Federal Republic of Germany was established. Germany’s second biggest utility is crossing a “vale of tears”, its chief executive Peter Terium told the Financial Times recently.

Eon, Germany’s biggest utility by market value, suffered a 46 per cent drop in underlying net income in 2013. Income fell from €4.2bn in 2012 to €2.2bn last year. The hit to the utilities’ profits had made it tougher to adapt their business models.

“The government forced significant losses on the utilities’ businesses and on their market values, which limits their ability to invest,” says Ralph Trapp, managing director of Accenture’s German utilities practice.
It was an indication that the pace of the Energiewende was too fast, Mr Trapp says. “It was not a coherent solution.”

But the tide may be turning in favour of the big power providers. Reforms to Germany’s renewable energy law, due to come into force in August, pose a challenge to the prospects of smaller players. “Politicians are giving the big energy concerns space to breathe,” says Mr Loppe, of Naturstrom.

He suggests three reasons why the reforms to Germany’s Energiewende will cramp smaller developers. First, a tendering model for new clean energy projects that is due to be introduced by 2017 will raise the risks for smaller businesses. Such companies are less likely to be able to afford early investment in a project that does not win a tender.

Second, annual caps on new installations of renewable energy mean there is a possibility that by the time a project comes to fruition, the annual limit will have been reached. Again, bigger companies are more able to bear such a risk, he says.

Third, the higher feed-in tariffs for offshore wind projects, compared with other forms of clean energy, favour a market from which smaller players are excluded because of its scale and technical difficulty.
The traditional model of power generation in vast plants outside big cities has been squeezed hard by the Energiewende. Eon plans to shut more than a quarter of its conventional generating fleet in Europe.

Both Eon and RWE are seeking to expand instead in areas that require greater interaction with customers. These include helping customers to optimise their energy consumption, or working with customers who also generate their own power using sources such as rooftop solar panels or combined heating and power plants.

“Utilities need to develop agility,” says Mr Trapp of Accenture. “That is not the way they have been used to working.”

The utilities are waking up to a world in which selling electricity is no longer enough. In the UK, RWE’s Npower has teamed up with Google’s recent acquisition Nest to sell a thermostat that tracks household energy usage and uses the data to set temperatures automatically, saving energy.

“What helps [the utilities] is they have so much experience,” Mr Trapp says. “If you combine that with new technology, they are certainly in an advantageous position.”

It remains to be seen whether gains in new technology will make up for declines in utilities’ core competence. The extent to which customers are willing to pay for the extra convenience and bespoke solutions offered by digital technology is open to question.

However, once they have discovered and tested the right technology, the ability to roll it out on a big scale is an advantage, says Mr Trapp.

With wholesale power prices predicted to fall further in the next few years, the outlook remains tough for utilities. But there are a few glimmers of hope.


The Energiewende aims to change behaviours by providing cheap alternatives to carbon based fuels for many applications; a carbon tax aims to change behaviours around energy use by punishing people who use carbon based energy when a better (and eventually cheaper) alternative is available. In the end neither aims to stop or even reduce carbon use; both aim to make the most efective use of carbon based energy.
 
"For an hour at lunchtime on Sunday May 11, wind and solar energy accounted for 70 per cent of the national electricity supply, illustrating the transformation brought about in Germany’s energy system."

While this was happening coal fired power plants remained on standby with a full head of steam ready to go online if the wind died or clouds developed.  Same with nuke plants.  You can't just flick them on and off.

That is the economic fallacy of solar and wind power.  They require 100 % backup.  Europe has the embarrassing situation of old people freezing to death because power prices have spiked geometrically.
 
And of course Ontario has been "reducing carbon" by building a series of natural gas powered turbine generators that must run 24/7 on "hot idle" to pick up the slack whenever the wind fluctuates. These aren't cheap either, it cost the taxpayer a billion or so dollars when the Liberals cancelled two in order to retain two riding's (the election before McGuinty resigned and vanished from the political landscape).

And as noted the thermal and nuclear plants must vent steam, and hydro plants spill water over the sluiceways if wind power picks up during the none peak times, in order to keep the grid stable. If the amount of wind power exceeds demand, then the excess is dumped over the border to New York's power authority for $.04 kW/H, even though the wind energy is purchased for $.135 kW/H (and the electrical energy is sold to ratepayers for $.08 kW/H)
 
70% ???

Are you sure?


Ontario only produces 5.6% of its electricity by wind power.  http://ieso-public.sharepoint.com/Pages/Power-Data/Supply.aspx

I think you will find similar percentages in Europe as well.
 
George Wallace said:
70% ???

Are you sure?

The article says "On a bright but windy weekend in Germany last month, renewables set a new record. For an hour at lunchtime on Sunday May 11, wind and solar energy accounted for 70 per cent of the national electricity supply ..." It was a 'one off' thing, a statistical anomaly that shows how much power can be generated.

It is, also, completely irrelevant. The case for a carbon tax rests on effective use of carbon and encouraging the most productive use of carbon. I, personally, oppose programmes like Germany's because they cost too much and they have the wrong aim. The correct aim is not to force people to do anything, it is to reward productivity and punish sub-optimal use of a resource.



Ontario only produces 5.6% of its electricity by wind power.  http://ieso-public.sharepoint.com/Pages/Power-Data/Supply.aspx

I think you will find similar percentages in Europe as well.
 
All these "Green" electricity systems are great......for powering your cottage or some small requirements, but for major urban centers they are not efficient enough yet.....We have a long way to go before they will ever be economical.
 
Attaching costs to externalities is a good idea, but the costs will be passed along.  Every additional cost to an end consumer is an opportunity cost.  The potential effects should be wargamed in advance.

A revenue-neutral tax shift might be acceptable.  Stephane Dion tried to sell his "green shift" as revenue-neutral, but it wasn't.  He was trying to set a little extra pot of money aside for new spending.  Perhaps he misspoke and meant deficit-neutral, but if so, he misspoke repeatedly.

A problem with consumption tax increases offset by income tax reductions is that people with lower incomes who pay little or no income tax usually consume with almost all of their income.  The burden falls unequally.

We can't conserve our way to prosperity.  I understand why utilities encourage customers on their turf to conserve energy - the utilities presumably can charge more for whatever they can sell to customers further abroad.

Arithmetic matters.  From my perspective, people looking to wind and ground-based solar do not grasp the magnitude of what must be done and are not intellectually serious.  Perhaps they are merely innumerate or incurious.  It doesn't matter.  Energy policy isn't a realm suited to qualitative discussion.  People who want to move away from fossil fuels need to calculate the energy budget for replacement, and then calculate what is practical for all of the alternatives, not merely the ones which are socially fashionable and acceptable.  Some will wake up and some will curl up in catatonic denial, occasionally muttering "wind".
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I like the analogy but it might be 180o out of phase. The purpose of dispensations was to recognize than we, humans, are very, very fallible and need some forgiveness, etc. Sin taxes, on the other hand, say that, given an appropriate incentive (a punishment in the case of tax) people can be persuaded to change their behavior ~ a "go forth and sin no more" sort of thing.

But the real aim of a carbon tax, as I read Hank Paulson's notion, is to make the most efficient (in economic terms) use of the available energy resources. Gasoline, refined from crude oil, for example, is, currently, the most efficient form of fuel for mobile applications. Crude oil and heavy oil (oil sands, etc) are both thought to be available in finite quantities so we should both a) reserve it for mobile (mainly transportation) applications, and b) encourage, by making gasoline more expensive, alternative (electrical?) sources of mobile power.

The theoretical advantage to a carbon tax is that it is a consumption tax and is, therefore, voluntary* somewhat discretionary. Some people (many? even most?) can reduce their tax burden by changing how they use carbon based energy and they can, by their actions (including votes), influence public and political opinion about e.g. nuclear energy. (I also recognize that, for now, anyway, someone living in a rural area is likely to find an electric car wholly impractical. (S)he is pretty much restricted to a big, gas guzzling (and highly taxed) pickup truck.)

As a matter of principle I would like to see more and more and more consumption taxes ~ always offsetting income taxes which should be reduced to zero for the lowest, then lower, then low and then lower middle and even middle income earners. (I know that the poor use → 99% of their income for consumption and the rich use only ← 1% of theirs, but the rich then save (invest) their income and that creates jobs for the (relatively) poor.)

_____
* We do have 'voluntary' taxes: lotteries ~ that's what Montreal mayor Jean Drapeau called the first big, million dollar (Olympic) lottery in Canada back in the 1970s.

I get the theory of it, Edward, but it seems to me that the ones who can afford this least will be effected the most.  The single mom with four kids who has to drive her 88 sunfire to her three jobs is consuming a disproportionate amount of fuel in order to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.  A bit of a dramatization (how many 88 sunfires are still on the road?) but you see my point.
 
Yes, indeed, I do see your point, and Brad made a similar one (which I acknowledged earlier) that the poorest are always hit, disproportionately, harder by any tax.

Some taxes are an essential part of maintaining the society in which we have all agreed to live. I, personally, and with a cold, cruel, Scrooge like heart, favour consumption taxes over income taxes ... although I fully support income taxes on incomes over $nn,nnn.nn. I think a) there is always some, however small, measure of discretion in consumption taxes (consume less ≈ pay less in taxes); and b) untaxed income is, generally, saved and invested, often (mostly?) in Canada, and becomes an engine of job creation.
 
Fun with numbers!

699 Megatonnes (699,000,000 tonnes) Canada's annual CO2 output.

397,000,000 Hectares (981,749,674 acres) of forests in Canada

2.6 Tonnes of CO2 absorbed per acre of mature trees

So of the 699,000,000 tonnes of CO2 emitted from Canadians 2,552,549,152.4 tonnes of CO2 is captured by our forests.

Which means Canada is well beyond carbon neutral!  Which also means the carbon tax is a shit idea
 
Our wood frame housing is also a massive carbon sink.  One thing to remember.  Canada is not very industrialized.  Big production of CO2 is in heating our homes and in transportation.  Taxing demand that is inelastic may not change behavior as much as hoped.
 
Where we fall behind is in our per capita hydrocarbon use, which is what the green lobby frequently uses to paint us as villains. That being said, I refuse to sit in my cold and dark house in a Winnipeg winter just because some latent hippy in Califonia says I use too much energy.
 
The important word in the expression 'carbon tax' is tax, not carbon. The reason for a carbon tax, as opposed to, say, a water/hydro or insecticide tax is that it aims to encourage the optimal (in economic terms) use of an important finite resource.
 
Ontario has gone into the have not category and one of the major contributing factors has been energy costs inflated due to the green policy.  GM is reducing production.  U.S. steel is trying to pull out of Hamilton.  Heinz bailed out of Leamington.  It costs too damn much to buy power so they move their operations to lower cost locales.  Add a carbon tax and you will soon be able to use vast areas of previously prosperous Canadian cities for urban warfare training.  And all for nothing.  Even the U.N. admits that the carbon reduction programme is a failure and will never stop temperatures from rising.  Hell, one volcano eruption puts more carbon into the air than all the coal fired power plants in China.  Australia figured that out, why can't we?
 
Kat Stevens said:
I get the theory of it, Edward, but it seems to me that the ones who can afford this least will be effected the most.  The single mom with four kids who has to drive her 88 sunfire to her three jobs is consuming a disproportionate amount of fuel in order to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.  A bit of a dramatization (how many 88 sunfires are still on the road?) but you see my point.

As well, this hurts rural, resource industry and agriculture dependent areas much more disproportionately than urban areas.  In many of these areas, people have to drive long distances with heavy duty pick-ups to work.  A hybrid won't cut it.  Public transit is non-existent or a joke.  Even in larger communities with a transit system, they only have a couple of inefficient routes that take people much longer to get to work than driving, or even in some cases, walking.  And unlike flat Copenhagen, Amsterdam, or downtown Vancouver, biking to work in the Interior BC requires being a fairly fit individual, what with all the hills and all.  Again, not a mode of transportation for everybody.

Not to mention the taxes added to heating costs and the transportation of goods.  I mean, this is Canada after all.  Unlike Vancouver, it gets cold in winter.  It's a big, cold, sparsely populated country.  We can't shrink it and give it the climate of California. 

I understand the academic argument for the carbon tax, but the reality is quite harmful, IMHO.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
The important word in the expression 'carbon tax' is tax, not carbon. The reason for a carbon tax, as opposed to, say, a water/hydro or insecticide tax is that it aims to encourage the optimal (in economic terms) use of an important finite resource.


Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act are Canadian business executive's Gwyn Morgan's thoughts on the real problem with carbon use:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/executive-insight/blame-fossil-fuel-users-not-producers-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions/article26240389/
gam-masthead.png

Blame fossil fuel users – not producers for greenhouse gas emissions

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Gwyn Morgan
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Sunday, Sep. 06, 2015

Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in the mid 1700s, fossil fuels have transformed humankind’s journey in almost every conceivable way. Agricultural production has soared, transportation was revolutionized, electrical power enabled breathtaking technological advancements, and petro-chemistry has provided synthetic materials for the manufacture of everything from fertilizers to plastics to clothing and even heart valves.

Real GDP per capita, the measure most closely reflecting global living standards, has soared by more than 1,600 per cent (according to Indur Goklany, a member of the U.S. delegation that established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in lock-step with the per-capita growth in fossil-fuel consumption. Harnessing our planet’s enormous endowment of natural hydrocarbon energy is, without doubt, the greatest factor underpinning the huge gains in virtually every aspect of humanity’s remarkable progress. And the technological advances made by the workers who unlock those buried resources have been equally profound.

But now those workers, and the companies that employ them, are being attacked as environment-destroying pariahs. They have become the prime target in a global anti-fossil-fuel war that aims to cripple their financing and destroy their livelihoods. Last February, an international group calling itself Fossil Free disrupted the opening of the Toronto Stock Exchange and other stock exchanges around the world. The occasion was a so-called “Global Divestment Day” aimed at convincing shareholders of corporations “who have become rogue entities seeking profits at the expense of people and planet” to divest their holdings. The group claims its advocacy has stimulated a $50-billion reduction in fossil-fuel investments. That number is likely exaggerated, but the movement is definitely gaining traction, most notably among churches, academia, leftist politicians and, now, doctors.

Here in Canada, the General Council of the United Church has voted to drop fossil fuels from its investment portfolios, saying the decision is based on “the Christian duty to care for the earth.” Divestment campaigns are under way at some 30 Canadian universities, including the University of British Columbia and University of Toronto, where professors have voted to urge portfolio divestment. Victoria City Council recently passed a motion asking the provincial Municipal Finance Authority to allow divestment. And just last week, the Canadian Medical Association announced it would divest its holdings in fossil-fuel companies.

But here’s the “elephant in the room” being missed by the divest-fossil-fuel movement: The vast majority of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are caused not by producers of fossil fuels, but by users of fossil fuels. Environment Canada’s website states, “Globally, almost 80 per cent of GHG emissions from human sources come from the burning of fossil fuels and industrial processes. Specific activities include … vehicles, electric production, heating and cooling of buildings, operation of appliances and equipment, production and transportation of goods, and provision of services and transportation for communities.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data show that agriculture and land-use changes contribute most of the other 20 per cent.

Here in Canada and other oil- and gas-producing countries, the proportion of GHG emissions from hydrocarbon production is higher than the global average, but even our much-vilified oil sands produce only about one-tenth of 1 per cent of global GHG emissions, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. The reality is that production of fossil fuels contributes only a tiny proportion of global GHG emissions.

What do these facts tell us about the fossil-fuel divestment movement? Clearly, the only way to have an impact on emissions is to target the users. But the users are, of course, everyone. So why aren’t those university professors, who fancy themselves as intellectually rigorous thinkers, calling for divestment of the shares of companies that use fossil fuels? And if, as those church leaders, doctors and politicians believe, fossil fuels are morally wrong, shouldn’t they be boycotting their own use of fossil fuels? No driving, no air travel, no road- or rail-transported food, no natural gas heat for their houses, no electricity from fossil-fueled power plants. And those passionate Fossil Free divestment activists must also target any company that uses fossil fuels in its production or distribution system (i.e., virtually all companies). To do otherwise is moral hypocrisy.

Without hydrocarbon energy, the global economy would shut down. Ironically, if producers failed to supply user demand, the public would be outraged. Approximately one million Canadians are working to make sure this doesn’t happen. Despite all the “drive-by” vilification from some of the same people who count on them every day, hydrocarbon industry workers should be proud of their role in providing the energy people need.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired Canadian business leader who has been a director of five global corporations.


I think that all those university professors and church leaders and Messers Mulcair and Trudeau and their acolytes, too, understand fully what Gwyn Morgan is saying: if we want (or need) to constrain carbon emission then we need to make the end user change his/her habits. If one doesn't understand that simple, basic fact then one is stupid. The university professors and church leaders and our political leaders are not stupid people, quite the contrary, in fact ... so why do they persists in blaming supply when demand is the real problem? In my opinion it is because the professors, priests and politicians ~ specifically Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau ~ are dishonest. They are lying because they are smart enough to know what we don't want to deal with the truth ...

                   
you-cant-handle.gif


Now, for the record, I do not favour any new taxes; Canada has a spending problem; it doesn't need more, new income. I seriously oppose cap and trade regimes for carbon "pricing" because I believe that all it does is create new, useless bureaucracies. But (there's always a "but," isn't there?) if (Big IF) carbon use (let's say petroleum use) is a problem then we know, from experience, that raising the price ~ by taxing it ~ will limit its use and, more importantly, focus its use on the most productive things.
 
Jim Prentice told Albertans the truth. How'd that work out for him?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top