As the province contemplates what to do with the carbon tax beyond this year, various groups are piling on with their opinions.
Mayors have been trying to get carbon-tax money for a while. They say they don’t want all of it, just some. And they claim that it can be done without too much pain.
I have to acknowledge that I think there is a touch of wonky math behind some of these assumptions, some of which may be mine. At any rate, here’s the story for you to hash over.
You can also look at the calculation below that Metro Vancouver did of how much local residents and businesses paid in carbon tax and how much they got back. You’ll be surprised at the numbers.
To: Environment and Parks Committee
Finance Committee
From: Jason Emmert, Air Quality Planner
Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department
Ann Rowan, Sustainability Strategist (Acting), CAO’s Office
Date: August 27, 2012
Subject: Implications of the BC Carbon Tax for the Region
Environment and Parks Committee Recommendation:
That the Environment and Parks Committee direct staff to further develop the actions
related to the carbon tax as outlined in the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Management Plan, and provide more detailed recommendations to the Province. Those
actions include:
· The return of carbon tax revenues to local governments to fund greenhouse gas
reduction actions;
· Adjustment of the future carbon tax rate, including measures to mitigate the impact
on low income households; and
· Encourage adoption of the carbon tax in other jurisdictions.
Finance Committee Recommendation:
That the Finance Committee receive for information the report dated August 27, 2012, titled
“Implications of the BC Carbon Tax for the Region”.
1. PURPOSE
To report on the revenue implications of the BC Carbon tax on Metro Vancouver residents
and businesses, its effectiveness in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and to identify
how Metro Vancouver could work with the Province to ensure that the tax achieves its
objectives of reducing greenhouse gases.
2. CONTEXT
On July 1st, 2008, the British Columbia government began to levy a carbon tax on the
purchase and use of fossil fuels, such as gasoline, diesel, natural gas, heating fuel, propane
and coal. The initial tax was $10/tonne of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and was
scheduled to rise by $5 increments until 2012. Because the carbon tax is assessed in
dollars per tonne of GHG emissions (expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents, or CO2e),
the taxation level varies according to the carbon intensity of the individual fossil fuel. As of
July 1, 2012 the carbon tax is $30/tonne which translates into 7.2 cents per litre ($2.08 per
5.7
EP 120911 – 113 -
Implications of the BC Carbon Tax for the Region
Environment and Parks Committee Meeting Date: September 11, 2012
Finance Committee Meeting Date: September 20, 2012
Page 2 of 7
gigajoule) of gasoline, 8.3 cents per litre ($2.15 per gigajoule) of diesel, and $1.50 per
gigajoule of natural gas.
The Province is currently reviewing the carbon tax and accepting written submissions from
July 1 to August 31, 2012. This issue was discussed at the July 27 Board meeting and the
attached letter was sent to the Minister of Finance.
In the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan (IAQGGMP) Metro
Vancouver states its support for improvements to the Carbon Tax that would increase its
effectiveness as a disincentive to emit GHGs, mitigate its financial impact on low-income
households, and the need to reinvest a portion of the carbon tax revenues in carbon
reduction projects.
How does the carbon tax work to reduce GHG emissions?
A carbon tax places a ‘price’ on GHG emissions and should encourage users of fossil fuels
to switch to fuels with little or no emissions. To be effective, a carbon tax has to meet two
conditions: it must be sufficiently high to send a market signal that emissions have a cost
and it has to be sustained to encourage the development and adoption of low emission
technologies and transportation systems by businesses and residents. A carbon tax is an
example of a market-based approach to achieving environmental objectives. Businesses
and individuals can reduce the amount of tax they pay by reducing their use of fossil fuels,
increasing their energy efficiency, switching to low or zero-emission fuel sources, and/or
adopting new technologies that reduce or eliminate emissions. A carbon tax on
transportation fuels provides an incentive for commuters to shift to low carbon modes of
transportation – such as walking, cycling, carpooling and if it exists, taking transit. A carbon
tax should also drive more innovations in the development and marketing of technologies
that result in low or no carbon emissions such as hybrid or electric vehicles.
Financial implications of the Carbon Tax: How much was collected from the region?
In announcing B.C.’s carbon tax, the provincial government said it would be “revenue
neutral” meaning that the revenues generated from the new tax would be offset by
decreases in other provincial tax rates. The logic behind a “revenue neutral” tax is that
undesirable activities, like those that result in emissions that lead to climate change, are
taxed at higher levels while taxes on activities that produce social or environmental benefits,
like job creation, are taxed less.
In terms of the financial implications of the carbon tax for Metro Vancouver residents and
businesses, the 2010/11 fiscal year was chosen as a case study. The provincial government
reports that in 2010/11, $741 million was collected in carbon taxes across the province but
does not provide details on the sources of this revenue by geography or sector. Using data
on total fuel sales in 2010 in the Metro Vancouver region, staff estimate that residents in the
region paid an estimated $120 million while the commercial/industry sector in the region
paid an estimated $100 million in carbon taxes1 totaling $220 million. Figure 1 shows a
breakdown of the carbon tax by sector and emission source. Based on these estimates, on
average, each household in the region paid $133 in personal carbon taxes.2 Since business
energy use is highly dependent on the type and size of business, the carbon tax per
business cannot be estimated with current data.
1 Estimates of carbon tax paid for the region are based on fuel sales data from the 2010 Community Energy and Emissions
Inventory
2 Based on an estimate of 910,800 households in Metro Vancouver in 2010.
EP 120911 – 114 -
Implications of the BC Carbon Tax for the Region
Environment and Parks Committee Meeting Date: September 11, 2012
Finance Committee Meeting Date: September 20, 2012
Page 3 of 7
Financial Implications of the Carbon Tax: How much did the region receive in tax
cuts and credits?
To offset revenues from the Carbon Tax, the provincial government introduced three
measures to reduce taxes on personal income and four to reduce business taxes. In terms
of personal tax measures, the government reduced personal income tax rates by 5 per cent,
introduced a climate action tax credit for low-income households and a northern and rural
homeowner benefit. For businesses, there was a cut in the general corporate income tax
rate and a corresponding cut in the small business corporate income tax. In addition,
industrial property owners received a tax credit for school property taxes paid and lands with
“farm” status benefitted from a reduction in school property taxes. The government also
announced a one-time Climate Action Dividend of $100 payable to every resident of BC to
“encourage the transition to a greener lifestyle.”
According to data provided by the Province the Carbon Tax, as implemented, has been
more than revenue neutral.3 While $741 million in carbon tax revenues were collected in the
2010/11 fiscal year, the Province received $846 million less in personal income and
business taxes due to associated tax cuts, credits and benefits. In terms of reduced taxes,
personal taxes were reduced by $372 million and business taxes were reduced by $475
million.
Figure 1: Carbon Taxes Paid by the Household and Commercial/Industrial Sector in
Metro Vancouver (2010)
Coal and Tires $8 million
Industrial
Natural Gas
$17 million
Commercial
Vehicles
$19 million
Commercial/Small-Medium
Industrial Buildings
$29 million
Aircraft, Rail, Marine, and
Non-Road
$33 million
Residential Buildings
$41 million
Passenger Vehicles
$80 million
PERSONAL CARBON TAX
COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL CARBON TAX
There is no provincial data available on the geographical distribution on tax cuts and credits
so demographic data was used to estimate the personal tax credits returned to the region.
3 “Budget and Fiscal Plan 2012/13-2014/15” http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2012/bfp/2012_Budget_Fiscal_Plan.pdf , p. 66
EP 120911 – 115 -
Implications of the BC Carbon Tax for the Region
Environment and Parks Committee Meeting Date: September 11, 2012
Finance Committee Meeting Date: September 20, 2012
Page 4 of 7
In the 2010/11 fiscal year, it is estimated that households in Metro Vancouver received $93
million through reductions in the personal income tax rate.4 In addition, Metro Vancouver
low income families received tax credits that were estimated at $38 million.5 Together the
estimated total reduction in personal taxes in the region was $131 million.6 This is greater
than the estimated $120 million residents paid in personal carbon taxes but the financial
impact a household would depend on their particular income and household energy use.
Estimating the tax benefits that Metro Vancouver small businesses and industries received
under the revenue neutral framework is more difficult. The corporate tax structure, including
the distinction between general corporate and small business tax rates, made a detailed
analysis unfeasible without more geographically located tax data. However, because Metro
Vancouver generates 53% of the B.C.’s GDP, we can reasonably guess that likely over half
of the $475 million in business tax cuts and credits, or $238 million, were received by
businesses across the Metro Vancouver region.
Environmental Implications of the Carbon Tax: How effective was it in driving down
emissions in the region?
At this time, there isn’t enough available data to determine the full effectiveness of the
carbon tax on driving down regional emissions. The carbon tax has only been in effect for
four years, which does not provide enough years of data to analyze the long-term effect of
the carbon tax on technological and behavior changes that drive emissions reductions.
While the Province’s own review of the carbon tax notes that it is too soon for a definitive
assessment of its effectiveness, it nonetheless offers this hopeful note:
“There are positive signs that B.C. is experiencing a shift toward less fossil fuel use and
lower emissions while continuing to grow its economy. Emissions in B.C. went down by
4.5 per cent from 2007-2010, while GDP growth through 2011 was above the Canadian
average. At the same time B.C. is attracting green investment and green technologies
with twice the Canadian average adoption of hybrid vehicles, 20 per cent of all Canadian
LEED gold building registrations since 2007, and a 48 per cent increase in clean
technology industry sales from 2008-10.”i7
In 2010, Metro Vancouver commissioned a study by MK Jaccard and Associates (MKJA)
which assessed the effectiveness of a number of policy measures at reducing GHG
emissions. The study modeled the GHG reductions from existing government policies as
well as other policy options including a carbon tax. The model predicted that the tax would
have limited impact at $30/tonne (see Figure 2) but could play a more important role in
reducing the region’s GHG emissions if the rate increased to $50/tonne. In combination
with other policies, the carbon tax would support the implementation of technologies and
building of infrastructure that would increase options for residents and businesses (e.g.
incentives for energy efficiency retrofits for buildings, investment in walking/cycling
4 In 2010, total personal income for Metro Vancouver residents was 45 per cent of the provincial total personal income (BC
Stats – Community Facts). This percentage was applied to the Province’s estimate of reduction in personal taxes of $207
million to estimate the impact on Metro Vancouver residents (B. C. Budget and Fiscal Plan 2012/13 to 2014/15).
5 This figure was calculated using data on the incidence of low incomes in Metro Vancouver and Low Income Climate Action
Tax Credit rate of $105 per adult and $31.50 per child. The incidence of economic families is 17 per cent and for unattached
individuals over 15 years it is 40 per cent in Metro Vancouver. Assuming that in each economic family had 1 child and 2
adults, the total low income tax credit was $24.7 million.
6 The credit for northern and rural homeowner benefit does not apply to residents of Metro Vancouver thus was not considered
in the total
7 “Making Progress on BC’s Climate Action Plan”, June 27, 2012
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/pdfs/2012-Progress-to-Targets.pdf
EP 120911 – 116 -
Implications of the BC Carbon Tax for the Region
Environment and Parks Committee Meeting Date: September 11, 2012
Finance Committee Meeting Date: September 20, 2012
Page 5 of 7
infrastructure, plug-in hybrid regulation, etc.) to reduce their fossil fuel use and reduce the
carbon tax paid.
Although it is difficult to assess the overall impact of the carbon tax, there are a number of
individual GHG reduction projects where the carbon tax helped provide a business case for
the project. These projects are an indication of the incentive effect a carbon tax has on
supporting the use of low carbon technologies and practices.
One example is the new Bioenergy Energy Research and Demonstration Facility (BRDF) at
University of British Columbia (UBC). The project will supply between 12-25% of UBC’s
average heat and up to 4.5 per cent of its electricity demand to campus. The project
business case was supported by the carbon tax and the carbon neutral requirements for
public sector organizations. It will reduce UBC’s GHG emissions by 7,000 tonnes per year
which will produce a savings in the carbon taxes paid by $214,000 each year. UBC is also
saving $373,000 in carbon tax from converting the steam district energy system to a hot
water system. This upgraded system heats over 100 buildings and will reduce GHG
emissions by 12,000 tonnes per year. Overall, the system conversion will save UBC $4
million per year in energy and other costs.
Page 6 of 7
How has the carbon tax been invested in greenhouse gas reduction projects in the
region?
Since the carbon tax is revenue neutral the revenue collected has not been specifically
invested in projects to reduce greenhouse gases. Instead, the revenue has been returned to
residents and businesses with a larger portion being returned to businesses through the
corporate and small business tax credits. Whether these tax savings have been invested in
the means to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions is not being tracked.
A small portion of the carbon tax, 0.6 per cent, has been returned to local governments
through the Carbon Tax Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP). This is the tax that local
governments have paid on fuels purchased directly for government operations. In 2010,
Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities received $1.7 million in CARIP rebates
which were then allocated to a variety of different projects to reduce emissions from
municipal operations and in communities. Metro Vancouver, for example, used CARIP
funding to conduct energy assessments for Metro Vancouver housing facilities to identify
opportunities to improve energy efficiency at our housing facilities. Several municipalities
have used CARIP funds to develop Community Energy and Emissions Plans (CEEP) and
some have purchased electric vehicle plug-in stations.
Review of the Carbon Tax
The Metro Vancouver Board has recognized that B.C.’s Carbon Tax could be improved to
further reduce GHG emissions. This recognition is reflected in the IAQGGMP and in a
resolution that went to Union of B.C. Municipalities in 2010. The IAQGGMP identifies the
need for the Provincial Government to continue to increase the carbon tax provided:
a) Impacts to low income households are mitigated,
b) A portion of the funding is dedicated to a regional climate action funds for
greenhouse gas emission reduction projects in the region, and
c) Local governments continue to receive CARIP funds.
The revenue neutrality of B.C.’s Carbon Tax was important to build public confidence that
the tax would not add an unfair burden to residents and businesses. To date, that promise
has been met. One question in moving forward is whether maintaining the strict revenue
neutrality of the tax should be maintained or should carbon tax revenues be used to fund
initiatives that provide households and businesses the options and tools necessary to
reduce their emissions and carbon tax bill? By shifting the carbon tax revenues towards
initiatives that directly reduce emissions, the effectiveness of the carbon tax can be
enhanced.
Securing a portion of the carbon tax revenues for region-specific GHG reduction
programs/projects would help reduce emissions by supporting technology and infrastructure
investments by local governments, businesses, residents and other community
organizations. This could be achieved by directing a portion of carbon tax revenues to a
regional fund.
In order to illustrate the magnitude of the carbon tax paid by the residents and businesses in
the region ($220 million) and the size of example GHG reduction projects:
· Installing solar hot water systems on 5,000 rooftops costs $25 million
· Building 100 manure methane collection systems for medium-sized dairy
operations costs $70 million
EP 120911 – 118 -
Implications of the BC Carbon Tax for the Region
Environment and Parks Committee Meeting Date: September 11, 2012
Finance Committee Meeting Date: September 20, 2012
Page 7 of 7
· Lonsdale Energy Corporation District Energy System in City of North Vancouver
capital cost was $8 million in 2003 (saves approx 4000 tonnes of GHG / year) 9
· 30 km of separated bike lanes cost $90 million10
· Installing 1000 electric vehicle charging stations in public places costs $10
million
· Evergreen Line capital costs are $1.4 billion.
British Columbia demonstrated leadership in adopting a carbon tax and since then
numerous other jurisdictions have considered implementing a similar tax and some have
done so.11 However, the adoption of the carbon tax has not been as widespread as
anticipated especially through the Western Climate Initiative. As a result, businesses based
in British Columbia have raised concerns that a carbon tax negatively impacts their
competitiveness. This is particularly true for businesses that compete with companies based
in jurisdictions who do not have a carbon tax.12 Recognizing in the short term, a carbon tax
can present challenges in competitive markets, in the long run the value of putting a tax on
carbon today is that it provides an incentive for businesses to become more energy efficient
and less reliant on fossil fuels as an energy source in what is generally recognized as a
future where the price of fossil fuels will continue to climb.
3. ALTERNATIVES
None presented.
4. CONCLUSION
Based on estimates by staff, residents and businesses in the region have received more in
tax credits as a whole then the carbon taxes they paid under the revenue neutral model.
Although the overall impact of the carbon tax on regional GHG emissions is difficult to
calculate at this time, there are examples in the region where the existence of the carbon
tax provided the incentive to undertake projects to reduce GHG emissions. In addition,
analysis by the MK Jaccard and Associates indicate that a sustained and higher carbon tax
will be important for reducing GHG emissions in the Metro Vancouver region. For these
reasons, Metro Vancouver should work with the Province to improve the effectiveness of
B.C.’s Carbon Tax and to mitigate some of the challenges.
152 responses so far ↓
1 Roger Kemble // Sep 13, 2012 at 8:29 am
The great global warming swindle . . .
“I believe in global warming, just not human caused global warming!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ&feature=player_embedded
. . . ego the carbon tax is a swindle.
But since all good jobs have been shipped off to China how else can government raise revenue.
And fortunately, for government, there are enough of us gullible to fall for the scam.
Just watch the indignant gossip erupt now . . .
2 Warren // Sep 13, 2012 at 9:22 am
Next up: the demand for toll revenues.
3 boohoo // Sep 13, 2012 at 9:23 am
Yes Roger, we get it, it’s all a big conspiracy.
As for the tax itself, it’s absolutely insane to charge a tax on carbon on the premise that it’s ‘green’ and then put that money into general revenue so they can build more highways and expand old ones.
4 IanS // Sep 13, 2012 at 9:47 am
@boohoo #3:
I think I would use the word “ironic”, rather than “insane”, but your point is a good one.
IMO, to the extent that gov’t wants to levy such a tax, or a user fee, the funds raised should be used for a purpose related to the tax or fee, not put into general revenues.
5 boohoo // Sep 13, 2012 at 9:50 am
Insanely ironic? Ironically insane? How about just stupid. It’d be like charging a tax on junk food and then spending that tax on donuts for everyone.
6 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2012 at 9:52 am
“the funds raised should be used for a purpose related to the tax or fee, not put into general revenues.”
What would be some successful examples of this approach?
7 teririch // Sep 13, 2012 at 10:52 am
Just had to share this – as posted on the Vancouver Media Coop website: (you truly do have to appreciate the mentality or lack thereof, of some people)
Fare Evaders the New Gate Jumpers:
Translink thinks the free rides on the skytrain will soon come to an end with the installing of fare gates. What they don’t understand is we will never pay. We will jump over their pathetic gates with joy and amusement. We will laugh at their absurd tickets and never renew our licenses. It puts smiles on our faces knowing they spent 170 Million on fare gates. 170 Million spent just to offset the lost revenue of 7-10 Million dollars. We love the hilarious uniforms you dress your Translink workers in and love recycling your violation tickets. We love not giving our name and wasting your time while allowing others who haven’t paid to pass by. The 60,000 fare rebels who received tickets are only a snippet of people who hate paying the fares and will refuse to pay. They say the gates will make us safer. How? Is it because people who are poor and rejected by society pose a threat to public safety or is it the continuing gentrification to segregate poor from the rich? Public transit is supposed to be for all, as long as you have money. When the fare gates are fully operational, at least 2/3 of the Transit cops may move to buses. This will undoubtedly increase arrests, tickets and promote a police state. Transit cops with guns have never made me feel safe, but it may be nice knowing the person beside me is not a fare evader terrorist out to terrorize tax payers and the government’s pocketbooks. There are ads up proclaiming no line is the free line. We would disagree.
Sincerely, Vancouver Fare Evaders
8 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2012 at 11:00 am
Not paying your fare is no different from speeding. You are taking resources you didn’t pay for (additional road space in the speeding example), at a risk of a penalty or fine. At least fare evaders aren’t putting other lives at risk, and the real point, a massive investment to recoup a minimal loss, speaks to the double standard mindset. An investment of $170 million into additional enforcement of current road rules would probably have paid a far higher dividend in reducing the cost of our transportation system.
9 rowbat // Sep 13, 2012 at 11:16 am
The NY Times ran this opinion piece earlier this summer on the BC carbon tax.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/opinion/a-carbon-tax-sensible-for-all.html?_r=1
10 Sean Nelson // Sep 13, 2012 at 11:41 am
@Roger Kemble #1: “I believe in global warming, just not human caused global warming!”
Then you must know of an alternate cause for global warming. What is it?
11 Da Mayor // Sep 13, 2012 at 11:58 am
Glissandro Remy caused global warming with his hot air, misanthropic missives on this site.
So there!!!
O Glissy, O Glissy
We wish off you would pissy!
12 Roger Kemble // Sep 13, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Sean @ #9
“The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity.”
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/09/06/great-global-warming-swindle-full-version-181071/
13 MB // Sep 13, 2012 at 12:18 pm
It makes eminent sense to spend carbon tax revenue on low or zero emission transporation, energy and transporation, rather than place it into general revenue where it will always be monkeyed with by politicians without a specific direction.
I’d suggest it instead be placed into a regularly audited transparent account managed by an independent body, a board of individuals with experience in money management and policy-making with the purpose to not only plan for lower emissions, but to target funding toward jobs and long-term economic stimulus
Public transit — especially when service levels are of high quality and it’s tied to appropriate land use planning — has proven to be one of the greatest economic stimulators Metro Vancouver has ever seen.
The Expo Line has garnered orders of magnitude more wealth in development than its original cost, including financing. The Millennium Line and Canada Line are moving quickly in the same direction.
Likewise, Vancouver’s newer low-rise development on arterials are largely supported by an efficient electric trolley bus service. Light rail south of the Fraser has the potential to stimulate vast, dense linear and nodal developments with all the attendant economic multipliers.
Add conservation principles and energy efficiency to new and retrofitted buildings near transit and the precept that acting to get away from fossil fuels will “destroy the economy” doesn’t have any merit, and in fact the opposite may well be proven with experience in Canadian cities.
14 Bill // Sep 13, 2012 at 12:34 pm
@Chris Keam #8
“Not paying your fare is no different from speeding. You are taking resources you didn’t pay for (additional road space in the speeding example),”
You are way off the mark on this one. A fare is a charge for the service of riding transit. A fine is a penalty for going over the speed limit and is ostensibly for safety not for using a resource you are not paying for. Do you think shoplifting (taking a resource that you don’t pay for) is like speeding?
15 teririch // Sep 13, 2012 at 12:52 pm
@Bill #12:
You are very correct – it is theft, nothing more, nothing less.
And the total losses are closer to $100M since the Skytrain service was first put into place in ’86.
Taxes go up, fares go up to cover the costs – which include these losses.
Want to bet that these same folks would be the ones screaming in the streets if service are cut due to lack of funding?
This joke comes to mind (you have to picture a young guy and girl walking together)
Him:
“I’ll run over and pick up both our welfare checks the drop by the university to see what is holding up our Federal Education grants. Meanwhile you go to the free clinic for a pregnacy test & if its positive, fill out the necessary papers for assistance & baby bonus. Oh, and pick up my free glasses.
And then we’ll meet at the Federal building at noon for the mass picketing of the stinking establishment.”
16 MB // Sep 13, 2012 at 12:55 pm
@ Roger 10, who the hell is Alexander Higgins? Is he a climate scientist or a political blogger?
Hear’s what Source Watch has to say about Martin Durkin who made “The Great Global Warming Swindle”:
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a television program advocating the common arguments by anthropogenic global warming skeptics. It was broadcast on March 8, 2007 on Channel 4 in the United Kingdom. It was subsequently broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in July 2007.
The film’s writer and director, Martin Durkin, believes that “global warming is a hoax foisted upon an unsuspecting public by conspiratorial environmentalists,” reported The Age in June 2007. Durkin previously made the anti-environmental film “Against Nature,” which Britain’s Channel 4 had to issue a public apology for, “because it misled interviewees and distorted the editing of their contributions.” Other films by Durkin praise genetically modified food and silicone breast implants. [1]
Oceanographer Carl Wunsch “complained he had been misled” with regard to “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” He claimed that his interview “had been edited to look as though he was dismissing human-caused climate change.” [2]
Fred Singer, one of the most egregeous elder white coats for hire, also figures largely in Durkins references.
James Hansen addressed clouds and solar variances in his book “Storms of my Grandchildren.” He published an exceedingly long list of references and notes. He gets it down to the common denominator of watts per square metre, and is biased against climate models. He prefers the actual record, both with instruments and the study of the paleoclimate record found in ice cores and the study of isotopes of oxygen and carbon in ancient seabeds and rocks.
The record is the record. Nothing can compare to the instaneous (in terms geological time) injection of carbon into the atmosphere that the burning of fossil fuels has produced, nor the resulting highest temps in 1,000 years over the last half century.
I’m sure he’d be very interested to hear about how clouds have produced global warming if they were from legitimate sources, but Durkin and Singer cannot compete in the world of science.
They do quite well, though in swindling the public and media with their paid political agenda.
17 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2012 at 12:56 pm
If you are speeding you using more road space than allotted by law. Ostensibly your taxes pay for you to use the facility as directed (at least in your world Bill
but we’d best agree to disagree there). But, the faster you go, the more road space needed to ensure the safety of others (how big of a bubble in front and behind of your vehicle is needed for safe passage. It’s no different than using transit without paying. You’re taking up space that rightfully you shouldn’t. The difference being of course, that I don’t know of any fatalities caused by fare evasion. The rationale behind the penalty is irrelevant. It’s the action that’s the issue IMO.
18 IanS // Sep 13, 2012 at 1:08 pm
@Chris Keam #6,
I can’t think of a single one off the top of my head. I do agree with a lot of what MB says in his post #11, though.
@Chris Keam #8
“Not paying your fare is no different from speeding. ”
I’m not sure I accept your premise but, doing so for the sake of argument, wouldn’t that support an expenditure of funds to prevent fare evasion? I assume you’re against speeding and would support the use of resources to prevent speeding, right? If fare evasion is no different than speeding, I infer that you’re equally in favour of spending funds to prevent it as well.
“At least fare evaders aren’t putting other lives at risk…”
That’s true, although I suppose an argument can be made that fare evaders are essentially stealing funding from transit, which in turn makes it more difficult to fund transit, which in turn makes transit a less attractive alternative, which in turn results in more people driving which, in turn, results in more speeding…
But that’s a bit diffuse. Generally speaking, I agree with the observation.
“and the real point, a massive investment to recoup a minimal loss, speaks to the double standard mindset.”
I agree that it’s not money well spent, but I don’t follow you on the double standard.
19 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2012 at 1:18 pm
“total losses are closer to $100M since the Skytrain service was first put into place in ’86″
$100m over 26 years=$3.85m per year. I thought it was closer to $6m annually and Translink says they will eventually recoup $7-$10m annually according to a G@M article. Cost of the fare gates $170 million. Life expectancy of a turn stile roughly 35 years, although I’ll venture a guess that gates at the heavily used stations will have a much shorter life.
http://www.casinovendors.com/vendor/perey-turnstiles-inc/
It’s hard to build a business case for turnstiles. Again, if it’s a law and order issue rather than economics, the money is better spent saving lives on the roads over chasing scofflaws scamming the system at a few bucks a trip.
20 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2012 at 1:32 pm
“I’m not sure I accept your premise but, doing so for the sake of argument, wouldn’t that support an expenditure of funds to prevent fare evasion? I assume you’re against speeding and would support the use of resources to prevent speeding, right? If fare evasion is no different than speeding, I infer that you’re equally in favour of spending funds to prevent it as well.”
@IanS:
I’m not equally in favour because reducing speeding saves live. Reducing fare evasion is likely only restricting movement of the financially-strapped. I’m sure there are some who can afford it who abuse the system, but when I watched a motorcycle cop blithely ride by a woman cycling on the sidewalk earlier this week I was reminded that our legal system seems to have a lot of wiggle room. I’m willing to skip huge efforts to curb fare evasion, but if it’s necessary, I’d sooner we hired more fare checkers and used humans to do the job, who will pay taxes on that income, rather than automating the process and essentially shipping our money out of the local economy (supplier’s head office is in San Diego and they have no current job postings for anywhere in Canada).
https://allexternaljobs-cubic.icims.com/jobs/search?ss=1&searchLocation=&searchCategory=&hashed=0
Top it all off with Translink’s increased powers to collect on unpaid fines and I just can’t understand how any of it makes fiscal sense.
21 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2012 at 1:47 pm
@IanS:
One last comment for now. Would an appropriate corollary to fare gates not be governors on automobiles, so that they cannot exceed the maximum posted highway speed limit in the country, providing a measure of automated enforcement of our traffic laws? I think they (governors) cost about $100 each.
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/585482477/Generator_Speed_Governor_ESD5111_Series.html?s=p
There’s roughly 2.5 million private vehicles in the province and a single serious crash can cost our health system hundreds of thousands of dollars. What a boon for the auto repair industry if vehicle licensing was contingent upon installation of a governor!
22 teririch // Sep 13, 2012 at 1:51 pm
@Chris Keam #17:
I guess I am old school – you pay for the services you use.
Under the premise you put forward, we sould all just sit back and suck up the extra costs we incur, fare evasion, due to hydro theft (via grow-ops which is in the how many millions of dollars per year?) due to cable theft for Telus (you want to believe the end user is not covering those losses)
At the end of the day all losses will be covered by somebody and the somebodies are all of us that follow the path of living and operating in a civlized society.
No different than stores adding on a percentage to cover the losses from shoplifting. Ater all, no one got hurt – it is just property theft, right?
So if this is a deterrant to those that feel life owes them a free ride, if it minimizes the losses even by 50% , then great.
My only gripe – it should have been done from the get go – the so called ‘honor’ system should have been bypassed all together.
As the saying goes, ‘There is no honor amongst thieves.’
And there are always those that feel they are entitled to take what the rest of us pay for.
23 IanS // Sep 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm
@Chris Keam #18,
I don’t accept the connection you seem to be making between speeding and fare evasion, but I do agree that it would have been better to spend money to step up fare checking and collect unpaid fines than invest in the turnstiles, at least at this point.
24 teririch // Sep 13, 2012 at 1:55 pm
I was wondering how long it would take before this topic again reverted to the ‘cars are evil, cars kill’ status.
25 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2012 at 2:02 pm
“Under the premise you put forward, we sould all just sit back and suck up the extra costs we incur”
No, that’s not what I said. Please reread my posts. I explicitly said I am comfortable with doing fare checks in a fiscally responsible way that keeps money in the local economy.
Further, if you are uncomfortable with the honor system, then you should also be comfortable with the insurance company tracking your vehicle movements — to make sure you weren’t using your vehicle for uses not covered such as driving to work more than allowed on a pleasure use only coverage plan, or engaging in reckless driving habits. Every car should also have an interlock to prevent drivers from using the honor system after using alcohol. If there is to be no wiggle room w/r/t public transit, then why should drivers be entrusted with an honor system in a matter of public safety? The problem with most of these ‘law-and-order’ based ideas is the lack of universality.
26 IanS // Sep 13, 2012 at 2:05 pm
@Chris Keam #23:
I realize you’re not responding to me here, but I think: ” Every car should also have an interlock to prevent drivers from using the honor system after using alcohol.” is a good idea.
27 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2012 at 2:06 pm
“cars are evil, cars kill”
One of biggest problems with having a reasonable debate on the Internet is the tendency of some to make wild assumptions based on what’s most convenient for them to refute. See how Ian does it Teri? He picks a specific point and discusses it without reverting to hyperbole. Even though I don’t agree with him/her always, I respect the intellectual rigor with which he conducts himself. Your comments are misrepresentative and seem intent on increasing enmity, rather than moving the debate forward.
28 Bill // Sep 13, 2012 at 2:15 pm
@Chris #23
You have this propensity to coin absurd analogies. (no doubt is useful in your advocacy for bicycles). Insurance companies have a contract with you for the use of your car and if you make a claim you can bet they will check up on whether you drive for pleasure or work. They are not using the honour system.
29 IanS // Sep 13, 2012 at 2:26 pm
@Chris Keam #25,
While I am as susceptible to praise as anyone, I think (with the greatest of respect) that your use of my posts in such a manner is somewhat disingenuous.
You and I have both engaged in plenty of exchanges here which were (to put it kindly) less than productive. From what I’ve seen, the signal to noise ratio for teririch’s contributions have been at least as strong as ours (or, at least, mine).
30 Roger Kemble // Sep 13, 2012 at 2:37 pm
MB @ #14
Calm down MB and take the time to listen carefully to the clip all the way thru (75 mins).
A number of authentic scientists, who identify themselves and their credentials, are trying to explain.
I know you have skin in the game but belittling authentic reporters who try to disseminate understanding of our very complicated habitat does you no credit.
From anecdotal experience, I am 83, I have seen personally, and heard reports of, some pretty hectic weather (no one accused us of causing the 1930′s dust bowl etc.).
I have been sailing all my adult life. especially these last ten years on the Salish sea: sorry absolutely no evidence of the sea rising.
31 teririch // Sep 13, 2012 at 2:44 pm
@Chris Keam
Did you not post:
….’ The difference being of course, that I don’t know of any fatalities caused by fare evasion…’
and:
…’There’s roughly 2.5 million private vehicles in the province and a single serious crash can cost our health system hundreds of thousands of dollars.’
And yes, perhaps I pushed things, but I have read through many of your previous comments covering varyig topics and they all take ont he same ‘flavor’ when it comes to cars.
I posted on fare evasion and how it affects, well all of us and you made the link to ‘cars’ …so….?
32 gman // Sep 13, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Roger and Bill here is a list of headlines going back to 1770 I thought you might find entertaining.The more things change the more they remain the same,scary headlines indeed.LOL
http://www.real-science.com/below350-org
33 Bill // Sep 13, 2012 at 2:58 pm
@Roger Kemble #28
Save your breath. MB has drank the Kool Aid and will never change his position. I hope that MB’s hero Michael “Hide the Decline” Mann follows through on his threat to sue Mark Steyn for libel – they will be able to sell tickets to that courtroom battle.
34 Glissando Remmy // Sep 13, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Thought of The Day
“Re. Global Warming… the majority of people have good intentions based on very bad information.”
MB… sadly, you are one of them.
FWIW, Royal Society’s motto says “Nullius in Verba” (Take nobody’s word for it), not that they cared much for their own motto anyways, as it is clearly shown hereafter:
“The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action and we cannot have people trying to undermine it.”
- from Sept. 2006 statement by Royal Society of London demanding that those who disagree with them… stop.
Talk about “academia” credibility when the “politics” get to take over the “message”.
I wrote extensively on this subject (including a LIST of #Top100BooksOnGlobalWarmingAlarmism providing links to REAL SCIENTIFIC papers/ books/ texts on my Twitter account. Join in, educate yourselves, and remember…
“Nullius in Verba”!
Nuff said.
Roger #1, I will start a #SaveTheCO2Campaign You in… ?
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
35 boohoo // Sep 13, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Roger, please. Sailing on the ocean does not give you an iota of qualification to talk about climate change and rising sea levels. I’ve been breathing for my entire life, does that make me qualified to talk about global air quality?
As for the fare gates–I would tend to agree that they are, purely financially, a bad investment. But, IF they can beat back some of the perception that transit is scary and this will improve safety, then the numbers become fuzzier and may be, in the end worth it. Another advantage of fair gates and the cards that will go with is the ability to better understand travel patterns, better pricing structures, etc… So, I’m not sure if in the end they are worth it or not. But regardless, we’re getting them, so we might as well take advantage of them as best we can.
And as for the ‘evil cars’ bs, it just seems like petty insecurity. Cars, and their drivers do kill and injure people. It’s not like that is up for debate. And those deaths and injuries are very very expensive for the individual and society. But when this fact is pointed out in terms of enforcement or spending priorities it is taken as some attack on drivers. Nor does pointing out that fact take away all the positives that cars and drivers bring and have brought to our society.
36 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2012 at 3:32 pm
@Ian:
You don’t read into my posts things that aren’t there, or at least seek clarification. That’s the important part for me. I can take you off the pedestal if you like.
@Bill:
Insurance companies aren’t checking you everyday, or even at all until there’s a claim AFAIK. In fact, car insurance is more similar to un-gated transit stations than not, where honesty is assumed until there’s reason to suspect otherwise. It’s a perfectly cromulent analogy.
@Teri:
You are defending fare gates and I showed you a better use (IMO) of law enforcement $$s with regard to our transportation resources. Surely a discussion can include suggesting alternatives? Nonetheless, you’ve confused my affinity for one form of transportation as a negation of another, and how we use automobiles should be ‘on the table’ if we are going to address the issues they create, including the allocation of public funds. Especially if posters such as yourself are going to suggest they will choose a car over transit for whatever reason. All I did was expose the double standard that’s currently in play if we are using electronic means to ensure conformance with the law for a means of travel with very little negative impact on public health, but not another that sucks up huge amounts of taxes to deal with its flaws. If you are going to take the line of reasoning that we can’t discuss cars along with fare gates, then my previous comments or position w/r/t promoting other forms of transportation shouldn’t be part of the equation other. Let each argument stand or fall on its own merits, rather than assuming you know much about my politics. Trust me, I believe in and support ideas that aren’t in keeping with the character you appear to suppose me to be.
cheers,
CK
37 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2012 at 3:35 pm
“Another advantage of fair gates and the cards that will go with is the ability to better understand travel patterns, better pricing structures, etc”
Fare gates aren’t necessary to collect that information with the new Compass cards. It could just as easily be collected without turnstiles.
38 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2012 at 3:35 pm
“shouldn’t be part of the equation other”
other=either
39 Bill // Sep 13, 2012 at 3:40 pm
@gman #30
Great link, gman. Look on the bright side. before less enlightened cultures believed they could control the weather through human sacrifice. Today, the warmists believe we can control the weather and all we have to do is sacrifice the economy.
40 Bill // Sep 13, 2012 at 3:42 pm
@Chris Keam #34
Funny how promoters of live events haven’t figured out it would be better not to bother checking tickets at the door and just make spot checks. Maybe you should try selling the idea to them.
41 boohoo // Sep 13, 2012 at 3:44 pm
“Fare gates aren’t necessary to collect that information with the new Compass cards. It could just as easily be collected without turnstiles.”
How?
42 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2012 at 4:10 pm
RFID readers don’t have to get that close to the card to read the data. Consider also the fact that only a windshield decal is all that’s needed to bill for tolls on the Port Mann Bridge and what the distance between the vehicle and wherever the reader will be. Probably more than a few feet. Card readers could be put on the escalators and stairways and still collect the same information without turnstiles.
http://www.rfidjournal.com/faq/28/139
43 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2012 at 4:13 pm
“Funny how promoters of live events haven’t figured out it would be better not to bother checking tickets at the door and just make spot checks. Maybe you should try selling the idea to them.”
I’ve already stated I have no problem with fare checks that use humans to do the work. Perhaps you can point to some events where the entry and exit gates are completely automated?
44 gman // Sep 13, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Bill #37
Thanks Bill,unfortunately they are still killing people,like these in Uganda in order to make way for a carbon offset company last year. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world/africa/in-scramble-for-land-oxfam-says-ugandans-were-pushed-out.html?_r=4scp=3&sq=uganda&st=cse&
Glissy#32
Sign me up,last night I liberated half a dozen cans of CO2 and as soon as my baked potato and ribeye are done I think I might just liberate a few more cans.
45 MB // Sep 13, 2012 at 4:40 pm
@ Bill 37:
Today, the warmists believe we can control the weather and all we have to do is sacrifice the economy.
Control the weather? You’re casting chicken feathers into the wind.
Apparently, said “warmists” include several large militaries (US, Germany …) and insurance multinationals who, despite the intransigence of their governments, have factored climate change science into their long-term planning.
The fact G8 and other governments have not done so is a function of how effective vested industry has funded climate denial, and therein inaction.
So much for One World Government conspiracies by scientists and environmentalists. The last time we heard something similar was from someone who may be one of your political heros, Pax Americana George W. Bush.
On the other hand, not one G20 nation has denied that climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
Developing urban transit, offshore wind power, tidal power, fourth generation fast nuclear technology, geothermal power, building compact communities and practicing conservation creates jobs and stimulates the economy. Big Time. It also addresses the the value-added vacuum of shipping raw resources offshore, like Alberta bitumen and raw logs from BC.
I remain very optimistic, despite the lack of leadership.
46 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Gman:
It never hurts to check your links before posting. Here’s one that takes you to the article you are referring to, instead of the NYT paywall.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world/africa/in-scramble-for-land-oxfam-says-ugandans-were-pushed-out.html
47 gman // Sep 13, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Chris that’s odd, it works for me? Thanks.
48 Bill // Sep 13, 2012 at 5:14 pm
@MB #43
“Developing urban transit, offshore wind power, tidal power, fourth generation fast nuclear technology, geothermal power, building compact communities and practicing conservation creates jobs and stimulates the economy.”
Not necessarily. If you replace lower cost energy with higher cost energy it will be a drag on the economy whether the costs are borne by consumers or subsidized by the government. It is why developed economies are backing off alternative energy as it is too costly for the economy. As for job creation it did add Green jobs but in the case of Spain they lost 2 jobs due to higher energy costs for every Green job created.
You are off base in saying it was vested industry interest that lobbied to put the brakes on Green initiatives. It was quite the opposite as companies embraced Green as they tried to get a marketing advantage by being the Greenest or save costs by charging for plastic bags. It was the financial crunch of 2008 combined with Climategate that spelled the end of the gravy train.
49 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2012 at 6:31 pm
A sampling of suckers according to Bill:
http://www.equities.com/news/headline-story?dt=2012-09-13&val=475716&cat=energy
New Research: Top 20 Commercial Solar Users in the U.S. Includes Iconic American Brands
“Walmart has an ambitious commitment to be powered entirely by renewable energy, and we’ve made significant progress toward this goal in recent years as renewable energy options, especially solar power, have become more affordable,” said Kim Saylors-Laster, vice president for energy, Walmart. “We have plans to continue our investment in solar energy, expanding the number of locations powered by the sun, and we hope to use our scale to drive down prices for all renewable technologies.”
50 teririch // Sep 14, 2012 at 8:01 am
@ Chris Keam #34:
Let’s jsut clarify something – I haven’t owned a car in a decade plus. I am either on transit or on foot. My recent comment about considering to purchase a car has to do with increasing wait times – moreso with buses. That, and my parents who live out of town are aging and it is making more and more sense to go the ‘car’ route.
Next up – how mnay tranist workers do you think would need to be hired to check fares at all the stations and covering all operating hours? What do you think that will cost the general public in the long run – wages/benefits/pensions? And if there is a ‘strike’ (transit is union) then what? We operate without those checkers and lose money?
It is costly now – but I would venture it is a cheaper alternative in the long run.
And again, tunrstiles should have been in place from Day 1 – just like every other mjor city.
51 catch22 // Sep 14, 2012 at 8:59 am
Don’t feed the troll! And don’t argue with an idiot. Outside observers will have trouble telling the difference.
Just because a scientifically illiterate crank has found “truth” in a propaganda tome like “the Global Warming Swindle” doesn’t mean you should give him gratification. Crickets or laughter are the appropriate response.
52 Sean Nelson // Sep 14, 2012 at 9:48 am
@Roger Kembel, #11
Must I watch over an hour of video, or can you summarize?
53 MB // Sep 14, 2012 at 10:24 am
@ catch
I don’t consider Roger Kemble a troll. Perhaps misled by curmudgeonly contrarianism, but he’s definitely not a soldier for Exxon.
I can’t say the same about gman, who soldiers on with scientifically discredited sources, or Bill who seems to take a libertarian view of the world.
One of the greatest swindles in my view was taking climate science into politics, and falsifying key research.
54 Glissando Remmy // Sep 14, 2012 at 10:42 am
Thought of The Day
“Today I came across a cat. A stray cat. I asked her “Are you lost little pussy?” she answered “Meow off, I’m a compliance officer for the City’s Green police!”"
Right on my alley, MB #43!
Please, take look at my post #33.
Read some real data from that list. Join in!
Global warming , using alternative energies… the possibility of reducing the carbon dioxide… it warms my heart, when I read such unsubstantiated blubber.
I know, I know what they say… there are a host of alternative energy sources waiting around the corner to be tapped into. Solar, wind, waves, geothermal, waste… time will come, when by simply biking to work you’ll produce enough energy (trapped inside your fancy Joel Dynamo and transported wirelessly through the many Coupland’s Vision-Poles) to brew your morning coffee.
I know, I know the places you’ll go…
“Today is your day.
You’re off to Great Places!
You’re off and away!” – Dr. Seuss
Anyhoo.
CO2. The inconvenient suspect, or may I call it the usual suspect, cannot be tamed with the present technology. Just not good enough.
Let me rephrase that.
There is no known technology capable of reducing CO2. Wind, solar, geo, hydro, heck even nuclear, will not be sufficient to solve the problem.
And now… guess what… drumrolls… we – need – new – virginal – undiscovered technology.
Amory Lovins. (name not made up)
Have you heard of this guy? Big shot in the Renewable Energies circles.
Amory Lovins advocates “soft energy paths” involving efficient energy use, diverse and renewable energy sources, and special reliance on “soft energy technologies”.
He once predicted (or more likely he made it up) that by the year 2000 (12 years ago) 35% of the US power would come from alternative energy sources. It turned out it was six times less, cca. 6% (now is cca. 8%) and FWIW at a huge cost in the form of billions of dollars in subsidies.
Give you an idea:
Japan is 6% renewable
England 3%
Denmark 12%
Germany 6%
In all fairness here is an article:
http://k.lenz.name/LB/?p=6525
I came across recently, that I started to read with great interest, at first, and then I started to laugh, and I laughed… when I realized that most countries on that list have no economies to renew, to start with.
This kind of phoney, misrepresented claims is what make these claims to be so dangerous, to a lay person who’s reading them for the first time.
The best way to put it… in order for any industrialized country in the world (take your pick) to be able to rely only on renewable energy to sustain their economy, their growing population and needs, is the old fashion way, check out no further than the majority of former Eastern European
countries… it’s called Total and Utter Economic Collapse. Back to the Dark Ages.
Welcome to the New Renewable World.
…
By the way, off topic, I read in Vancourier that Wreck Beach Naturists aka Nudists aka Dick & Jane are outraged by the fact that boaters and water skiers are using the public waters in the vicinity of their Splashing Sanctuary for… water sports and recreation… the nerves of them!
And now, they want them… banned!
‘Cause they care about the… Environment… (nothing to do with their own personal space, naww…)
There…
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
55 Mira // Sep 14, 2012 at 11:22 am
Calling Roger a troll. Now that’s a catch 22 question Catch22 #50
It seems that it’s true. the Church of Environmentalogy doesn’t like opposing views and hates dissenters.
If you were living 1000 years ago ( apparently that’s what you “Greens”are craving ) you would be the ones screaming out from the putrid sidewalks ‘Witch, witch, witch, witch, woahaha, woahah… witch, witch’ as Roger, gman, Glissy and other open minded folks would be carried to the stakes, by the Vision prelates.
Say it ain’t so.
56 Sean Nelson // Sep 14, 2012 at 11:27 am
@Glissando Remmy #53 “There is no known technology capable of reducing CO2.”
Plant more trees. And don’t spew any more of it into the atmosphere than we absolutely have to.
57 MB // Sep 14, 2012 at 11:55 am
@ Bill 47:
You are off base in saying it was vested industry interest that lobbied to put the brakes on Green initiatives.
That’s not what I said. What I said was that vested industrial interests funded climate change denial, then hterein inaction.
Do I need to search data bases for campaign contributions by fossil fuel companies to politicians for you?
In the US it has amounted to $500,000 in one year to one senator, in one particular case. It is no surprise he denies global warming and uses his influence to favour inaction, harang climate scientists, and act on the instructions of the extremely influential coal lobby.
It is obvious that Stephen Harper et al. is the sock puppet of Big Oil. Now where is that list of campaign contributions?
58 MB // Sep 14, 2012 at 12:04 pm
@ Bill, regarding the “high” costs of “green” energy, well, that’s a valid point when considering the part you didn’t mention, that coal-fired power plants in Canada, for one example, have never paid for their pollution, let alone for its deleterious effect on human health.
Not for the mercury and oxides of nitrogen and sulphur that have killed millions over tweo centuries. And certainly not for the injection of CO2 into the air.
Most cities and regions now charge significant fees to use landfill dumps, a recognition of the economic cost of pollution and the disposal of waste.
Would that coal plants and the tar sands pay for using the airshed as a dump.
That’s what campaign funding is about, right? To stop regulators from imposing such costs on the polluting industry instead of, eventually, the public when it comes to remediation?
59 Mira // Sep 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm
MB #56 & #57
Cut the … CO2!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm
<
60 Roger Kemble // Sep 14, 2012 at 12:30 pm
“I believe in global warming, just not human caused global warming!”
61 Roger Kemble // Sep 14, 2012 at 12:32 pm
I also believe in global cooling, just not human caused global cooling!
Check the ice cores . . .
62 MB // Sep 14, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Glissando, I think I finally figured out what you want to be ….. a mentor.
If you could be so kind
To help me find my mind
Diana Krall, “Lost Mind”
I could be glamoured by your luminous, musical logic, but only before I have my second Canadiano.
63 MB // Sep 14, 2012 at 12:42 pm
@ Mira 58 …. you mean, like the 397 parts per million today are too small to count, therefore they don’t exist?
64 Roger Kemble // Sep 14, 2012 at 12:47 pm
boohoo @ #34
“ . . . please. Sailing on the ocean does not give you an iota of qualification to talk about climate change and rising sea levels.”
Well, errrrrr, yes that’s true.
But, hey, if sea level fluctuations are imperceptible over a ten year period then what’s the problem?
65 Higgins // Sep 14, 2012 at 1:05 pm
MB… at most postings.
I know people are bad for the planet. We need to go. I got the message.
MB #61
Glissando. Hmm.
I give it to you, he comes across as a funny guy, when he wants to be he is a very funny guy. But I think, and I hope I’m not the only one (well probably not on this blog for sure) when I’m saying, that when it comes down to serious subjects, he is one of the most astute, knowledgeable, witty commentators in the blogosphere that I’m familiar with, Vancouver wide.
MB… I don’t know what to say about you, really.
You, catch22 and others in here call whomever disagree with you, trolls or as being in the service of Big Oil, or some sort of bad corporations, all of them trying to sabotage your pacifists, clean ways of life. LOL.
I could say that same thing to you and your pals too!
I think you are working in some level of government/ non profit / charity/ environmental advocacy group … bureaucracy in general, trying to create new title jobs for themselves Possibly in academia where the fight for grant money for “saving the world” is fierce, and the results of their research is directly linked to the required outcome… asked by the bureaucracy, making them partners and very happy indeed
How did I do?
As for your last “mentor” joke of yours, if you read Gliss posts carefully, which you didn’t, he iterated to NOT take his word for it:
““Nullius in Verba”!
Not the same message coming from you MB!
66 Higgins // Sep 14, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Re. post 62
397 per 1000000
LOL!
Like it was 1000 years ago I could only assume.
MB, you are something. A funny guy!
67 boohoo // Sep 14, 2012 at 2:42 pm
“You, catch22 and others in here call whomever disagree with you, trolls or as being in the service of Big Oil, or some sort of bad corporations, all of them trying to sabotage your pacifists, clean ways of life. LOL.
I could say that same thing to you and your pals too!”
Ummm, that’s exactly what you and others do.
68 teririch // Sep 14, 2012 at 3:03 pm
I ws just reading about the new Compass Cards – being introduced in the spring of 2013.
Interesting to learn you need to swipe them when you get on transit and again when you leave transit.
When you swipe when you get on, it automatically charges your card for a 3 zone fare. When you swipe when you get off, and provided you haven’t travelled 3 zones, it credits you back the fare difference.
I don’t know, but I think this is open to some issues.
69 Michelle // Sep 14, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Have anyone bothered to read through the Implications of the BC Carbon Tax for the Region “report”, posted at the beginning of this post by mrs. Bula?
I did. bad mistake. I have a huge headache now.
First, it sounds all fishy, lots of data, thrown at the reader, as it’s supposed to look complicated, technical, assuring and trustworthy. It failed miserably with me.
After all this data and study and research the conclusion is… inconclusive.
Money wasted, union rates I may add.
Carbon tax… is this another tax grab disguised as a ‘you’ll do what we tell you to do or we’ll all die of heat strokes’ kinda thing? You bet it is.
Glissando’s warnings start to sound better and better… trust no one and take nobody’s word for it. I appreciate that.
70 Bill // Sep 14, 2012 at 3:20 pm
@Chris Keam # 48
What a surprise – a report commissioned by the Solar Energy Industries Association has a positive spin for solar energy. No doubt these companies have taken full advantage of generous subsidy programs. It will be interesting to see the future of solar and whether these companies follow through on their stated energy goals as these subsidies disappear. (California is still quite generous and still quite broke)
And just because some large companies show an interest in the technology is not a guarantee of success. Remember fuel cells. If you had invested in Ballard Power because Ford and Daimler made big investments in the company you would have lost your shirt. (Over $1 billion in losses to date)
71 boohoo // Sep 14, 2012 at 3:52 pm
“But, hey, if sea level fluctuations are imperceptible over a ten year period then what’s the problem?”
Imperceptible to a guy on a boat and to scientists who, you know, use instruments and science stuff is quite different.
72 Bill // Sep 14, 2012 at 3:52 pm
@Michelle #68
“Carbon tax… is this another tax grab”
Bingo – the Carbon Tax is about to join that long list of taxes that were implemented for a specific purpose (starting with the Income Tax to fund WW I) but ended up in General Revenue. When the Carbon Tax was implemented it was supposed to be revenue neutral with reductions in personal and corporate tax to offset the higher costs of energy. Now the NDP are saying they will reverse the corporate tax reduction made in 2008 but will leave the Carbon Tax untouched. The Carbon Tax will be decoupled from revenue neutrality and will just be another tax grab.
The Carbon Tax is ideal for governments as it is not visible to the consumer. After the HST fiasco, governments will look more and more to the hidden taxes/user fees to avoid waking taxpayers up to the cost of our over priced public services.
73 MB // Sep 14, 2012 at 4:25 pm
@ Higgins 64 …. Hmmmm.
No, I don’t benefit from my advocacy of alternatives to carbon-based energy. And I’d piss off 90% of my environmentalist friends if I revealed my advocacy of fourth generation nuclear power over coal around the world.
Yes, I have experience in the public sector, but also have logged tough years and 18-hour days in the private sector. Why does this Matter?
And as for Gliss, I am a student and still learning the value of humour, satire and good writing, even if I often disagree with the content. My admiration for his pen and craft remains high.
But if he was an architect I’m afraid we’d see a bit ‘o this, a bit ‘o that, maybe some Tex Mex thrown onto a fake canopy supported by neon-lit hollow arches framing a deconstructivist facade, and no permits or unifying rationale.
Style and substance, a confusing contrast. Style over substance may be a dangerous thing, but then again, style IS substance in some cases.
74 MB // Sep 14, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Higgins 65
It was hovering around 280 since the last ice age, but climbed to today’s short 400 in only 150 years.
OMG, it’s just a coincidence, a fluke, an unproven theory, a flawed climate model, a piece of propaganda that that coincides with the introduction of coal.
I’m sure there are hordes of “fact checkers” and “scientists”, backed by cynical politicians, industry-funded movie makers and jaded journalists who will supply an explanation for “balance.”
75 jolson // Sep 14, 2012 at 4:41 pm
The carbon tax is an attempt to reduce the use of fossil fuels by artificially inflating the cost of gasoline. Reduced demand means lower GHG emissions. This is the theory. The revenue could be used on initiatives to further reduce GHG emissions so we are told. We hope that this is a positive course of action but we don’t really know in the absence of a deep accounting of the physical processes and energy expenditures involved. What is most alarming however is that the population of Vancouver is but a fraction of the global population so we can expect the waters to rise around us in spite of our local efforts. It is for this reason that a carbon tax should also be used for adaptation projects which sooner or later will become a significant line item in the civic budget.
76 Terry M // Sep 14, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Jolson… ” It is for this reason that a carbon tax should also be used for adaptation projects which sooner or later will become a significant line item in the civic budget.”
Adaptation projects? Are you for real ?
You could be writing for Hollywood man!
What are you doing in Vancouver?
Scaring people around with man made computer models that good for nada is the speciality of the great film makers buddy.
When is the next devastating meteorite scheduled to land on Earth if you don’t mind me asking?
thanks.
MB @72
Good analysis.
77 Chris Keam // Sep 14, 2012 at 9:51 pm
@Teririch”
you said: “And again, tunrstiles (sic) should have been in place from Day 1 – just like every other mjor city.”
In fact many major cities don’t use turnstiles. What we have in Vancouver and those other cities is called proof-of-payment:
“Of the 18 existing North American LRT systems,
15 use the strategy (proof of payment) —as do 9 commuter rail
services.”
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_80.pdf
(Chapter 1, page 1 of the document)
Bill:
Surely you aren’t going to compare solar power systems with a fairly long history, to fuel cells with no real installed base to speak of?
And as for this statement: “No doubt these companies have taken full advantage of generous subsidy programs.”
I invite you to provide some proof of the claim, rather than insult the readers of this blog by pretending unsubstantiated statements are a rebuttal. My next post will contain a link to a report which shows solar energy subsidies in the U.S. in 2006 rated only 7th on the list, with oil and gas subsidies at number 1.
78 Chris Keam // Sep 14, 2012 at 9:53 pm
“Total Federal Subsidies by Fuel Source
The Comptroller’s office (Texas btw – CK) estimates that the total amount of federal energy subsidies for 2006 was $13.6 billion. Ethanol had the largest share, at $4.7 billion, or 34.6 percent of total subsidies. The share of federal subsidies by fuel source is shown in Exhibit 28-5.”
http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/
79 Chris Keam // Sep 14, 2012 at 10:01 pm
An error in my post #76. Oil and gas received the largest subsidies of non-renewables ($3,502,732,143), with ethanol receiving the largest overall ($4,708,277,549).
Solar power by comparison – $382,756,318
80 Chris Keam // Sep 14, 2012 at 10:04 pm
and btw, this information took me all of about 10 minutes to dig up. Is it too much to ask of posters to show some respect for the people who read the blog, by making some attempt to substantiate sweeping remarks that others have to fact check and then turn out to be inaccurate?
81 Everyman // Sep 15, 2012 at 12:43 am
@Chris Keam 19 said:
“Reducing fare evasion is likely only restricting movement of the financially-strapped.”
And?
The financially strapped can’t afford a steak dinner at the Keg, does that mean they’re entitled to walk in and steal one? There are lots of things the financially strapped can’t afford to do. Nowhere do I recall hearing of a constitutional right to free transportation.
82 Michael Gordon // Sep 15, 2012 at 2:28 am
Hmmm … Here in Europe I bought a transit pass in Kassel, Berlin and Venice and just got off and on the buses, boats, trams and metro’s. I understand that fare evasion is relatively small. The lack of turnstiles and being able to enter any tram/bus door just made it easier to use the transit and that’s a good thing.
83 teririch // Sep 15, 2012 at 8:20 am
@Everyman #80:
Persons on disbaility and welfare have their transit passes subsidized. I think it is somewhere between $40-$50 for a one year pass. Then we have students who are also subsidized.
I have seen people tagged for non-payment and they are not all persons that are financially strapped. Funny how you cans tand there with you grande Starbucks coffee and claim no $ for transit far. (Same on busses, I can’t tell you how many 20 somethings try that one on with the drivers in the mornings….)
After all – remember our good Mayor and now NDP leader Dix – both of them were caught. (And from what I understand,Dix gets tax payer monies deposited to his account quartlery, specifically for tranist use)
84 Chris Keam // Sep 15, 2012 at 8:37 am
“Persons on disbaility and welfare have their transit passes subsidized.”
Only half-right. People on social assistance don’t get a subsidized pass.
“Bus passes are available to eligible, low income seniors and provincial persons with disabilities clients. ”
“The bus pass is provided for an administrative fee of $45 per year and is valid for one calendar year, expiring on December 31. The fee is not prorated for applicants applying part way through the year.”
http://www.eia.gov.bc.ca/programs/other.htm
85 Chris Keam // Sep 15, 2012 at 8:40 am
“remember our good Mayor and now NDP leader Dix – both of them were caught. ”
Utterly irrelevant, but at least it shows the system is working. Their bonehead move shouldn’t have an impact on this decision.
86 Chris Keam // Sep 15, 2012 at 8:43 am
Teririch: Did my research on bus pass eligibility while waiting for the Bodum to brew my coffee, took about 2 minutes.
87 Chris Keam // Sep 15, 2012 at 8:44 am
“The financially strapped can’t afford a steak dinner at the Keg, does that mean they’re entitled to walk in and steal one?”
Who is suggesting no enforcement? Argue the point of fare gates, not some bizarre position no one has taken.
88 Chris Keam // Sep 15, 2012 at 8:48 am
@TR:
you said:
“Next up – how mnay tranist workers do you think would need to be hired to check fares at all the stations and covering all operating hours? What do you think that will cost the general public in the long run”
We already have security in place for this task, but assuming we stepped up enforcement and spent the same amount of money ($170m) by my rough calculation it’s the rough equivalent of nearly a hundred people making $50,000 for 35 years (turnstile life-span). 100 people with jobs, paying taxes etc, instead of a company in San Diego building robots with our money.
89 Chris Keam // Sep 15, 2012 at 9:03 am
Then there’s all the hoops someone will have to jump through to qualify, and if you have have kids under 18, they won’t qualify. It is frankly bizarre that older students get a Go Pass, yet elementary school students must pay the full concession fare. Even if you qualify for the subsidized pass, if you have to use transit to get an elementary school kid to school, it’s going to cost you $3.50 per day, which in my experience is enough $$ for a kid’s lunch or dinner ingredients, and I have no doubt for people with financial challenges it’s an issue.
http://www.eia.gov.bc.ca/programs/docs/bus-pass-faq.pdf
90 Chris Keam // Sep 15, 2012 at 9:52 am
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Security+guards+assigned+control+frustrated+riders+Metro/7245424/story.html
91 Mira // Sep 15, 2012 at 10:30 am
I think CK #88 you make a very good point
“It is frankly bizarre that older students get a Go Pass, yet elementary school students must pay the full concession fare. Even if you qualify for the subsidized pass, if you have to use transit to get an elementary school kid to school, it’s going to cost you $3.50 per day, which in my experience is enough $$ for a kid’s lunch or dinner ingredients, and I have no doubt for people with financial challenges it’s an issue.”
Then there are the University passes… for which UBC, SFU, CApilano, Langara… they all come with a big discount compared to other category of students from different schools… but I may be wrong.
92 Everyman // Sep 15, 2012 at 10:33 am
@Chris Keam 86
I go back to your original statement: “Reducing fare evasion is likely only restricting movement of the financially-strapped”
That certainly sounds as though you are advocating for no enforcement. Or are you advocating for lax enforcement with lots of loopholes to allow the poor a fighting chance to evade enforcement? You’ve linked fare enforcement with an attack on the poor.
93 waltyss // Sep 15, 2012 at 10:49 am
The difference in price between Go Passes at the university and college level and concession fares at the school level has to do with the universality of the Go Pass. With Go Pass, you must purchase the pass when you pay your tuition. Based on some proportion of students not using it, it is offered more cheaply.
As for the concession fare, it is still cheaper and frankly fewer elementary school age students are bussing unless they are choosing to go to a school that is not in their neighbourhood for some reason.
Turnstiles? They are a fait accompli so let’s move on. There never was a business case for them which is why Translink resisted for so long. Premier Chirpy Cheeks then ordered them in as a political gesture. It is not apparent that the cost will ever be recovered.
94 Bill // Sep 15, 2012 at 1:58 pm
@Chris Keam #79
“and btw, this information took me all of about 10 minutes to dig up”
And it shows. Your grasp of energy subsidies is as simplistic and flawed as your previously stated position on car subsidies.
From the chart on the link you provided taxpayer subsidies represented .5% of the total consumer spending on oil and gas where solar subsidies represented 12.3% and ethanol – a renewable source – accounting for a whopping 26.5% and this does not even consider the impact on food costs. By even this simplistic analysis solar energy is subsidized more per output of energy than oil and gas.
But you should dig deeper. In Canada subsidies to the oil and gas sector are primarily tax preferences whereby producers get accelerated write-offs of exploration and development costs that can be applied to their taxable income. Two key points – someone must spend real dollars and have real income to offset these costs against.
And the benefit to government? Add up revenues from land lease sales and royalty payments and the government is getting a very good return from deferring (not writing off) these income taxes.
Contrast those subsidies with renewable energy subsidies where the government directs the public utilities to purchase all the energy the private company can produce and a guaranteed price which is higher than competing energy sources. This would be like the government guaranteeing to purchase all the output from the oil companies at a fixed price per barrel and forcing the consumer to pay for it at the gas pump.
@Chris Keam #76
“I invite you to provide some proof of the claim, rather than insult the readers of this blog by pretending unsubstantiated statements are a rebuttal.”
Fair enough – here I offer two examples (I am sure there would be more but I only had 5 minutes):
“It all started in the fall of 2006 when Macy’s executives took advantage of the state-funded California Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP), which offered incentives to companies using solar power”
http://us.sunpowercorp.com/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername3=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue3=attachment%3B+filename%3D685%252F744%252Fspwr_macys_CS_D2_BL.pdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1300258542685&ssbinary=true
“By coordinating with state and federal incentive programs, these and other energy-saving systems help us reduce our carbon footprint and lower the cost of operating our facilities. We continue to evaluate additional opportunities to improve energy efficiency.”
Costco Annual Report 2011 pg. 13
95 Ned // Sep 15, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Bill, handle with care, do not awaken Chris or Waltyss!
Check out the “chicken bones and pizza ” post…
96 gman // Sep 15, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Looks like the party is over if congress passes the “No More Solyndras Act”
http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Pyle-No-More-Solyndras-Letter-091412.pdf
97 gman // Sep 15, 2012 at 2:59 pm
The party could be over for the wind industry if they let PTCs expire.
http://www.masterresource.org/2012/09/windpower-without-ptc/
98 Chris Keam // Sep 15, 2012 at 3:01 pm
“Your grasp of energy subsidies is as simplistic and flawed as your previously stated position on car subsidies.”
http://www.assmotax.org/Releases/AMCT%20release:%20The%20Automobile%20Subsidy.php
“THE AUTOMOBILE SUBSIDY
To what extent is automobile use a “free” good? According to Hart and Spivak, government subsidies for highways and parking alone amount to between 8 and 10 percent of our gross national product, the equivalent of a fuel tax of approximately $3.50 per gallon. If this tax were to account for “soft” costs such as pollution cleanup and emergency medical treatment, it would he as high as $9.00 per galion. The cost of these subsidies-approximately $5,000 per car per year-is passed directly on to the American citizen in the form of increased prices for products or, more often, as income, property, and sales taxes. This means that the hidden costs of driving are paid by everyone: not just drivers, but also those too old or too poor to drive a car. And these people suffer doubly, as the very transit systems they count on for mobility have gone out of business, unable to compete with the heavily subsidized highways.1
Even more irksome is the fact that spending on transit creates twice as many new jobs as spending on highways. Every billion dollars reallocated from road-building to transit creates seven thousand jobs.2 Congress’s recent $41 billion highway bill, had it been allocated to transit, would have employed an additional quarter-million people nationwide.”
99 Chris Keam // Sep 15, 2012 at 3:05 pm
“fewer elementary school age students are bussing unless they are choosing to go to a school that is not in their neighbourhood for some reason”
Many kids are dropped off by parents on their way to work. If transit was cheaper and more frequent, more people would use it, and more kids would be taking the bus. For many children school is a little too far to walk these days, which explains the traffic congestion at just before 9 and 3pm outside your average elem. school. Further, if so few kids are using it, then it seems it wouldn’t cost much at all to offer this incentive to to parents so they are more likely to use public transit.
100 Chris Keam // Sep 15, 2012 at 3:07 pm
“That certainly sounds as though you are advocating for no enforcement. ”
Yeah, I guess you should go by your assumption rather than the remarks I made explicitly saying I don’t have a problem with fare checks in principle.
101 jolson // Sep 15, 2012 at 3:38 pm
@ 75 Terry M.
You can read all about the City of Vancouver climate change adaptation strategy here:
http://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/climate-change-adaptation-strategy-.aspx
102 waltyss // Sep 15, 2012 at 4:12 pm
@Chris Kean #98 While I agree with you on many of your posts, this is not one of them. If parents are dropping kids off on their way to work, it is mostly for pre school care. It is not clear in most cases why those kids cannot walk as we are producing a generation of young kids and teenagers who are fat because they are driven everywhere.
While having them take public transit is preferable to their parents driving them, neither is preferable to feet or bikes.
Morevoer is a kid has a concession monthly pass, it is only about $2.33 round trip per school day and they can go whereever they want on the pass the rest of the time.
If a kid comes from a family so poor that they need to use the bus and cannot afford a concession fare, I would prefer to leave it with school principals to quietly subsidize those who need it rather than give a reduction to parents who don’t in our cash strapped system.
103 waltyss // Sep 15, 2012 at 4:13 pm
That should be “moreover”
104 Terry M // Sep 15, 2012 at 5:15 pm
Jolson, just because this Vision gang made up job titles for their friends, these ones being the only green jobs invented by Robertson’s ilk, it doesn’t mean that it makes it right or acceptable. in fact I am appalled!
it’s a complete farce. “Adaptation officer mitigating future global warming based on camel farts from the 1001 Arabian nights tales.” … yes it makes sense, pay the punk $100k… If you may Mrs. Ballem! LOL!
105 Chris Keam // Sep 15, 2012 at 8:58 pm
“our cash strapped system”
There is no shortage of public funds. Just imagination and daring on the part of politicians.
106 Bill // Sep 15, 2012 at 10:12 pm
@Chris Keam #97
As I have pointed out in the past, the flaw in the discussion of car “subsidies” is that they assume that the subsidisor, the taxpayor, is separate and distinct from the subsidisee, those that benefit from the road system. In fact, they overlap and the greater the overlap, the more the issue of subsidy is moot. I would suggest that the benefit of cars is so pervasive that the actual subsidy from non or low car users to high car users would be insignificant.
Chris, you should try thinking it through for yourself instead of just searching for some reference that simply parrots the Progressive position. It’s not rocket science, I’m sure you would get it.
107 boohoo // Sep 15, 2012 at 10:46 pm
” I would suggest that the benefit of cars is so pervasive that the actual subsidy from non or low car users to high car users would be insignificant.”
I would suggest that a majority of the costs are not fully appreciated or easily tabulated and therefore ignored.
108 Silly Season // Sep 16, 2012 at 1:38 am
@Waltyss. @92
Ummm. Sorry. The fare gates and fare card project was started while Premier Campbell was in office.
The province and the feds kicked in a total of $70 million for them, if memory serves me correctly.
That announcement was made by TransLink in April of ’09.
109 Chris Keam // Sep 16, 2012 at 10:37 am
“I would suggest that the benefit of cars is so pervasive that the actual subsidy from non or low car users to high car users would be insignificant.”
Yes, I believe the standard response is that it’s very easy to spend other people’s money. The human cost in lives alone is reason enough to seriously rethink our reliance on private automobiles, the vast amounts of money it takes to maintain the status quo should be reason enough from a fiscal perspective, and of course the fact those who wish to maintain said status quo refuse to acknowledge is that those developed countries and cities where automobile use hasn’t dominated the landscape don’t appear to be measurably more poverty-stricken than North America. The ‘benefit’ is mobility and that factor is not reserved to just automobiles. Cars are great for lots of things. Moving lots of people through urban areas at peak periods… not so much.
110 Bill // Sep 16, 2012 at 11:22 am
@boohoo #106
You are missing the point. If everyone benefits equally from a taxpayer funded service then cost is irrelevant. If you charged everyone the cost of the service, then you would be able to reduce taxes by the same amount and everyone would be no better or worse off. Of course, not everyone benefits the same amount from cars but car drivers do pay more based on amount of usage in gas taxes, transit levies and tolls. Remember, to be equitable the car driver only has to pay an amount equal to the amount the non or low usage driver is paying in taxes for road services they are not receiving which is considerably less than the total costs.
It is a different question if you believe that cars are evil and we should all be driving less in which case you would tax cars at an amount necessary to achieve the desired level of car usage which is totally independent of the actual cost to the taxpayer.
The issue of subsidies is very important to Progressives not because they want to end them but because it gives them an economic justification for raiding the public treasury for their own pet causes.
111 Bill // Sep 16, 2012 at 11:39 am
@Chris Keam #108
See my response to boohoo. If you are in the “society would be better off with fewer cars on the road” camp then that is your opinion and we can agree to disagree. Just don’t try to justify your position with bogus subsidy arguments.
112 Julia // Sep 16, 2012 at 11:58 am
Our society if based on subsidies. We all pay for schools – whether we have kids or not. We all pay for community centres – whether we go there or not. We all pay for fire services – whether we have a fire or not. We also pay for roads – whether we drive on them or not. I call them opportunity costs.
We all get groceries – and most of those groceries were not grown or processed within blocks of the store we shop at. We need to get them to the store – somehow. It just so happens that cars, bikes and pedestrians are able to share that same ‘goat trail’. How do you divide that opportunity cost?
Exemption is not an option.
If we want fewer cars on the road, make it viable to do so. If we want less emissions – perhaps insisting on better fuel efficiency is a better route to go. Seems to me, that has provided measurable success.
113 Chris Keam // Sep 16, 2012 at 12:18 pm
“Premier Chirpy Cheeks”
Weak. if you want great public representation, then schoolyard name-calling probably isn’t the way to go in encouraging people to stand for office.
114 Chris Keam // Sep 16, 2012 at 12:30 pm
“better fuel efficiency is a better route to go”
MPG is dropping. We are going backwards w/r/t fuel efficiency by mandating heavy safety features and allowing vehicles that have an excess of power for their stated purpose of driving within the speed limit. Automakers aren’t being responsible in this regard, adding power options that add weight, such as windows, locks etc, instead of the old-fashioned manually-operated versions. A car could be just as safe if people wore a harness type seatbelt and helmet, rather than relying on airbags, etc. Auto racing makes this plain, as race cars such as those on the NASCAR circuit can travel at 200 hundred miles an hour and drivers crash and walk away without the benefit of air bags.
“With an aerodynamic co-efficient of 0.41 (better than any other car in class) the Mini Metro L (high compression 998 engine) was good for 87 mph (140 km/h) and 53.1 mpg (5.32 lit/100 km) at 56 mph (90 km/h), and the 1275 cc models had a maximum of 97 mph (56 km/h) with 51.2 mpg (5.51 litres/100 km) at a constant 56 mph (90 km/h).”
2012 Honda Civic 28/39 mpg city/highway
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2012_Honda_Civic.shtml
115 brilliant // Sep 16, 2012 at 1:29 pm
@Chris Keam- MPG is dropping? Really.
You might want to doublecheck your facts. And I’m curious what these developing cities not embracing the car are. Pyongyang? Yangbon?
116 boohoo // Sep 16, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Bill,
Your argument ignores all the costs that aren’t easily valued. There are positives and negatives to these, but they are largely ignored. The obvious ones being health and environmental considerations. It’s very difficult to put a dollar figure on what single occupancy drivers cost themselves and society, but I would venture a guess if you were able to find a figure, even with the positives you could find, you would find they are being subsidized.
It’s easy to say ‘I pay more in gas tax therefore I cover my costs’ but when you ignore some of the intangible costs, it rings hollow.
117 brilliant // Sep 16, 2012 at 3:04 pm
@boohoo 115-just as the anti-car outlook ignores all the benefits that aren’t easily valued.
118 waltyss // Sep 16, 2012 at 3:24 pm
brilliant not, and those benefits are? Convenience mostly, in some cases necessity. However seldom in the city are cars a necessity particularly for the commuter.
Vancouver is not a particularly car oriented city. Go to Seattle and see the price of catering to the automobile. As they build more and wider freeways, they just become more clogged. The choice between being a Seattle daily commuter and having my wisdom teeth reinserted and repulled would be a close call.
No-one except perhaps some extremists are arguing for doing away with the car. Even Vision, so hated by the City Caucus exiles, is not advocating something less than 50% of trips by car. Is that anti-car? Only if you are at the extreme of unfettered car use aided by low gas and parking prices with clogged streets and freeways.
119 Chris Keam // Sep 16, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Brilliant, brilliantly asked: “MPG is dropping? Really. You might want to doublecheck your facts.”
Let me google that for you my good fellow… and provide the facts, not the auto maker hype. I have used similar engine displacement where possible, but in their quest to make the planet a better place automakers have very intelligently done less with more, and many models have moved to larger power plants. (spot the sarcasm)
(figures in city/hwy mpg)
Honda Civic gas mileage
1994 – 47/56
2012 – 24/36
Ford F-150 – 2WD/V8/5.o litre displacement
1980 – 14/19
2011 – 15/21
Dodge Caravan
1984 – 24/36
2010 – 16/23
Jeep Wrangler
1987 – 16/18
2010 – 15/20
Hyundai Accent
1994 – 28/36
2010 – 27/36
Toyota Corolla
1981 – 30/40
2010 – 26/35
Subaru Outback
2002 – 22/27
2010 – 17/23
Volkswagen Beetle
1998 – 22/27
2010 – 22/28
Volkswagen Golf
1990 – 23/28
2010 – 22/30
Ford Ranger
1986 – 23/27
2011 – 22/27
Chevrolet Corvette
1978 – 13/18
2009 – 14/20
Chevy Malibu
1978 – 21/27 (3.3 liter, 6 cylinder)
2011 – 22/30 (2.4 liter, 4 cylinder)
Acura Integra
1988 – 26/30
2001 – 25/30
BMW 320i
1978 – 18/27
2011 – 18/28 (328Ci)
Toyota Camry
1983 – 32/44 (2.0 liter/6 cyl)
2010 – 22/32 (2.4 liter/4 cyl)
Spot a trend brilliant?
http://www.mpgomatic.com/gas-mileage-by-car/
120 Chris Keam // Sep 16, 2012 at 5:27 pm
“just as the anti-car outlook ignores all the benefits that aren’t easily valued.”
I know I have a couple dozen friends’ and acquaintances whose birthdays I don’t have to remember anymore… hard to find a gift for a dead person. Oh yay!
121 Chris Keam // Sep 16, 2012 at 5:32 pm
“And I’m curious what these developing cities not embracing the car are”
If you are really a closet cycling booster setting me up to provide facts upon facts, I must say you are doing a splendid job, but I find doing your homework for you tiresome. Come back when you have something of substance and perhaps I’ll oblige with some more of my time spent pointing out the obvious.
cheers,
CK
122 Boohoo // Sep 16, 2012 at 10:41 pm
Brilliant,
See in my second sentence where I said positives and negatives? That’s where I’m saying how there are both positives and negatives. I know you desperately want to dumb this down so that anyone advocating for anything other than the car can just be mocked and chalked up as a car hater, but at least have the decency to read what people are saying.
123 waltyss // Sep 16, 2012 at 10:47 pm
@chris@boohoo: You have to be patient with brilliant not. It takes her/him a long time to comprehend anything that does not lend itself to a false “cars are good/cars” are bad dichotomy. Nuance is not his/her strong suit.
124 brilliant // Sep 16, 2012 at 11:50 pm
@Chrus Keam 118- First almost everyone of those models you use as a comparison has morphed over the years into a larger car AND made way for a smaller more efficient model below it. Second, the EPA changed the way it measures fuel economy in 2008. Third while you’re googling you might check the term CAFE standard- Corporate Average Fuel Economy. That is what matters.
@waltsyss 122-despite warnings from your fellow posters you and your sock puppets just can’t resist rolling down into the insult gutter can you? How sad.
125 Chris Keam // Sep 17, 2012 at 7:22 am
“Since the 1980’s average U.S. LDV weights, horsepower and driving performance (acceleration, top speed, etc.) have increased substantially. These changes occurred while fully complying with increasing CAFE standards. Some of these performance improvements were made at the expense of possible further increased fuel efficiency. These changes in LDV physical characteristics were allowed due to many CAFE loopholes that, pardon the pun, you could drive a sports utility vehicle (SUV) through. CAFE loopholes included classifying SUV’s as light trucks with substantially lower fuel efficiency requirements. In addition, manufacturer’s were given very generous CAFE compliance credits for producing large numbers of ‘alternative’ and ‘flexible’ fueled vehicles (AFV and FFV). Very few of the light duty AFV’s and FFV’s were ever operated on alternative natural gas, LPG or E-85 fuels”
http://theenergycollective.com/node/104841
126 Chris Keam // Sep 17, 2012 at 7:27 am
From those ‘progressives’ at the Cato Institute:
“Increasing CAFE standards will not decrease the amount of pollution coming from the U.S. auto fleet. That’s because we regulate emissions per mile traveled, not per gallon of gasoline burned. Improvements in fuel efficiency reduce the cost of driving and thus increase vehicle miles traveled. Moreover, automakers have an incentive to offset the costs associated with improving fuel efficiency by spending less complying with federal pollution standards with which they currently over-comply.”
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-raise-cafe-standards
127 Chris Keam // Sep 17, 2012 at 8:11 am
“First almost everyone of those models you use as a comparison has morphed over the years into a larger car”
Yes, I made that point in my post. That’s a bug, not a feature. What’s strange is that families are getting smaller. Why are we driving bigger cars (or SUVs as near as I can tell – which only have to meet light truck rules, rather than car standards for fuel/emissions). Because I gotta say, I’m not seeing a lot of X5s and M-class vehicles 4-wheelin’ in the bush. The auto-makers have failed to show the corporate responsibility required and the bottom line is this:
A 1908 Model T could get as much as 21 mpg and could go 45 mph. The 1911 Indy 500 (first year of the race) was won with an average speed of about 75 mph. Today, a Honda Civic gets 36 mpg and the average speed for this year’s running of the Indy 500 was about 178 mph. The gains in auto technology have been centered around unnecessary improvements in performance and creature comforts, rather than vital upgrades to fuel efficiency. Thankfully, the death rate per capita is dropping, although cars continue to be a popular way for young men to die, and the statistical decline is probably cold comfort to the families and friends of the 2,419 people killed by cars in 2008 in Canada. And given that 12% of those deaths were pedestrians, it only underlines the irresponsibility of making faster, more powerful cars.
The public has been bamboozled by the auto/advertising/sports Hydra into believing a huge pack of lies. Putting aside every single argument about climate, energy, and land use, just the human cost of car reliance should be pause for thought, but yet some folks not only defend it, they see it as their inherent right and adopt the Rob Ford ‘blame the victim’ mentality.
Used to be a person could cross the street in Vancouver wherever they wanted — the freedom for anyone to use public space was a fact of life.
http://www.creativetechnology.org/video/video/show?id=2128459%3AVideo%3A8903
Then came the cars, and roads became a dangerous place for everyone.
128 teririch // Sep 17, 2012 at 8:23 am
@brilliant #123
Nissan is increasing the size of some of their vehicles; the reason, people are bigger.
They are learning that the small compact cars aren’t fitting a one size fits all model.
Society as a whole is larger, both in height and weight than previous decades; and persons 6 foot, plus don’t easily fold into the compact models.
129 Chris Keam // Sep 17, 2012 at 8:58 am
People have only become an inch taller on average since 1960. They have however packed on the pounds. One hesitates to suggest one of the more obvious ways to address this issue during the average person’s 7.4km commute (Vancouver). That might be construed as anti-car.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcare/a/tallbutfat.htm
130 IanS // Sep 17, 2012 at 9:56 am
” One hesitates to suggest one of the more obvious ways to address this issue…”
Good call. Liposuction is always such a touchy topic.
131 teririch // Sep 17, 2012 at 10:43 am
@Chris Keam #128
Countering that, I have found an article indicating on an average, men are 4 inches taller than they were in th 60′s.
as posted by Mark Elliot:
Standards of living have increased dramatically throughout the Western world over the past century. This has had a direct impact upon the average height and weight of men in all developed countries. The United States is no exception. The average height for Western men is now 4 inches taller than it was prior to the 20th century. Since 1960, American men have also added weight to their taller frames. The average American is now twenty-five pounds heavier than his 1960s counterpart.
Read more: Men’s Average Height and Weight | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6583942_men_s-average-height-weight.html#ixzz26kYgNTsE
132 Chris Keam // Sep 17, 2012 at 10:46 am
“The average height for Western men is now 4 inches taller than it was prior to the 20th century.”
Maybe the 1860s TR.
I think you might have an error in your claim.
cheers,
CK
133 brilliant // Sep 17, 2012 at 11:56 am
@Chris Keam – a 1908 Model T? I’m sure the greenies would love the pollution control on that. And despite your attempt to inject some tinfoil hattiness into CAFE standards, its clear overall fuel economy is rising. As to other features being added to cars, well that is what people want. Understand that concept is difficult for the bike uber alles gang to
understand.
Now tell us more about those developing nations not embracing the car…
134 Frank Ducote // Sep 17, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Further to TR and CK:
“In 2002, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published the findings of a study that charted the changes in the American body since 1960. It found that the average height of an adult U.S. male is 69.4 inches, around an inch taller than in 1960. American men are continuing to grow from one generation to the next.”
Read more: Men’s Average Height and Weight | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6583942_men_s-average-height-weight.html#ixzz26kr6CPdL
Now, can we get back to how municipalities can secure carbon and other fuel tax revenues? I believe that is the law in the US that gas taxes are returned to the jurisdiction where the fuel is consumed. How they figure that out I’m not quite sure – population, fuel purchases? Anybody know the answer?
Gas tax revenue is the source of most of the funding that allows a creative city like Portland can do all the wonderful things it is doing with retrofitting streets for traffic calming, pedestrian and bike improvements, etc.
135 jenables // Sep 17, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Can i just say that friday the fourteenth was a momentous occasion. It was the second time ever i saw a truck with dualies that was actually hauling something in the truck bed! (the first time it was a ladder) originally, i was just laughing at the driver trying to stay in the lane until i realized…as shiny as it was, it was a WORKING truck. Awe, and then outrage- the paint could get scratched, the truck bed scuffed… What was that guy thinking!? Doesn’t he know what dualies are for?? They are a frame for your truck balls! Not surprised to not see any….tee hee
136 brilliant // Sep 17, 2012 at 2:30 pm
@Frank Ducote 133-In Portlandia as in Vancouver gas tax revenue isn’t meeting projections. Progressive planners have gone once too often to that well.
137 Frank Ducote // Sep 17, 2012 at 2:36 pm
One major source of funding, not the only source.
138 MB // Sep 17, 2012 at 3:34 pm
@ Bill, various posts.
Thanks for illuminating a fascinating take on subsidies (fossil fuels, roads).
I would, however, caution you on arriving at hard conclusions on roads until you’ve undertaken a valuation process (or found a valid data set) on the road system, notably on land costs, and completed a comparative analysis with their measureable economic benefits.
Others have alluded to external costs (or called for full-cost accounting) of the road system, notably the health care impacts of crashes and particulate pollution. These were already pegged in the 90′s Transport 21 planning study and added to hard maintenance and environmental costs to total $2,700 per car per year.
In today’s dollar and number of Metro vehicles, that’s in the range of 4.2 billion public dollars or approximately $3,100 per car on top of the direct taxes, fees, purchase and financing costs drivers already pay.
Just because people don’t pay for all costs associated with driving doesn’t mean they should be discounted as a “progressive” myth. They are real, and they are calculatable.
Up-to-date data on the land devoted to roads would be very informative considering that publicly-owned roads occupy about 1/3 of a city’s land base (it varies city-to-suburb), or about 34 km2 in Vancouver’s case (in the range of 250 km2 in the Metro).
I’ve been looking for road-land data for a while without success. It’s surprising that only until very recently with federal legislation have cities begun accounting for all of their assets, including valuating the land that roads sit on, not just traditionally at the point of acquisition but on an annual basis as land values fluctuate.
Private property is periodically assessed when it goes on the market. Shouldn’t public assets also be periodically assessed?
Now, everyone will agree that roads occupy a vital economic niche … commercial trucking and business-oriented communting immediately come to mind.
But when 70% of the traffic crossing the Port Mann bridge consist of single occupant cars who are commuting in the presence of alternatives, or on a pleasure trip, one wonders if there were more cost effective alternatives to a public expenditure of $3.3 billion on a new structure.
One also wonders if the local economy can really afford the 12 1/2 Port Mann bridges we pay for every decade in external costs on roads.
139 MB // Sep 17, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Correction:
In today’s dollar and number of Metro vehicles, that’s in the range of 4.2 billion public dollars per annum …
140 Chris Keam // Sep 17, 2012 at 11:36 pm
Ya gotta love folks who use ‘progressive’ as an epithet. Really says all you need to know, although the comparison to the Nazi regime ‘uber alles’ certainly speaks to their hysteria in the face of sanity.
141 Frank Ducote // Sep 18, 2012 at 9:40 am
@CK139 – totally agree. I suggest we should let Brilliant Not play in his or her sandbox by him or herself without any further comment or reply, hard as that might be to do. Uber alles is the last straw. He or she spews enough nastiness for a lifetime, IMO.
142 waltyss // Sep 18, 2012 at 10:11 am
As we talk about fuel efficiencies in ever bigger trucks and SUVs even in downtown Vancouver, we might want to consider Gary Mason’s excellent column in today’s Globe and Mail on road pricing. As part of getting your insurance, you would get a transponder and pay tolls based on kms driven, size of vehicle, time of day and even quality of road. Driving a European style freeway should cost more than an unpaved rural road.
143 brilliant // Sep 18, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Tsk tsk Frank DuCote one would expect someone so educated not to insult millions of Germans by linking their national anthem to Nazism. I’d expect such knee-jerk silliness from Chris Keam but not from you.
144 Everyman // Sep 18, 2012 at 6:26 pm
@Chris Keam
It seems to me the more appropriate argument is that fuel economy could be much better, not that it is getting worse.
145 Chris Keam // Sep 18, 2012 at 8:52 pm
@Brilliant
The uber alles section isn’t part of the national anthem. Show some dignity in defeat and Nehmen Sie das Medikament wie ein großer Junge (thx Google Translate!)
146 waltyss // Sep 18, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Brilliant not is up to it again. S/he/it spews out an ugly reference associating those she disagrees with as nazis and then claims innocence, s/he/it was only referring to the German national anthem and others were insulting Germans. Yeah, whatever, brilliant not.
The first stanza of the song which is the only stanza which contains the phrase “deutchland über alles” has not been used as part of Germany’s (West, East or united) national anthem since the end of the Second World War precisely because of its association with the Nazis. Only the third stanza is used as the national anthem and it does not contain the phrase.
@CK #145, brilliant not is incapable of acting with dignity.
@Frank Ducote #141 You are absolutely correct that the best policy is to ignore s/he/it but sometimes the venom is so ugly that one has to respond. Unfortunately, this is one of those occasions.
147 Chris Keam // Sep 18, 2012 at 9:28 pm
@ Everyman:
I can live with that correction to my statement. I believe the most important part is to understand how irresponsible auto makers have been in their role as corporate citizens. Even arms manufacturers have enough common sense not to put chain guns in the hands of the general public, yet some of the cars and motorcycles that can be bought by any young man with more money than driving skill are a tragedy waiting to happen. Even the industry’s Auto Alliance safety initiatives focus on everything but the fact that hundreds of horsepower is an utterly unnecessary waste of resources that puts both the driver, his/her passengers, and anyone else unlucky enough to get in the way, in danger of death or injury. Of course, if most of your marketing relies on showing cars driving dangerously on empty roads, I suppose it’s hard to promote a safer product.
148 Chris Keam // Sep 18, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Meant to include this link to the Alliance’s supposed concern for vehicle safety. For some strange reason there’s no real reference to any voluntary changes they have made to their products.
http://www.autoalliance.org/auto-issues/safety
149 Chris Keam // Sep 18, 2012 at 9:43 pm
It’s kind of amusing that the Auto Alliance’s Facebook page has a paltry 302 ‘likes’. For comparison, delicious and healthy Vegemite has 322,000. All hail the power of brewer’s yeast repackaged as a salty snack!
150 brilliant // Sep 20, 2012 at 8:24 am
@Chris Keam-the car is so ingrained in our cultute nobody feels the need to friend a special group, unlike bike lobbies which cater to a very small but vocal minority.
151 Chris Keam // Sep 20, 2012 at 9:52 am
I’m talking about delicious toast toppings. Why are you so obsessed with bicycles?
152 Bill // Sep 21, 2012 at 2:07 pm
@mb #138
You are not getting the point. It isn’t about how much or how the costs are calculated but who is bearing them. If the same people who are benefitting from the costs are the same as those who are incurring them, then the cost and allocation is irrelevant. I believe that the considerable benefits of cars is widely enjoyed so that the net transfer between high and low usage classes is covered off in the marginal costs of driving.
The subsidy argument is only ever relevant in discussing transfers between groups. If 90% of the population uses a car then they only need to transfer back 10% (or $270 using your $2,700 figure). I think you will find the transit tax does a pretty good job of balancing the ledger.
Leave a Comment