Singh has had a longer tenure as NDP Leader than Mulcair did because he did a better job in managing expectations: the party expected to form government under Mulcair, but the party under Singh only expected to maintain a rump of seats. Of course, how low expectations became so tolerable is the core problem now at hand...
Singh’s move today is baffling. He knows that the Bloc is in favour of the carbon tax, so the Liberals would likely survive a non confidence vote on the topic by itself. All he does is making himself and his party irrelevant. He used to have some leverage, now he has decided he does not want to have leverage.
In the meantime, the Liberals can legitimately claim that they are the only adults in the room.
Obviously fucked his BC Riding Constituents over via Zero Communication in a Province with a Carbon Tax as well as one of The Most Astonishing Environments on Spaceship Earth - JUST VISITING - The Bloc can easily put the Finishing Touches on this mealymouth shameless Grifter .. Non ?
Why doesn’t he just ‘Cross The Floor too ? And exactly What Is Going On Internally re the NDP Caucus ? 🦎🏴☠️🇨🇦
I've been an advocate of carbon taxes for some forty years now, originally to linit emissions of NOX and SOX, and later GHG emissions. A carbon tax, and rebate makes eminently good sense. Especially if rebates are geared to income levels, but we can't have that when the topic is so controversial. But unfortunately a carbon tax is not really effective unless it is high enough to change behaviors. Until I see fewer SUVs and trucks that are really passenger vehicles, until I see an acceleration in the move to RVs, until I see a fall in the prices of cottages far from the city, then I believe that the carbon tax is very far from high enough, How high? Until behaviors change.
Of course, that is politically impossible, at least with the present mind sets. We have been sold a bill of goods, that decarbonization could be achieved without costly disruptions. Well, that just isn't so. A major change in our economy cannot help but be disruptive. And costly.
The present carbon tax is much too low to be effective. It is symbolic, rather than functional. Our parties are fighting over a symbol, not over substance. The CPC are dead wrong about the economic harms of the present tax. But then the Liberals are dead wrong about its effectiveness.
Take a look at the cost of gasoline and other forms of energy in Europe. That's more like it. And somehow, Europeans aren't in the streets protesting (at least, not protesting the cost of energy).
So I would say that all the parties are being hypocritical. All are hiding the truth from the population, each in its own particular way.
I believe that this is true home heating fuels, but that the opposite is true for gas prices we pay at the pump.
People hardly look at their utility bill. When they do, they are typically shocked by the delivery / transportation charges, not the actual fuel price itself. In other words, the effect of the carbon price is probably subdued when it comes to home heating.
The opposite may be true with the gas prices at the pump. We see it every day. People line up for 30 minutes at Costco to save 3 cents a litre. As a result, fuel efficiency is a factor with more weight than its actual impact when it is time to replace a car.
Yes, the effect could be stronger with a higher tax, but I don’t think it is too low to have any effect.
Yes, you're right, the carbon tax on gasoline is very visible, and many people become quite angry when they notice. But do they change their behavior? I've found a number of studies, saying yes, and saying no. But I have yet to see a study that is persuasive, one way or the other. So I judge by anecdote, I bad habit I know, but all I've got right now.
The problem with the studies is that there are lots of moving parts, and it's difficult to disentangle their effects. Apart from the tax, there's increased awareness, pther subsidy programs, the natural evolution of car technology, and the real desire of some to do good.
Rather than looking at changes in total emissions, I would rather look at changes in vehicle type, driving patterns, locations of activities, and so on. But I don't know where to get that data.
But how much do Canadians travel? Apparently we're near the middle of the pack for number of trips per year. But ithat seems to be just tourism, and does not give the length of the average trip. It also excludes travel within metropolitan areas, where I suspect that Canada is quite high.
Anyway, the real question is: How have these measures changed as the price of carbon has increased? There are soome studies of the B.C. experience, but again there are many methodological questions.
Indeed. If we had gas prices at the level in Europe, perhaps we could be doing better. I think that goes back to the point that the price of our energy, including gasoline, must be higher if we are to meet GHG emissions targets. Of course, there will be adjustment costs to our economy, however distributed between different interests. But that's what all of the parties refuse to acknowledge./
Jagmeet is in direct conflict with the BC NDP, a province with a carbon tax the BC NDP supports. BC's election is in Oct. I expect Eby must be secretly seething at the jackass.
If he's planning to bring down Trudeau over the carbon tax, he will be making himself Poilievre's redundant puppet. Few progressives will vote for him. Poilievre is already mocking him for being a sellout.
Singh has had a longer tenure as NDP Leader than Mulcair did because he did a better job in managing expectations: the party expected to form government under Mulcair, but the party under Singh only expected to maintain a rump of seats. Of course, how low expectations became so tolerable is the core problem now at hand...
I could not agree more. How it is that Jagmeet Singh has managed to keep the leadership of the NDP is profoundly baffling.
Singh’s move today is baffling. He knows that the Bloc is in favour of the carbon tax, so the Liberals would likely survive a non confidence vote on the topic by itself. All he does is making himself and his party irrelevant. He used to have some leverage, now he has decided he does not want to have leverage.
In the meantime, the Liberals can legitimately claim that they are the only adults in the room.
Obviously fucked his BC Riding Constituents over via Zero Communication in a Province with a Carbon Tax as well as one of The Most Astonishing Environments on Spaceship Earth - JUST VISITING - The Bloc can easily put the Finishing Touches on this mealymouth shameless Grifter .. Non ?
Why doesn’t he just ‘Cross The Floor too ? And exactly What Is Going On Internally re the NDP Caucus ? 🦎🏴☠️🇨🇦
Just like Singh, I had forgotten that his riding was in BC.
Mark Carney, did you know that Burnaby South is a lovely place to live?
I've been an advocate of carbon taxes for some forty years now, originally to linit emissions of NOX and SOX, and later GHG emissions. A carbon tax, and rebate makes eminently good sense. Especially if rebates are geared to income levels, but we can't have that when the topic is so controversial. But unfortunately a carbon tax is not really effective unless it is high enough to change behaviors. Until I see fewer SUVs and trucks that are really passenger vehicles, until I see an acceleration in the move to RVs, until I see a fall in the prices of cottages far from the city, then I believe that the carbon tax is very far from high enough, How high? Until behaviors change.
Of course, that is politically impossible, at least with the present mind sets. We have been sold a bill of goods, that decarbonization could be achieved without costly disruptions. Well, that just isn't so. A major change in our economy cannot help but be disruptive. And costly.
The present carbon tax is much too low to be effective. It is symbolic, rather than functional. Our parties are fighting over a symbol, not over substance. The CPC are dead wrong about the economic harms of the present tax. But then the Liberals are dead wrong about its effectiveness.
Take a look at the cost of gasoline and other forms of energy in Europe. That's more like it. And somehow, Europeans aren't in the streets protesting (at least, not protesting the cost of energy).
So I would say that all the parties are being hypocritical. All are hiding the truth from the population, each in its own particular way.
I believe that this is true home heating fuels, but that the opposite is true for gas prices we pay at the pump.
People hardly look at their utility bill. When they do, they are typically shocked by the delivery / transportation charges, not the actual fuel price itself. In other words, the effect of the carbon price is probably subdued when it comes to home heating.
The opposite may be true with the gas prices at the pump. We see it every day. People line up for 30 minutes at Costco to save 3 cents a litre. As a result, fuel efficiency is a factor with more weight than its actual impact when it is time to replace a car.
Yes, the effect could be stronger with a higher tax, but I don’t think it is too low to have any effect.
Yes, you're right, the carbon tax on gasoline is very visible, and many people become quite angry when they notice. But do they change their behavior? I've found a number of studies, saying yes, and saying no. But I have yet to see a study that is persuasive, one way or the other. So I judge by anecdote, I bad habit I know, but all I've got right now.
The problem with the studies is that there are lots of moving parts, and it's difficult to disentangle their effects. Apart from the tax, there's increased awareness, pther subsidy programs, the natural evolution of car technology, and the real desire of some to do good.
Rather than looking at changes in total emissions, I would rather look at changes in vehicle type, driving patterns, locations of activities, and so on. But I don't know where to get that data.
Here you go:
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2019/market-snapshot-how-does-canada-rank-in-terms-vehicle-fuel-economy.html
Canada and the US score the worst when it comes to fuel consumption. We have quite some ways to go to reach the Western European countries.
Thank you. That's helpful.
But how much do Canadians travel? Apparently we're near the middle of the pack for number of trips per year. But ithat seems to be just tourism, and does not give the length of the average trip. It also excludes travel within metropolitan areas, where I suspect that Canada is quite high.
Anyway, the real question is: How have these measures changed as the price of carbon has increased? There are soome studies of the B.C. experience, but again there are many methodological questions.
?https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-whose-citizens-travel-the-most.html
What you see in this data is the effect of higher gas prices in Europe. Europeans demand more fuel efficient cars and the results are there.
Indeed. If we had gas prices at the level in Europe, perhaps we could be doing better. I think that goes back to the point that the price of our energy, including gasoline, must be higher if we are to meet GHG emissions targets. Of course, there will be adjustment costs to our economy, however distributed between different interests. But that's what all of the parties refuse to acknowledge./
I still think it's worth doing, though.
bingo.
Way to beat up on yourself over one ballot.
Jagmeet is in direct conflict with the BC NDP, a province with a carbon tax the BC NDP supports. BC's election is in Oct. I expect Eby must be secretly seething at the jackass.
If he's planning to bring down Trudeau over the carbon tax, he will be making himself Poilievre's redundant puppet. Few progressives will vote for him. Poilievre is already mocking him for being a sellout.