Suburbanites beware: Here comes teh gas tax?

[petros]

By the way...with the money saved I can save even more while I go away for 4 weeks in the dead of winter on the money I've saved converting.

Sitting on the beach in your shorts is far nicer than sitting in your gonch at the kitchen table.

Aloha!

 

[captain morgan]

I'm guessing that the slack-jawed-yokel comment hit a little too close to home.

Whine whine whine about how sitting in your gonch in your kitchen in February costs too much but you refuse to take steps to get with the program and enjoy the benefits of efficiency and economy and still get to sit in your gonch at the kitchen table in February.

You probably meant to refer to one of the hotter months.. That generally occurs in the summer.

You've funded **** all for anyone in any other province. If you snoozed and lost out that is your own ****ing fault not mine. Blaming others for your own stupidity doesn't fly you snot nosed wanker.

Apparently we funded your big, provincial geothermal project(s)... One thing is for sure, AB didn't fund any roadworks in your province. Maybe you can get your prov gvt to spend a few bucks and transform your portion of the TransCanada Hwy into something that cars can drive on instead of the wagon trail that it is today.

You always come to insults when you hit your intellectual brick wall which by the way anyone else has no problem stepping over.

Really insightful response... Go read your own posts (last few) and tell me all about insults.

Like I've said before "you aren't stupid, everyone else is just smarter than you are".

Did ya find any info from the EPA on that carbon-less wood that doesn't emit CO2 into the atmosphere? Despite your allegation that 'everyone else is smarter' it seems that you aren't one of them.

 

[captain morgan]

By the way...with the money saved I can save even more while I go away for 4 weeks in the dead of winter on the money I've saved converting.

Sitting on the beach in your shorts is far nicer than sitting in your gonch at the kitchen table.

Aloha!

The tens of dollars you've saved might buy an acid trip...

 

[petros]

Tens of dollars? No gas bill and 75% less for cooling is tens of dollars?

Keep trying moron.

 

[petros]

Did you buy a big screen TV when all you had to do was move your chair closer?

 

[Tonington]

It IS the argument... The entire basis of this tax is to reduce carbon emissions by the public at large - that said, it doesn't matter if the forests are virgin, old-growth or planted sites. Taking down a tree eliminates that trees capacity to absorb CO2 and later burning the wood adds all of the stored CO2 back into the system. It's a double-whammy.

It very much matters what kind of forest it is. That's plain ignorance to suggest otherwise. Taking down a tree at the end of it's growth phase will allow room in the forest for new growth. That's the progression of forests. If that tree is left to stand, and many others like it, then you're losing carbon uptake potential.

This part, where I said it wasn't the argument:

Burning wood creates as much, if not more eevviill CO2 emissions than the corresponding amount of nat gas that you'd use to heat your home (equivalent).

It's not the argument, because careful wood stewardship provides fuel, and can increase stored carbon in the forest. Burning the equivalent of natural gas has no mechanism to increase carbon storage. So, burning tress suitably harvested can decrease the carbon emitted by the public at large, while burning natural gas will surely increase the carbon emitted, unless of course the natural gas is replacing coal or oil burning.

I'll grant you that a carbon tax doesn't have any mechanism that I know of for compensating the woodlot owner, or farmer who increases carbon uptake on their property. Maybe they should, like a tax credit.

I am not as familiar with the program as yourself. The only reference I have seen re: benefit to public is in the form of a $100 rebate at the start. I am not familiar if this rebate will exist every year, however, the gas tax will increase significantly over the next few years.

I'm not familiar with this program. I am familiar with Google though...which tells me that as the carbon tax increases, other taxes correspondingly decrease. Which told me that in the first year of this new tax, the tax payers in BC got more back in tax savings than they paid into the carbon tax.

This page may be useful to you:
Interactive online Google tutorial and references - Google Guide

 

[captain morgan]

Did you buy a big screen TV when all you had to do was move your chair closer?

In fact, I did recently buy a big screen and subscribed to a HD satellite service...

 

[captain morgan]

It very much matters what kind of forest it is. That's plain ignorance to suggest otherwise. Taking down a tree at the end of it's growth phase will allow room in the forest for new growth. That's the progression of forests. If that tree is left to stand, and many others like it, then you're losing carbon uptake potential.

This part, where I said it wasn't the argument:

I see your point, however, you are splitting hairs. Methane and gasoline and burned in highly efficient manners relative to (most) automobiles and especially home heating. Further, the cost in terms of emissions in order to selectively and perpetually harvest wood products is not part of your equation. Oil/gas facilities, once installed, have a viable life for many decades and the operating costs (in terms of powering them) are nominal when based on the operating cost per bbl/boe over the life of that resource.

In terms of the CO2 management. No matter how you cut it, the stored CO2 is released when it is burned. You can defer and manage the selection of what gets consumed but it still emits into the system.

It's not the argument, because careful wood stewardship provides fuel, and can increase stored carbon in the forest. Burning the equivalent of natural gas has no mechanism to increase carbon storage. So, burning tress suitably harvested can decrease the carbon emitted by the public at large, while burning natural gas will surely increase the carbon emitted, unless of course the natural gas is replacing coal or oil burning.

Again, that form of management acts only to defer the release of the total carbon 'inventory'.. At some point, whether it is harvested the carbon is released...

No matter how you cut it, you burn wood, you emit CO2 - The more wood burned, the more CO2 released.

I'll grant you that a carbon tax doesn't have any mechanism that I know of for compensating the woodlot owner, or farmer who increases carbon uptake on their property. Maybe they should, like a tax credit.

It'd be interesting to see the effects of offering such an incentive.

I'm not familiar with this program. I am familiar with Google though...which tells me that as the carbon tax increases, other taxes correspondingly decrease. Which told me that in the first year of this new tax, the tax payers in BC got more back in tax savings than they paid into the carbon tax.

This page may be useful to you:
Interactive online Google tutorial and references - Google Guide

Check-out Canadian Taxpayers Federation.. You will find that their info is more directed, selective and applicable to this specific issue.

 

[Tonington]

In terms of the CO2 management. No matter how you cut it, the stored CO2 is released when it is burned. You can defer and manage the selection of what gets consumed but it still emits into the system.

And is taken back up by new growth. Gas fields, coal seams, and oil deposits do not.

That's not splitting hairs. Burning wood harvested sustainably is a continual cycle. When you remove that carbon, it's making room for carbon to be cycled back. So far, there are very few places on earth where the waste product of our fossil fuel consumption goes back to the source. Some goes back into the carbon cycle. The rest acidifies ocean, and increases the opacity of our atmosphere to infrared radiation.

Again, that form of management acts only to defer the release of the total carbon 'inventory'.. At some point, whether it is harvested the carbon is released...

Duh? Of course it is.

No matter how you cut it, you burn wood, you emit CO2 - The more wood burned, the more CO2 released.

And new room is made for carbon to go back to the forest. Seriously, what part of this are you having difficulties with? New forest growth draws the carbon back. That's not possible with natural gas, coal, oil...

Check-out Canadian Taxpayers Federation.. You will find that their info is more directed, selective and applicable to this specific issue.

And totally out to lunch. They claim it will cost families more. This is at odds with the results of the program so far. They also happen to be subscribe to the global cooling nonsense.

I gave you a link when you said 'so far as I know...' that shows what you know so far is wrong. The CTF has no data to corroborate your claims either. Meh.

 

[Machjo]

I'm not so concerned about CO2 emissions (I'm sure we'll run out of fuel to burn before CO2 emissions become a really serious threat). My meain concern is with the impact when all of a sudden, all the oil fields pulling gas out of the ground at full trhotttle suddenly all star running out of gas within the same few years (not to mention that as one field runs dry, the others start pumping faster to compensate). Our very city infrastructure is built on the assumption that we'll always have gas. With a sudden ending to the gas supply, we couldn't even get food to the cities!

I'm more concerned with ensuring a gradual shift from gas dependence over time and a gradual restructuring of our city infrastructures to make them less fuel dependent, rather than going from plenty of gas today to suddenly none left tomorrow. Now that would be devastating. And that's more my reason to support a gas tax, more so than carbon emissions.

 

[captain morgan]

And is taken back up by new growth. Gas fields, coal seams, and oil deposits do not.

Yeah, that rapid growth.. The minute that a tree grows to maturity in the same time that it takes to burn it is when your equation will balance.

That's not splitting hairs. Burning wood harvested sustainably is a continual cycle. When you remove that carbon, it's making room for carbon to be cycled back. So far, there are very few places on earth where the waste product of our fossil fuel consumption goes back to the source. Some goes back into the carbon cycle. The rest acidifies ocean, and increases the opacity of our atmosphere to infrared radiation.

Duh? Of course it is.

That very same argument applies to hydrocarbons.. Just over a much larger time frame... 'Duh' indeed.

Oh, and the acidification of the oceans will occur much faster by adopting your position in burning wood, let alone the effects that it will have on air quality/opacity.

Give a little thought to your posts before you castigate others.

And new room is made for carbon to go back to the forest. Seriously, what part of this are you having difficulties with? New forest growth draws the carbon back. That's not possible with natural gas, coal, oil...

Here's a wee hint for you Mr. Science.. Oil/gas are formed from organics.. That's right, forests too.

And totally out to lunch. They claim it will cost families more. This is at odds with the results of the program so far. They also happen to be subscribe to the global cooling nonsense.

Yeah,the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is far less accurate than a random selection from Google... Oh hang-on, I forgot all about Wiki.. That site is always at the top of the google results... I'll go and get the info from them and if it isn't complete, that OK, I can just fill it in as I see fit.

I'll bet that this is the height of legitimacy fro you, right?

I gave you a link when you said 'so far as I know...' that shows what you know so far is wrong. The CTF has no data to corroborate your claims either. Meh.

... And your conclusive link?.. Oh, that's right - Google... Real helpful on that one.

 

[Tonington]

Yeah, that rapid growth.. The minute that a tree grows to maturity in the same time that it takes to burn it is when your equation will balance.

There is no equation. But, prey tell what do you suppose the equations would look like if we compared biomass to fossil fuels. One is on time scales that a human can see, the other is geologic.

Better check your math on that one...

That very same argument applies to hydrocarbons.. Just over a much larger time frame... 'Duh' indeed.

Yeah. Much longer. Would you like to continue to repeat what I'm saying?

Oh, and the acidification of the oceans will occur much faster by adopting your position in burning wood, let alone the effects that it will have on air quality/opacity.

1) My position on burning wood is something you haven't grasped yet. My position increases the carbon flux into a forest. Get your head out of the sand, take a fresh breath, and enjoy the reading comprehension you get when oxygen is not limiting...
2) Ocean acidification will not occur faster. As you already mentioned, the role for wood burning is limited. Most importantly, moving more carbon into a forest means the oceans absorb less. That's pretty basic stuff...

Give a little thought to your posts before you castigate others.

I'm not severely criticizing you. I'm criticizing what you've said, but certainly it's not severe. I could be much more blunt.

Here's a wee hint for you Mr. Science.. Oil/gas are formed from organics.. That's right, forests too.

That's not a wee hint. Though forests don't form oil or gas. They form coal. In case you skipped this part, they form over millions of years. Burning biomass will cycle through the carbon cycle many, many times more than the fossilized forms of energy.

Get a clue.

Yeah,the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is far less accurate than a random selection from Google... Oh hang-on, I forgot all about Wiki.. That site is always at the top of the google results... I'll go and get the info from them and if it isn't complete, that OK, I can just fill it in as I see fit.

Random selection? Do you know what random means? I'm going to school you now. Here is how this went.

You said:
In terms of the preference between the 2 options (carbon vs income tax), I think that most would agree that a carbon tax is preferable in that you have some control over what you pay, however, the problem in the BC experience is that there (to my knowledge) is no reduction in the income tax to offset the carbon tax potential.

Emphasis mine. I didn't randomly pull out a google page, i found one that specifically addresses your ignorance. A news article from the Vancouver Sun, I'll even post it again. Carbon tax no cash cow in its first year

Here's the relevant part of the story clipped from that link, which you apprently didn't bother to read:

Although the tax is intended to be revenue-neutral, British Columbians actually received more money out of the climate initiative's attendant tax cuts than the provincial government received in carbon tax revenue.

Glen Armstrong, assistant deputy minister in the finance ministry outlined those numbers from the February provincial budget.

The provincial budget showed $300 million in carbon-tax revenue for fiscal 2008-09, some $38 million less than estimated due to factors including lower than expected gasoline consumption.

However, the income tax cuts associated with the carbon tax to make sure the initiative was not a cash cow for government totalled $338 million -- 70 per cent of which went back to individuals.

That was enough that if you read this, plus other material found freely, you wouldn't be so ill-informed. Personal income tax, small business tax, corporate tax rate, all down.

Is this clear now?

I'll bet that this is the height of legitimacy fro you, right?

No. Do you gamble this recklessly on other things as well?

... And your conclusive link?.. Oh, that's right - Google... Real helpful on that one.

No, the Google link was to inform you how the search engine works. You either don't know how to use it, or are content to remain ignorant about the subject matter in the threads you post on, as is evident above. I was hoping it was the former, but alas it appears to be the latter.

 

[AnnaG]

I don't mind being taxed as long as the money is used properly and people are taxed fairly. I like the carbon tax. It's simple: the more you use, the more you pay. Perhaps it will prompt people to consume less fuel by using more public transport, getting more efficient vehicles, or getting vehicles that don't use petroleum products.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Taking a step back from Provincial Politics, and looking at the National
and International level for a bit....it would be nice if Canada, as a Nation,
chooses a route that it feels would be best for it as a Nation and for the
Environment as a whole...be it a Carbon Tax, or Cap&Trade, or something
else, or nothing at all. I think, the way the wind is blowing, that this choice
will be taken out of our hands very quickly though.

In the island that is North America, with oceans bordering us on three sides
and the monstrously large economy of the USA bordering the forth, as our
largest trading partner, the reality is that we will do whatever the USA does.

Oh well....Cap&Trade it is then, eh?

 

[captain morgan]

It's certainly looking that way.. What will be especially interesting will revolve around how the US policy will deal with the coal industry down there. Based on what I've heard to date, it looks as if they are willingly ignoring that sector.

 

[Ron in Regina]

The way I understand it (& I'm open to being corrected here, if someone
can do so), the coal industry south of us absolutely dwarfs anything that
Canada has going on....and that includes the oilsands projects.

If the USA ignores their own coal industry, do you thing they'll ignore the
oil (or Bitumen) coming out of the oilsands for export south into the USA?

 

[captain morgan]

We are all in the position of 'being corrected' relative to this issue. As it stands, all we can point to are the announcements (or conspicuous silence) from the American administration.

What we do know is that the coal industry in the USA (and Canada to a lesser degree) are by far and away the largest polluter (air-borne toxins) as well as the largest emitter of CO2... From my perspective, I don't really buy into the CO2 issue, however, IF the focus of the US administration is based on CO2 emissions, coal usage (energy production) should be the biggest target.

In the end, the problem that the Americans have is that they have a significant dependency on coal-fired plants that produce electricity. Hitting that industry with higher costs would translate to the consumer and with the economic situation in the States, there is no way that the democrats will pass legislation that will impact the cost of living to the locals.

I guess that we will just have to wait and see, but in the meantime, it sure is annoying to watch the Americans rail-away at oil consumption or the tar sands when coal is the biggest villain in this area.

 

[captain morgan]

There is no equation. But, prey tell what do you suppose the equations would look like if we compared biomass to fossil fuels.

You mean 'pray tell'... And since you asked so nice, I will:

The carbon tax is based on usage of emitting substances and seeing how they are measuring usage against payment, there is an equation. In short, just for you, the more you use, the more you pay.

You fail to grasp the big picture on this in realizing that it isn't just physics that is in play here... That's your problem


RE: Hydrocarbons in the CO2 inventory.

Yeah. Much longer. Would you like to continue to repeat what I'm saying?

But they still count right or does that not support your management model?... Sorry about that. (I'll give you some time to repeat that a few times)

2) Ocean acidification will not occur faster.

.. So, the significantly higher volume of carbon particulate that ends up in the oceans that result from burning wood along with the higher CO2 output relative to, say, methane, doesn't increase the acidification?

Wow, you've defied the laws of physics... Congratulations.

That's not a wee hint. Though forests don't form oil or gas. They form coal. Get a clue.

.. So, organics aren't the building blocks for hydrocarbons?.... Wow, another startling revelation that debunks more conventional science!

Let's take a look at your compelling position on the reduction on income taxes in BC, shall we?.. And let's also bear in mind how it relates directly to the carbon tax, OK?

Here's the relevant part of the story clipped from that link, which you apprently didn't bother to read:

Although the tax is intended to be revenue-neutral, British Columbians actually received more money out of the climate initiative's attendant tax cuts than the provincial government received in carbon tax revenue.

Glen Armstrong, assistant deputy minister in the finance ministry outlined those numbers from the February provincial budget.

The provincial budget showed $300 million in carbon-tax revenue for fiscal 2008-09, some $38 million less than estimated due to factors including lower than expected gasoline consumption.

However, the income tax cuts associated with the carbon tax to make sure the initiative was not a cash cow for government totalled $338 million -- 70 per cent of which went back to individuals.


That was enough that if you read this, plus other material found freely, you wouldn't be so ill-informed. Personal income tax, small business tax, corporate tax rate, all down.

So, it seems that the carbon tax is independent of the prov income tax credits, doesn't it... Perhaps you'd know this if you bothered to inform yourself, but alas, that isn't in the cards, is it?

While the one-page article from the newspaper was extraordinarily detailed and specific, it doesn't link the carbon tax to the personal income tax cuts that have been available for years in BC does it? Further those very same cuts are available to everyone regardless of the carbon tax... So it seems that you must rely on linking unrelated variables to make an argument... Well, it ain't working so well for ya.

Further, I highlighted a couple of words in your shallow research. The first is 'intended'... Now, I'm going to need you to open your mind a bit on this and think outside the theoretical and focus on reality... Just 'cause BC intends to have a revenue-neutral tax, what is the probability that it will actually happen?

Lucky for you, they provide the answer further on.. I highlighted that for you as well... '70% went back to individuals'... Does this provide a clue that the tax isn't really revenue neutral? I'll give you a hint. It has to do with the 30% that wasn't given back

Is this clear now?

 

[AnnaG]

It didn't turn out to be rev-neutral in the UK either. I like the idea, though because it will likely cause some people to cut back on their consumption.

 

[Liberalman]

Wait until the government makes you pay for a ffart tax and people would have to get weighd in every year to see what rate they would have to pay.