Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
OK, so you upgraded all these things to higher efficiency versions/more environmentally friendly versions than you had, but not the absolute best, but aren’t replacing items that still work “just because” and even though you’re passing the costs down your tenants still aren’t paying market value…
… and that means the carbon tax doesn’t work?
|
I don't want to dig into things too much here but at the end of the day, it comes down to dollars and the bottom line. Sometimes upgrades are worth it and sometimes they are not. The payback period is only one aspect of things. You need to take into consideration things like service, lifespan and more.
The poster above talked about getting funds for what in essence are major renovations to homes and buildings. Insulation, design improvements, major HVAC systems and more. Where is this money suppose to come from? Is it my responsibility? Your's? The government's? To actually pay for renovations on improvements?
People are always more cognizant of costs and energy use when they are paying for things. Plenty of landlords who are upgrading specific aspects of properties to try and reduce operating expenses. Some things don't get looked after because they are not paying the bill, so why "upgrade" to things that are apparently more efficient but may cost more overall? Doesn't make sense.
I get what the Carbon tax is trying to achieve, force people into changing behaviors for certain things in order to reduce carbon footprint, emissions etc But we are doing it with these little games of "you will be better off" "look at all this money that your getting" "your saving the world, and it's only costing you a few more cents at the pump"
Think of carbon taxes like excises taxes on alcohol and tobaccos products. If the goal is to reduce booze and Tabaco consumption, your not going to waste time with these minor increases over the years. Few people quit over those small increases. Your make smoking or using vape like products so cost prohibited that people just stop. A pint of beer costing $40 might alter some habits. Why they don't do that is it's not political practical.
Just like slamming $1000 tax on your heating bill to force you or your landlord to change a 60 year old furnace isn't either. Or a $1000 carbon tax levy onto a flight to see grandma in Thunder Bay isn't either.
It's just better to keep repeating that over 32 million Canadians apparently are doing substantially better with carbon pricing than without it. Why don't we apply an end user carbon tax to more things , get more money back and reduce emissions. We can go to the steakhouse, have a T-Bone for $100, get back $120 and feel good about it