Kevin O'Leary's Letter to Premier Notley - Carbon Tax Discussion

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I completely disagree with this. The carbon tax money should be spent on whatever the highest-needs area is. If the biggest priority for AB gov't spending is public transit infrastructure, spend it on that. If its new schools, or more health funding, or plugging the ozone-hole sized deficit, then spend it on that.

Having dedicated funds go to a specific purpose is foolish. It literally can't be any better than spending it on the most needed item, by definition. If that happens to be the most needed item now, then great, tell people that, and if that changes in the future then its easier to switch.

No that's wrong sorry. Moneys raised by taxing gas at the pump goes to infrastructure related to driving, like a toll. Moneys collected from carbon activity should go to projects that will assist in getting us off fossil fuels.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GGG

It might be, I am disagreeing with the premise that a good implementation of a carbon tax would only be spent on diversification. It might be prudent right now to spend on diversification but the concept of dedicated taxes to specific purposes is flawed.

I'm confused a bit here. You stated governments should be addressing the needs of the province and then implementing a tax structure that pays for it, no?

Or are you more suggesting a more basic overall tax structure that gathers funds however possible and disperses them as funds are needed?

I don't know if dedicated taxes are flawed or not. In theory, it seems to work. Similar to the idea of allocating some tax revenue from weed to drug rehab programs. I think that's kind of the only way you can sell something like taxing carbon emissions.

I mean, if you're going to tax me for my usage, you sure as hell better be putting some of that money towards figuring out how to make it so I can afford to NOT use these things, at least eventually. Because the reality is, currently we can't. But also currently we have to stop using this stuff. So we're kind of at a weird impasse here where economic factors are becoming less important to people concerned about the overall physical problem here. It's not necessarily that the economics are being misunderstood. More that, in the face of the physical destruction of the eco-system in which we live, something as abstract as money (particularly when being siphoned from what are very well-off areas of society) doesn't seem like a priority.

That might scare some people here, but a lot of us are genuinely concerned about what our lives are going to look like in the long term if things keep going as is. People from my parents generation seem to balk at that notion as just paranoia, but the majority of people in my age group, that I speak to any ways (which vary from the dirtiest hippies you can imagine to creationists who are oil engineers), acknowledge that this is going to have to be something that gets dealt with in our lifetime and we'd like to get it started ASAP.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

No that's wrong sorry. Moneys raised by taxing gas at the pump goes to infrastructure related to driving, like a toll. Moneys collected from carbon activity should go to projects that will assist in getting us off fossil fuels.

Why? Taxing carbon activities will, on its own, reduce carbon activities. That's sort of the point of taxing them instead of a PST or something.

And the fuel tax goes into general revenue, some of which then gets spent on roads.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

And the fuel tax goes into general revenue, some of which then gets spent on roads.

Wait, we're going to carbon tax fuel used to power our road machines, then use that to, build roads driven on by carbon fueled road machines.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I'm confused a bit here. You stated governments should be addressing the needs of the province and then implementing a tax structure that pays for it, no?

Or are you more suggesting a more basic overall tax structure that gathers funds however possible and disperses them as funds are needed?

I don't know if dedicated taxes are flawed or not. In theory, it seems to work. Similar to the idea of allocating some tax revenue from weed to drug rehab programs. I think that's kind of the only way you can sell something like taxing carbon emissions.

I mean, if you're going to tax me for my usage, you sure as hell better be putting some of that money towards figuring out how to make it so I can afford to NOT use these things, at least eventually. Because the reality is, currently we can't. But also currently we have to stop using this stuff. So we're kind of at a weird impasse here where economic factors are becoming less important to people concerned about the overall physical problem here. It's not necessarily that the economics are being misunderstood. More that, in the face of the physical destruction of the eco-system in which we live, something as abstract as money (particularly when being siphoned from what are very well-off areas of society) doesn't seem like a priority.

That might scare some people here, but a lot of us are genuinely concerned about what our lives are going to look like in the long term if things keep going as is. People from my parents generation seem to balk at that notion as just paranoia, but the majority of people in my age group, that I speak to any ways (which vary from the dirtiest hippies you can imagine to creationists who are oil engineers), acknowledge that this is going to have to be something that gets dealt with in our lifetime and we'd like to get it started ASAP.

All I'm saying is that government spending decisions needs to be completely disconnected form how the government collects taxes.

So a Carbon tax over the long term will favour non carbon intensive technologies being implemented. This is a good thing. The size and scale of the carbon tax needs to be set up to accomplish this goal.

A diversified economy is good for this province so some programs helping diversification are also likely a good idea.

The odds that the correct size and scale of the carbon tax to accomplish its goal and the correct size and scale of green diversification are the same is zero. So arbitrarily forcing all money collected from a Carbon tax into green initiatives is stupid.

Whether or not we tax weed we should figure out a way to help people who want to quit and educate people of the dangers. Should weed users pay a tax to offset the cost of the harm done by having legalized weed? Probably. Should we tax weed to increase its price to make it less accessible to children, probably. Are the sizes of these three goals identical? Of course not.

It might make a good sales pitch but policy wise it's terrible.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by zamler

Wait, we're going to carbon tax fuel used to power our road machines, then use that to, build roads driven on by carbon fueled road machines.

Buy a road machine (here, they're called "vehicles") fueled by less carbon.

Do you think the intent is to make personal vehicles vanish by 2020?

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Weren't you always talking about using firearms in your line of work? I assumed you were a police officer and just didn't want to say it on a public forum. Were you a paramedic when you said that and if so, they allow you to carry a firearm? This is in Canada?

I have never once said I use a firearm in my line of work.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Buy a road machine (here, they're called "vehicles") fueled by less carbon.

For example?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by zamler

For example?

I've heard electric cars are a thing.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I've heard electric cars are a thing.

A lot of people aren't able to spend the 30k or more on an electric car and in the dead of winter for a lot of people a 70 km range before charging isn't sufficient.

If the Government wants to make all of these green tech's more affordable for the lions share of people the rebate should be attached to the price of the item instead of outlaying a wack of cash that they can't afford and then apply for a rebate.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

A lot of people aren't able to spend the 30k or more on an electric car and in the dead of winter for a lot of people a 70 km range before charging isn't sufficient.

If the Government wants to make all of these green tech's more affordable for the lions share of people the rebate should be attached to the price of the item instead of outlaying a wack of cash that they can't afford and then apply for a rebate.

Yeah and fair enough because electric cars aren't really feasible in Alberta yet and even if they were, they'd run on coal-fired electricity, but there are plenty of cars that use very little gasoline.

Seems like a funny question for the guy to ask for examples of vehicles that use "less carbon". I mean, who hasn't heard of a Honda Civic?

[Sylvanfan]

I always think I should trade my 2006 Chevrolet pickup which was given to me as a I don't really want it anymore hand me down for something more efficient. Than I actually do the math and realize it uses 180 litres of gas a month. The gas will cost me an extra $8 a month. I can go borrow 25 grand, trade it in and get an electric car which will cost me 65 a month to charge, more with this stupid tax. Need a new battery in 7 years which will be 1500 bucks if things work out.

I'll stick with my paid for gas pig. For the $500 a month payment I can buy a lot of oil/gas/parts and still haul anything I want and come out ahead.

Until the magic rays of the sun and unicorn piss can actually produce energy without another medium which has it own set of flaw's and environmental issues the only way to make me use less carbon emitting evil is to give me a safe efficient public transit system that doesnt cost me an extra 2 hours a day of my finite resource...time.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

A lot of people aren't able to spend the 30k or more on an electric car and in the dead of winter for a lot of people a 70 km range before charging isn't sufficient.

If the Government wants to make all of these green tech's more affordable for the lions share of people the rebate should be attached to the price of the item instead of outlaying a wack of cash that they can't afford and then apply for a rebate.

Yeah I'm not advocating electric or pretending they're easily affordable or even pretending they don't have a negative impact on the environment too.

Just... fueled by less carbon? I picked the first that came to mind of the many examples out there.

It was a weird question. Which followed a weird statement, as though for some unexplainable reason a carbon tax should have the main goal of eliminating road-based transport or that only vehicles that utilise (sorry OMGWTF) fuel subject to a carbon tax are ever going to use those roads for their lifespan.

[Wormius]

The purpose of the tax should be to spur change, but there are few options available to curb current behaviours.

The only big thing I can think of is if companies become more pro-telecommuting where it can be applied. I am kind of curious about how much is wasted commuting to an office where you are saddled in front of a computer for the entire day.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I've heard electric cars are a thing.

I always find this a funny response. Yes, you're right, electric cars are a thing.

How do you make:

- The plastics for the body?
- The batteries?
- The Tires?
- The Paint?
- How do you generate the electricity to charge them?
- Power the plant that builds them?
- Ship them from the factory to market?

Magic apparently.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the fuel that powers the car is only half of the equation. And thats being generous.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

3 things I find really interesting about the carbon tax

- the math is weird. In the tradition of all governments the announcements are all smoke and mirrors, so usually you find the story in the budget tables. So far no details other than it won't be accounted for separately. The revenue should be $5-7b if you just add up emissions and multiply by the tax. It's listed at about 1.5b. I don't think it's shady or fudged, but I don't think anyone really knows what the heck we're paying for and not.
- how will people react when they get their Rachel bucks? Most people don't understand their finances at all so the net gain or loss won't matter as much as their perception. I think broad opposition might melt away when cheques arrive. It's worked in alberta before.
- how generous will energy reduction programs be? At the start of their term when the ndp was all about sticking it to the man they didn't want businesses and above average income people buying new furnaces and cars on the back of their programs. But they look more and more like they think they can win another term. I suspect there will be a lot announcements, leaks and trial balloons before the budget.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Locke

I always find this a funny response. Yes, you're right, electric cars are a thing.

How do you make:

- The plastics for the body?
- The batteries?
- The Tires?
- The Paint?
- How do you generate the electricity to charge them?
- Power the plant that builds them?
- Ship them from the factory to market?

Magic apparently.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the fuel that powers the car is only half of the equation. And thats being generous.

And I always find this a funny response—the suggestion that some people believe that electric cars and electricity materialize out of thin air. Or magic.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Locke

I always find this a funny response. Yes, you're right, electric cars are a thing.

How do you make:

- The plastics for the body?
- The batteries?
- The Tires?
- The Paint?
- How do you generate the electricity to charge them?
- Power the plant that builds them?
- Ship them from the factory to market?

Magic apparently.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the fuel that powers the car is only half of the equation. And thats being generous.

Yes, you're right. Read my very next post. What bubble are you bursting? What magical view of electric cars do you think I have based on "they've got their own problems and environmental impact"

The question was "fueled by less carbon" not "zero carbon."

As profound as the "electric cars are bad too" crowd think they're being, something doesn't have to be perfect to be an improvement.

I don't believe in magic, but I also don't go around trashing advancements in cancer treatment just because they haven't found a cure. It's missing the point completely. All things equal (including manufacturing, running, and end-cycle processing), the electric car has a smaller environmental impact than a gas-powered car.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And I always find this a funny response—the suggestion that some people believe that electric cars and electricity materialize out of thin air. Or magic.

The lack of understanding that 'Electricity' is not an energy source, it is the product of another process.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

I always find this a funny response. Yes, you're right, electric cars are a thing.

How do you make:

- The plastics for the body?
- The batteries?
- The Tires?
- The Paint?
- How do you generate the electricity to charge them?
- Power the plant that builds them?
- Ship them from the factory to market?

Magic apparently.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the fuel that powers the car is only half of the equation. And thats being generous.

Unless you have some sort of data that would support the argument that the carbon emissions created by making an electric car combined with the emissions
created to charge it during it's lifespan are greater than the emissions created by building a gasoline powered car combined with the emissions that car will generate in its lifespan, you may want to reconsider how you are presenting your argument.