Alberta Residential Energy Savings Program

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I don't understand your disdain for me. I have two options:

1. Continue to slowly change over at my own expense
2. Let the NDP change me over all at once for free

Now if everyone else is getting free bulbs and reaping the savings on their bills (notwithstanding the extra taxes we'll pay), then why would I be a hero and pay out of my own pocket?

The way I figure, once the full cost of this ridiculous program gets tallied, it will be a huge piece of ammo for the opposition in the next election. So not only am I getting "free" light bulbs, I'm helping to sink these fools.

The NDP has presented you with a way to waste a bunch of tax dollars. You could decline if you don't agree with it, and use your own money at likely 1/4 of the cost vs the government doing it for you.

Your answer: "Well everybody else is doing it".

If the program has low uptake, the cost per user will be even higher if you are worried about ammo. The damage was done when they announced the program. That sounds more like an excuse to participate in the wasting of tax dollars.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

The NDP has presented you with a way to waste a bunch of tax dollars. You could decline if you don't agree with it, and use your own money at likely 1/4 of the cost vs the government doing it for you.

Your answer: "Well everybody else is doing it".

If the program has low uptake, the cost per user will be even higher if you are worried about ammo. The damage was done when they announced the program. That sounds more like an excuse to participate in the wasting of tax dollars.

Uhhh...government money IS his money.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

The NDP has presented you with a way to waste a bunch of tax dollars. You could decline if you don't agree with it, and use your own money at likely 1/4 of the cost vs the government doing it for you.

Your answer: "Well everybody else is doing it".

If the program has low uptake, the cost per user will be even higher if you are worried about ammo. The damage was done when they announced the program. That sounds more like an excuse to participate in the wasting of tax dollars.

How is it wasting when 4x4 is getting a portion of his carbon tax back in the form of bulbs and power bars?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

The NDP has presented you with a way to waste a bunch of tax dollars. You could decline if you don't agree with it, and use your own money at likely 1/4 of the cost vs the government doing it for you.

Your answer: "Well everybody else is doing it".

If the program has low uptake, the cost per user will be even higher if you are worried about ammo. The damage was done when they announced the program. That sounds more like an excuse to participate in the wasting of tax dollars.

Nope, it's a tradgedy of the commons scenario. If everyone said no we'd be better off but if everyone said no and I said yes I'd be better off so everyone should say yes. If you say no to the program the costs to you as an individual changes by a few cents while you turn down a hundred in lightbulbs and cords. A rational person should sign up.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Uhhh...government money IS his money.

Exactly.

Would you write a cheque for a dude to come to your house to change your lightbulbs?

Of course not.

By opting into the program, that is essentially what you are doing.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by GGG

Nope, it's a tradgedy of the commons scenario. If everyone said no we'd be better off but if everyone said no and I said yes I'd be better off so everyone should say yes. If you say no to the program the costs to you as an individual changes by a few cents while you turn down a hundred in lightbulbs and cords. A rational person should sign up.

This is exactly the case, I won't argue that, but it's disappointing how few people are capable of making the right choice that might end up costing them a few dollars.

This is exactly why governments that have no intention of long term good constantly get voted in. Pander to the common person's pocket book and you can get away with whatever you want.

If all decisions are made based on conforming to the lowest common denominator, things aren't going to get much better around here any time fast.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

This is exactly the case, I won't argue that, but it's disappointing how few people are capable of making the right choice that might end up costing them a few dollars.

This is exactly why governments that have no intention of long term good constantly get voted in. Pander to the common person's pocket book and you can get away with whatever you want.

Accepting the hand out is the right choice. Not accepting is irrational.

It's not making decisions based on the LCD that's the problem. it's developing programs with proper incentives and means testing needs to happen instead of universal programs with perverse incentives

[PepsiFree]

There's nothing irrational about not accepting the handout. Your decision to not accept the handout does not impact ALL of the money, but it does impact the portion it would cost for you specifically. If you take yourself out of the equation that money will become surplus and go to something else.

If it somehow goes over budget, eliminating the surplus of money, then you've helped lower the deficit by opting out.

If you disagree with the spending of this money on this project, the ONLY rational choice is to opt out.

[Locke]

Quite frankly I'm really surprised.

There is nothing this program can do to my residence that I havent already done years ago.

I dont think there is anything morally egregious or upstanding one way or the other.

If you dont take advantage you can rest assured that the NDP will find an even stupider method to waste the money, granted after this ####storm that will take some doing.

And if you do take advantage...I dont know what to say, you should have sorted this out years ago?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

There's nothing irrational about not accepting the handout. Your decision to not accept the handout does not impact ALL of the money, but it does impact the portion it would cost for you specifically. If you take yourself out of the equation that money will become surplus and go to something else.

If it somehow goes over budget, eliminating the surplus of money, then you've helped lower the deficit by opting out.

If you disagree with the spending of this money on this project, the ONLY rational choice is to opt out.

So do you regularly remit extra taxes? Effectively that is what you are doing by not taking advantage of this program.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Exactly.

Would you write a cheque for a dude to come to your house to change your lightbulbs?

Of course not.

By opting into the program, that is essentially what you are doing.

No I wouldn't write ANOTHER cheque, but when the guy already has my money, has purchased a bunch of items with that money, and has no intention of returning my money any other way....hell yes he can come and do work at my house and replace everything he can with his items that I also use.

To suggest that somehow not opting in will save anyone a single dime at any time with this gang that couldn't spend straight, is naive at best and completely disingenuous at worst.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No I wouldn't write ANOTHER cheque, but when the guy already has my money, has purchased a bunch of items with that money, and has no intention of returning my money any other way....hell yes he can come and do work at my house and replace everything he can with his items that I also use.

However by making this program a "success" by being so popular, they can justify continuing the program. Then next year you can write another even bigger cheque. And make sure you write that cheque out of your kid's university fund account as well, because they will be the ones who end up actually paying for this- with interest.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

The NDP has presented you with a way to waste a bunch of tax dollars. You could decline if you don't agree with it, and use your own money at likely 1/4 of the cost vs the government doing it for you.

Your answer: "Well everybody else is doing it".

If the program has low uptake, the cost per user will be even higher if you are worried about ammo. The damage was done when they announced the program. That sounds more like an excuse to participate in the wasting of tax dollars.

Uh huh. Well, Ralphbucks was a waste of tax dollars. Did you cash your cheque, or did you do the right thing and decline?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ken0042

However by making this program a "success" by being so popular, they can justify continuing the program. Then next year you can write another even bigger cheque. And make sure you write that cheque out of your kid's university fund account as well, because they will be the ones who end up actually paying for this- with interest.

People using this program should not be the measure of success. It should be measured on dollars per ton CO2 saved.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Uh huh. Well, Ralphbucks was a waste of tax dollars. Did you cash your cheque, or did you do the right thing and decline?

I was 18 and living at home. It went straight to the liquor store.

It was also a lot more efficient than Ralph hiring drivers to bring my the beer that I was fully capable of procuring on my own.

If they were giving out free lightbulbs and thermostats, I'd be all for it.

It's the install part that just blows my mind. The thought of hiring someone to change my light bulbs... does not compute.

[Iceman90]

Can we get back to discussing the program itself? The website says installations have started - do we know anyone who's had an install?

The sister program The Residential Retail Products Program is more intriguing to me. It's supposed to launch in "Spring 2017". Anyone here with government ties know when we can expect to see the details?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by ken0042

However by making this program a "success" by being so popular, they can justify continuing the program. Then next year you can write another even bigger cheque. And make sure you write that cheque out of your kid's university fund account as well, because they will be the ones who end up actually paying for this- with interest.

Don't know what to say to this, but this is the NDP we are talking about. They could not care any less whether any program they start is "successful" or not.

This is evidenced by a couple things;

1) The money that has been allocated for this program is supposedly coming from the carbon tax grab which ultimately goes through general revenue to begin with. There is no way to actually track it of course because...well...math is hard after all. Suffice to say however, that no matter how many people actually use this service, it will be deemed a massive success that has us saving the planet one light bulb at a time. In the NDP ideology nothing they do can be considered anything but a good idea regardless of actual impact. See the Leap Manifesto for details.

2) They have already deemed this to be of such good social benefit, that after the initial portion of the contract (a year or so apparently) they have written into the agreement with Ecofit that the whole business model employed will be absorbed by....them! A whole new crown corporation for her highness to oversee and employ unionized workers with. It's a win-win for the NDP.


The whole thing is a black hole of waste and whether or not I, you , or anyone else takes part is so irrelevant, its comical. This thing is here to stay...or at least until 2019 when hopefully it isn't so entrenched and expensive to undo that the next government blows it to smithereens and implements something that could actually work and makes sense.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The whole thing is a black hole of waste

We agree on that part.

My thinking is that if there is no demand, they may go back to the drawing board. However if the demand is there, they can justify increasing the spending.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

So do you regularly remit extra taxes? Effectively that is what you are doing by not taking advantage of this program.

This is nothing like that. By not taking advantage of the program, you allow the money to be spent on a different government program. If you truly think this is wasteful and pointless, your chances of that money being spent on a less wasteful and pointless program are much better when you choose the mystery box.

If you disagree with the program then it doesn't make sense to take advantage, unless you don't really care. It's not like the money is getting used on it either way. It costs X to provide the service to you, partly funded by your tax. That money is not spent if you don't take advantage, so it will end up going to something else. If you're opposed to the program, letting the money go to anything that ISN'T the program is a more rational choice.

[photon]

This thread has consumed about the same amount of energy saved in 40 days by changing 1 60W bulb to an LED bulb.

(Assuming 8W LED bulb, 100W computer, 60 seconds per threadview, and 8h of bulb usage per day. Ignoring server and Internet power usage.)