40th Canadian Federal Election - Welcome to another Conservative Minority (whee!)

[FFR]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Aren't there regulatory bodies that can prevent this? i.e. ensure that the tax isn't passed onto the consumer?

If this was true, why would any company want to conduct business here? If it was cheaper to conduct business anywhere else, why would they stay here? Or start here? It would kill an already struggling economy.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by FFR

Except, again, there is a problem with this statement. Companies that transport any goods, need to use diesel to transport. It's more environmentally friendly than gasoline, so what do you suggest they do to begin using a "greener" model? They can't do anything, so they will pass on costs to consumers.

If I don't vote Liberal this election (and I've voted Liberal in three of the last four), this will be one of the major reasons why. They seem to be completely uncomprehending of the realities of diesel. I've been considering purchasing a diesel car for the last year, for two primary reasons: they consume far less fuel than similar gasoline cars, often comparable to hybrids in terms of consumption, and their pollution meets the highest standards in North America or Europe. And under the Liberal plan, I'd be taxed more for fuel because I've chosen a high-efficiency, low-pollutant vehicle?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by FFR

If this was true, why would any company want to conduct business here? If it was cheaper to conduct business anywhere else, why would they stay here? Or start here? It would kill an already struggling economy.

I have no straight answer for that but can only speculate for IMO the largest polluters.

O & G. No choice. Have to stay where the resource is.
Mining: Same
Auto: I'm presuming they're here because of wages and the Unions down south. I'll admit it's one industry which could be affected detrimentally.
Energy: The market is here.

Re: energy and the rest I would hope that there would be some sort of tax credit similar to the credits in a cap and trade system for producing (and maybe a lesser credit for purchasing) clean energy.

[FFR]

Originally Posted by octothorp

If I don't vote Liberal this election (and I've voted Liberal in three of the last four), this will be one of the major reasons why. They seem to be completely uncomprehending of the realities of diesel. I've been considering purchasing a diesel car for the last year, for two primary reasons: they consume far less fuel than similar gasoline cars, often comparable to hybrids in terms of consumption, and their pollution meets the highest standards in North America or Europe. And under the Liberal plan, I'd be taxed more for fuel because I've chosen a high-efficiency, low-pollutant vehicle?

Exactly. Corporations aside...This part of the Green Shift makes absolutely no sense. The plan is about reducing green house gas emissions. Well, diesel emits far less than gasoline...so obviusly the best course of action to take is to tax diesel and punish all those who have bought diesel powered vehicles and make them want to go back to gasoline powered vehicles! It doesn't make any sense!

[FFR]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I have no straight answer for that but can only speculate for IMO the largest polluters.

O & G. No choice. Have to stay where the resource is.
Mining: Same
Auto: I'm presuming they're here because of wages and the Unions down south. I'll admit it's one industry which could be affected detrimentally.
Energy: The market is here.

Re: energy and the rest I would hope that there would be some sort of tax credit similar to the credits in a cap and trade system for producing (and maybe a lesser credit for purchasing) clean energy.

I think Oil and Gas can easily move their head operations elsewhere. And that would affect a lot of jobs in Alberta specifically. Sure, there is supply here. But there is supply a lot of other places too.

I don't know anything about mining, so I can't comment.

Energy?? Of courses there is a market here. There is a market for energy everywhere. Energy is a necessity. I am all for producing cleaner types of energy, but what do you suggest we use in Alberta? Or Saskatchewan? Or the territories? In provinces that aren't landlocked, there is hydro power. But what do we do here? Nuclear power seems to be very steadily opposed against, so I dont knot what other options there are.

I'm not trying to attack you - I simply don't know. IF there was a regulation in place that would not allow companies to pass on taxes, its my opinion that one of two things would happen: A - companies would leave. B - they'd find a loophole. Raise "administrative costs" or some other "fee." They would find a way, because like I said, private sector companies will not run at a deficit. Government companies will...but now we're getting really socialist and I don't think the Liberals want to, or will go there.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I'd be taxed more for fuel because I've chosen a high-efficiency, low-pollutant vehicle?

Diesel might be more efficient and give off less GG/litre but it produces more pollutants (particulates and NOx).

I see your point though.

I'm similar re. voting. The problem at the moment is there is no strong opposition.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I have no straight answer for that but can only speculate for IMO the largest polluters.

O & G. No choice. Have to stay where the resource is.
Mining: Same
Auto: I'm presuming they're here because of wages and the Unions down south. I'll admit it's one industry which could be affected detrimentally.
Energy: The market is here.

Re: energy and the rest I would hope that there would be some sort of tax credit similar to the credits in a cap and trade system for producing (and maybe a lesser credit for purchasing) clean energy.

No choice for the O & G companies? Hardly. It's a global market and if it is too expensive to get the Oil / Gas here, they'll find it somewhere else - Russia? Middle East? etc.

Yes, the Oil and Gas is here, but there is absolutely no reason why the companies have to get that oil now. If it is too costly to get it now, they'll wait until later, capping wells, shutting down production, and leaving it until later. As mentioned in this article (which I have not completely read, just found it while searching for something else):

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...G46CMUPL60.DTL

Fort McMurray's boom time has been a long while coming. The first large mine began operations in the 1960s. But for the next few decades, as oil prices often sank below the $25-a-barrel cost of recovering crude from the sands, the deposits were viewed as a vast money hole, as an improbable long- term investment play by deep-pocketed oil majors.

As illustrated by this quote, companies had already waited for 30-40 some years to get the oil... if they have to wait another 20, they won't hesitate.

Then again, maybe that is Dion's Green plan... make the cost of a barrel of oil too high for the Oil Sands to be profitable, to stop the "ecological destruction", with no care for the economy....

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Diesel might be more efficient and give off less GG/litre but it produces more pollutants (particulates and NOx).

I see your point though.

I'm similar re. voting. The problem at the moment is there is no strong opposition.

Right. It's a tradeoff: greenhouse gases or smog (although even the particulates are far less than traditional engines and still meet California Auto Board standards). If I lived in a center where smog was a real issue, I'd probably opt for a gasoline hybrid, but here in Calgary I'll go with the better fuel consumption and lower greenhouse gases.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by calculoso

No choice for the O & G companies? Hardly. It's a global market and if it is too expensive to get the Oil / Gas here, they'll find it somewhere else - Russia? Middle East? etc.

Yes, the Oil and Gas is here, but there is absolutely no reason why the companies have to get that oil now. If it is too costly to get it now, they'll wait until later, capping wells, shutting down production, and leaving it until later. As mentioned in this article (which I have not completely read, just found it while searching for something else):

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...G46CMUPL60.DTL


As illustrated by this quote, companies had already waited for 30-40 some years to get the oil... if they have to wait another 20, they won't hesitate.

Then again, maybe that is Dion's Green plan... make the cost of a barrel of oil too high for the Oil Sands to be profitable, to stop the "ecological destruction", with no care for the economy....

IIFC during the NEP years, a lot of oil companies stopped exploration and extraction and laid off all non essential personal and did the bare minimum to survive. Now more then ever oil and gas exploration is a more global market, a lot of the super companies will spend money else where in the world if it becomes a situation of it not being worth it to produce in Canada.

You'll end up with a bunch of administrative offices and a lot of oil workers either out of work or brain draining Canada to go elsewhere.

[Bagor]

calculoso - I admit that was a bit presumptive but was basing it on the profits they're making. Could many companies afford to walk away from those profits? Your example talks about lean times. Indeed the following paragraph:

But recently, as international prices have rocketed above $50 a barrel and technology advances have pushed production costs down to about $18 a barrel, the sands suddenly are stunningly attractive.

I've tried to work out how much the tax will cost per barrel (roughly). Feel free to critique or point out any flaws/omissions. It's a bit crude, rounded out and based on a few non-expert sources.

"It takes around 3 times as much energy to produce a barrel of oil from oil sands as it does for typical oil extraction. (85.5kg CO2 per barrel compared to 28.6kg CO2)."

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where...ands/index.cfm

Rounds out to ~12 barrels per tonne CO2

"In July Royal Dutch Shell released its 2006 annual report and announced that its Canadian oil sands unit made an after tax profit of $21.75* per barrel, nearly double its worldwide profit of $12.41 per barrel on conventional crude oil"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sand

*Conservative for todays profits IMO given the price of oil then and how technology should have improved efficiency.

21.75 x 12 = ~$261 profit per tonne CO2 produced

Dion wants $10/tonne or $10 from every $261 profit rising to $40 over 4 years = 3.8 % rising to 15.3%

First figure desn't sound too bad but the second: . I'm thinking they're a bit lower given the 2006 figures but nonetheless $40/tonne is still a considerable dent.

As I said feel free to critique and suggest whether these taxes are enough to make companies walk/ hold back operations/ cut costs etc. I honestly don't know.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by FFR

I will be completely honest and say that I havne't read through the entire thing yet, but you can't say they dont have a plan. At least their plan has targets, which is more than the Green Shift has.

This is just my opinion but I find it very weak and token gesturish.

There's the usual yada yada reduce emissions by 2020, 2050 ...... but no explanation of how this is going to be achieved.

It talks about requiring industry to reduce emission "intensity".

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by FFR

Exactly. Corporations aside...This part of the Green Shift makes absolutely no sense. The plan is about reducing green house gas emissions. Well, diesel emits far less than gasoline...so obviusly the best course of action to take is to tax diesel and punish all those who have bought diesel powered vehicles and make them want to go back to gasoline powered vehicles! It doesn't make any sense!

Wrong... it isn't about reducing green house gas emissions at all, it is about raising money for the government.

IF it was about reducing GHG emissions, why are there exactly ZERO targets in the plan to do so?

IF it was about reducing GHG emissions, how do the Liberals plan to handle the reduced revenue they'd receive? Less emissions = less revenue for the government. Will they increase the income taxes, raise the carbon tax, reduce program spending? What?

It is a complete fallacy that this carbon tax is designed to reduce GHGs (which, by the way, Canada contributes what - 2% of the overall GHG emissions world wide - meaning that even if we reduced to 0 total GHG emissions it wouldn't make a tangible dent in the overall GHG of the planet, and any reduction we make will be absorbed by increases from China and India in a matter of months, if not days).

[Slava]

Originally Posted by old-fart

Wrong... it isn't about reducing green house gas emissions at all, it is about raising money for the government.

IF it was about reducing GHG emissions, why are there exactly ZERO targets in the plan to do so?

IF it was about reducing GHG emissions, how do the Liberals plan to handle the reduced revenue they'd receive? Less emissions = less revenue for the government. Will they increase the income taxes, raise the carbon tax, reduce program spending? What?

It is a complete fallacy that this carbon tax is designed to reduce GHGs (which, by the way, Canada contributes what - 2% of the overall GHG emissions world wide - meaning that even if we reduced to 0 total GHG emissions it wouldn't make a tangible dent in the overall GHG of the planet, and any reduction we make will be absorbed by increases from China and India in a matter of months, if not days).

I know that you and I are basically polar opposites politically, but I just can't help but comment here. The plan is about reducing GHG's. There are no targets because the targets are meaningless and don't work. The Conservative targets equate to something like 2% reductions per decade over the next 40 years....basically they are advocating doing nothing.

The second point that I bolded is the one that drives me crazy though. The attitude of this is essentially a five year old saying "but Johnny gets to stay up until 10pm, so why can't I?" The point here is not whether anyone else does what they should, its about whether we are doing what we ought to in order to leave things better than when we found them.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know that you and I are basically polar opposites politically, but I just can't help but comment here. The plan is about reducing GHG's. There are no targets because the targets are meaningless and don't work. The Conservative targets equate to something like 2% reductions per decade over the next 40 years....basically they are advocating doing nothing.

Ok, I want to make sure I understand your logic here. Having some targets means you are doing nothing, but having no targets means you are doing something?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok, I want to make sure I understand your logic here. Having some targets means you are doing nothing, but having no targets means you are doing something?

No my point is that you can be doing something without having to set targets. The targets in and of themselves are not the crux of the plan.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by old-fart

IF it was about reducing GHG emissions, why are there exactly ZERO targets in the plan to do so?

There are (P16 of the plan): "We believe that our target should be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020."

*edit* Actually there aren't. the Plan doesn't start until P21.

[Ronald Pagan]

Setting targets sure makes significant emissions reductions.

In Canada, however, discourse on climate change policy thus far has focused mainly on the selection of targets and less on evaluating the effectiveness of alternative policy designs. This focus is especially remarkable considering our lack of success in enacting policies to reduce GHG emissions. Figure 2 shows that, over the past 18 years, Canadian governments have generatedthree distinct targets for future GHG emissions and six major policy initiatives to achieve these targets. Yet Canada’s emissions have risen faster over that period than during the previous 10 years, relentlessly climbing as the
country misses one target after another.

This unfortunate history provides a compelling argument for focusing
climate policy discussions on policy effectiveness. Instead, however, politi-
cians and environmentalists remain preoccupied with debating targets: Can
Canada achieve its 2010 Kyoto target? What should the target be for 2020?

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/benefactors_lecture_2007.pdf

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by octothorp

If I don't vote Liberal this election (and I've voted Liberal in three of the last four), this will be one of the major reasons why. They seem to be completely uncomprehending of the realities of diesel. I've been considering purchasing a diesel car for the last year, for two primary reasons: they consume far less fuel than similar gasoline cars, often comparable to hybrids in terms of consumption, and their pollution meets the highest standards in North America or Europe. And under the Liberal plan, I'd be taxed more for fuel because I've chosen a high-efficiency, low-pollutant vehicle?

No you'd be taxed less for buying a diesel vehicle. Under a carbon tax diesel is taxed less so you'd have the incentive to buy diesel.

The Liberal Plan echoes this. The only sticking point is that they aren't adding any new gasoline taxes and are instead converting the excise tax to a carbon tax. So, if anything gas is taxed much higher under the liberal carbon tax than diesel is right now.

I understand your concern but your point doesn't stand up.

[flamefan74]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

The Liberal Plan echoes this. The only sticking point is that they aren't adding any new gasoline taxes and are instead converting the excise tax to a carbon tax. So, if anything gas is taxed much higher under the liberal carbon tax than diesel is right now.

I understand your concern but your point doesn't stand up.

No where in the Green Shift does it say that the Liberals are converting the excise tax to a carbon tax. It only says that there is a $.10/liter tax on gasoline and that they won't be increasing it. And if they did move the excise tax to a carbon tax, gasoline would stay the same price while diesel would increase by $.07/liter in year 4. Plus, there is already a $.04/liter excise tax on diesel which would make the total tax $.11/liter whereas gas would only be $.10/liter (if the Liberals actually change the excise tax to carbon tax).

Let's face it, Dion would be dumb to announce a carbon tax on gas. He would lose votes left, right and center.

[flamey_mcflame]

Yes, the oil companies are gonna run away from Canada due to higher taxes.
They will forgo the billions they make quarterly, not annually, due to carbon regulations. Watch how fast they leave $120 oil.

And, of course, they have multitudes of places to run to. Russia will welcome them and their equipment and maybe, if the oil companies are lucky, they'll get a bottle of Stoli before the Russians boot them out. Ok, maybe not Russia.
But there's always the Arctic. Well, it'll take 30 years to get a steady flow of oil. And it will cost them around $100-$110 a barrel to get them to refineries will be a much better option than Alberta's $50-$60 a barrel.

Brr, please don't leave oil companies. Please stay and keep making billions. And get your best friends, the major natural gas companies, not to abandon their obscene profits. We promise to vote Conservative in Alberta. Don't leave without taking all the money first, pleeeeease.