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

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's not just limited to economics and the carbon tax.

Did know electric cars have tires and batteries and aren't fueled by magic?

Why is it so hard to accept that electric cars, even when considering every single possible thing, are just better for the environment than gas powered cars?

Gas powered cars also have tires and batteries. They also have construction costs, they also have paints and gears and service cost and everything else.

Except that the electricity mix can get better over time. Gas is always going to be gas.

EDIT: Read a bit more of this ridiculous thread and saw you were being sarcastic. Then this is addressed to everyone else.

[Erick Estrada]

The bottom line is that we need to find an alternative fuel to produce high pressure steam. That's it. Easier said than done maybe but that's what we have to do and until that happens this is all for not. Does anyone really think a carbon tax is going to create any solutions? Of course not. It's just an example of taxpayers will shouldering the burden for poor global leadership. Nobody has an answer so lets collect money because we can pat ourselves on the back and say that we are doing our part even if we aren't actually doing anything at all. At the end of the day a carbon tax is simply a means to swindling more money from taxpayers with the "it's for the good of the environment" angle.

I see plenty of people are taking the bait and that's not surprising seeing how climate change is taking shape as the next big religion. Since the dawn of man religion has been used to control the masses but we are moving away from imaginary gods and climate change is the new means for the people running the world to manipulate the masses as they see fit. We already have a lot of people that actually believe that there won't be an earth for their children like doomsday is approaching. It's a matter of time until we have people lining up for climate preachers to touch them on their forehead to clean them of their filthy carbon fueled lifestyle.

Take a look at all the full size pickup trucks on your commute to work today. The top selling vehicle in North America by a big margin is the Ford F150. In fact full size pickups totally dominate all vehicle sales and they are the biggest polluters of any commuter vehicles in the world as you can fuel five Civics to fuel a single full size pickup truck. Until the governments actually do something about that then I will buy into what they are selling but the problem is that would crush Ontario's economy as well as the US automobile industry. Blame Alberta all you want but it's the automobile industry that is holding north americans hostage.

[Tinordi]

More evidence that the carbon tax is useless. BC Carbon tax reduced gasoline consumption by 10.7%.

http://institute.smartprosperity.ca/...ne-consumption

Eager to hear the next round of baseless ignorant accusations from non-economists and non-policy analysts on why the most universally recommended policy instrument to reduce GHG emissions is actually not going to work. Please continue to cite no evidence to support for opinion while amping up your hysteria and overconfidence.

[Ozy_Flame]

Hey if it keeps more unnecessary huge pickup trucks off the downtown streets in the morning, at least it might do one thing right!

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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.

https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content...April-2013.pdf

If you people don't want to go through this....electric cars beat gas from a life cycle perspective as well. I was surprised by how much tbh.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

More evidence that the carbon tax is useless. BC Carbon tax reduced gasoline consumption by 10.7%.

http://institute.smartprosperity.ca/...ne-consumption

Eager to hear the next round of baseless ignorant accusations from non-economists and non-policy analysts on why the most universally recommended policy instrument to reduce GHG emissions is actually not going to work. Please continue to cite no evidence to support for opinion while amping up your hysteria and overconfidence.

Do you notice any differences between BC and Alberta's carbon tax?

[Tinordi]

I've been pointing out on this board for what seems like 5 years now that electric cars still have lower emissions than gasoline powered cars even accounting for the emissions from power plants. For some reason that point is having a hard time penetrating the density of the skulls involved. It's almost as if people are trying to not believe it.

Even in Alberta, with its high-carbon electricity, there are GHG benefits associated with fuel production and use in shifting from gasoline to electric-powered personal vehicles. For a typical personal-use vehicle driven 15,000 km/yr, the benefit is 1 to 1.5 t CO2e per vehicle per year. For new vehicles in 2015, that represents approximately 33% reduction in emissions, but by 2040, the reduction is estimated to be 50%.

http://www.cesarnet.ca/sites/default...Impact-EVs.pdf

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

More evidence that the carbon tax is useless. BC Carbon tax reduced gasoline consumption by 10.7%.

http://institute.smartprosperity.ca/...ne-consumption

Eager to hear the next round of baseless ignorant accusations from non-economists and non-policy analysts on why the most universally recommended policy instrument to reduce GHG emissions is actually not going to work. Please continue to cite no evidence to support for opinion while amping up your hysteria and overconfidence.

I have read these studies and can't find any flaws in the methodology however the results don't make sense.

Are people that price sensitive to gasoline price fluctuation that a 1 cent increase regardless of cause decrease consumption by 1%. That notion seems ridiculous to me. And yet the data suggests that this is true.

I think there needs to be a big caveat with the data.

1) Continuous increases in the carbon tax are likely to have a smaller affect than the first as non-essential transpiration and easily substituted transportation are the first to be cut. This is demonstrated by the rural areas not seeing reduced consumption.

2) Given that gas prices fluctuate continuously the affect of the Carbon tax in the long term should be insignificant to the rising price of gas in general. If prices stabilize at X cents per L then the marginal increases of carbon taxes would have an affect. However in our current environment the price of oil will still dominate the consumption affects.

None of this is to say that a Carbon tax won't do anything. It will push things in the correct directions at the margins and as an alternative to a PST is a good choice of what to tax.

[EldrickOnIce]

Was, is and always will be my problem with the carbon tax:
"providing incremental fiscal capacity for government priorities, be they infrastructure spending, tax reductions, deficit reductions or other programs."

Take the $3B and put it into effective green policy initiatives, and its all good. Make it just another slush fund revenue source for mismanaged spending, and it's less good.

[2Stonedbirds]

Those alternatives Tinordi, public transportation and electric sound great and may work for some people but have you considered the people who live and work in rural areas, what choice do they have?

A electric car isn't going to pull my work trailer and bust snow drifts on goat trails while doing so. There is no bus stop or train that passes by my work.

Do the studies show, or has the govt proposed a timeline when people such as myself will see the benefits from investing in green energy? Do the auto manufacturers have an idea when they will release a 4wd vehicle capable of pulling 14000 pounds of dead weight? Do the auto manufacturers even have a plan in place based on govt mandate?

[Tinordi]

I hear you that there are not many immediate technological alternatives to reduce the carbon tax incidence for rural transport. However there are still many things you can do, first you'll likely get a carbon tax rebate that will take the sting out of the extra 4 cents per litre. Second you may decide to adjust your behaviour and not drive that huge truck unless you need or really want to. Third, the next truck you buy might balance the fuel costs compared to other features that you want. That's the tax in action. Finally, why should feel entitled to not pay for the pollution you personally emit regardless of your situation?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Those alternatives Tinordi, public transportation and electric sound great and may work for some people but have you considered the people who live and work in rural areas, what choice do they have?

A electric car isn't going to pull my work trailer and bust snow drifts on goat trails while doing so. There is no bus stop or train that passes by my work.

Do the studies show, or has the govt proposed a timeline when people such as myself will see the benefits from investing in green energy? Do the auto manufacturers have an idea when they will release a 4wd vehicle capable of pulling 14000 pounds of dead weight? Do the auto manufacturers even have a plan in place based on govt mandate?

I think you have to wait for the technology to improve over time, but I would say the electric car movement is most pertinent - and effective - when used in urban environments for the time being. Of the tens of thousands of cars on the road, there would surely be different uses for them than a diesel/gasoline rig used in the field for very different purposes.

One thing that is a huge inhibitor for electric vehicles is that the infrastructure required to make a mass change just isn't there yet. As much as I want a Tesla, I couldn't imagine buying one when there are next to no electric charging stations, and I live in a condo and I don't have an outlet in my parkade. That alone prevents me from buying electric, even though my heart wants to buy one too.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I hear you that there are not many immediate technological alternatives to reduce the carbon tax incidence for rural transport. However there are still many things you can do, first you'll likely get a carbon tax rebate that will take the sting out of the extra 4 cents per litre. Second you may decide to adjust your behaviour and not drive that huge truck unless you need or really want to. Third, the next truck you buy might balance the fuel costs compared to other features that you want. That's the tax in action. Finally, why should feel entitled to not pay for the pollution you personally emit regardless of your situation?

If I have to pay for the pollution I emit, why shouldn't everyone? The GHGs my activities emit are no more harmful than those other people do, so we should all pay the full cost.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

If I have to pay for the pollution I emit, why shouldn't everyone? The GHGs my activities emit are no more harmful than those other people do, so we should all pay the full cost.

Your lack of belief in personal responsibility is noted.

And the thing is that everyone in Canada will be paying, so that's a step. Everyone in China will be paying in a couple years (they've committed to a national cap and trade scheme by 2020). And on a tax per litre basis, Europeans are already paying 3-4 times what you pay. So yeah. If we continue to delay to do something until someone else does that will be the end of us. Need to bite the bullet and move forward.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I think you have to wait for the technology to improve over time, but I would say the electric car movement is most pertinent - and effective - when used in urban environments for the time being. Of the tens of thousands of cars on the road, there would surely be different uses for them than a diesel/gasoline rig used in the field for very different purposes.

One thing that is a huge inhibitor for electric vehicles is that the infrastructure required to make a mass change just isn't there yet. As much as I want a Tesla, I couldn't imagine buying one when there are next to no electric charging stations, and I live in a condo and I don't have an outlet in my parkade. That alone prevents me from buying electric, even though my heart wants to buy one too.

Agreed if the infrastructure was there I would not be against an electric vehicle even if it was only a grocery getter, an a to b type deal.

For work however even if the infrastructure was there, the market simply doesn't provide an alternative. Eric Estrada brought up a point on reducing emissions from consumer vehicles, and while personal transport makes a huge portion of GHG, it's a drop in the bucket compared to shipping and agriculture. And as of yet, there is no alternative either currently available or even in the pipeline to address these areas. If John Deere could build a electric tractor that can pull a subsoiler, I'd love to see it. When the govt says they will use this influx of tax revenue to invest in green energy; that's fine. But show me how. Show me the willingness from industry to spend and develop R&D to make it a reality.

Forcing industry to make changes based on cost prohibition for the end user doesn't sound like healthy economic sense. The marketplace should decide when it's needed.

[Tinordi]

Eric Estrada brought up a point on reducing emissions from consumer vehicles, and while personal transport makes a huge portion of GHG, it's a drop in the bucket compared to shipping and agriculture.

False. GHG emissions from passenger vehicles are around 90 Mt, freight emissions are just over 90 Mt and agricultural emissions are around 55 Mt.

[PepsiFree]

I'm not opposed to the carbon tax in principle, but the biggest issue for me (and maybe this is just misinformation, I'd love to be wrong) is that some people are actually gaining money from the rebates instead of just offsetting the carbon tax.

That's a little bit insulting. Put it into social programs if you want to spread the wealth, don't just cut cheques for individuals.

[Torture]

Electric sounds sexy but propane or LNG injected diesel vehicles increase fuel economy, reduce co2 emissions, and increases horsepower, all while reducing maintenance requirements and the infrastructure is already there.

Over time I can see a lot of fleets making these types of small changes as the ROI is pretty quick.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by GGG

I have read these studies and can't find any flaws in the methodology however the results don't make sense.

Are people that price sensitive to gasoline price fluctuation that a 1 cent increase regardless of cause decrease consumption by 1%. That notion seems ridiculous to me. And yet the data suggests that this is true.

Why does it seem ridiculous?

Think about it this way - Let's assume that the carbon tax was $150/tonne, ie. 40c/L. Would that affect your behavior? How about $1500/tonne ($4/L)?

Now assuming that there's a line where you'd actually change your behavior, then it proves that the principle of carbon tax actually works.

For some people, that line could absolutely be as low as 4 cents a liter. I know of a lot of people that will go out of their way to a Costco just to save a couple cents on gas. It's not like they immediately reduced their consumption by X%. But as the cost goes up, there's a subconscious effort to think about efficiency, like combining a grocery trip and a gas trip together at Costco. Maybe someone makes a trip to the store straight after work, rather than coming home first and then going back out again. When your tax is a trivial 4 cents a liter, even making 2-3 of these decisions in an entire year is probably enough to reduce your consumption by that commensurate amount.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Why does it seem ridiculous?

Think about it this way - Let's assume that the carbon tax was $150/tonne, ie. 40c/L. Would that affect your behavior? How about $1500/tonne ($4/L)?

Now assuming that there's a line where you'd actually change your behavior, then it proves that the principle of carbon tax actually works.

For some people, that line could absolutely be as low as 4 cents a liter. I know of a lot of people that will go out of their way to a Costco just to save a couple cents on gas. It's not like they immediately reduced their consumption by X%. But as the cost goes up, there's a subconscious effort to think about efficiency, like combining a grocery trip and a gas trip together at Costco. Maybe someone makes a trip to the store straight after work, rather than coming home first and then going back out again. When your tax is a trivial 4 cents a liter, even making 2-3 of these decisions in an entire year is probably enough to reduce your consumption by that commensurate amount.

I don't disagree that a carbon tax will work. I am surprised at the scale of the affect given that the driving factor of the gas price is the price of oil and that the fluctuations of oil price in any given year largely outweigh the magnitude of the carbon tax.

In seems ridiculous that the demand for gasoline is this elastic given the natural fluctuation of gas price. A 1% ( 1 cent per liter) change in price causes a 1% change in demand. Gut feel is that it should be much more inelastic than that. Again the rural driving is high inelastic where it had no effect. And that rural driving would include your above mentioned combining of trips.

At some point the effect of the tax will diminish significantly as well as non-essential trips have been removed by it. I also wonder if the knowledge that you are being taxed is the actual effect being measured rather than the economic consequences of being taxed.