11568 replies to this topic

[LeoVictoria]

Takeover of electric vehicles is inevitable.   From Bloomberg NEF survey.

Edited by LeoVictoria, 03 December 2019 - 04:53 PM.

[Mike K.]

The carbon tax isn’t a recovery for a negative externality. It’s a cash grab. I understood what you were saying, but using the carbon tax which is now a slush fund for new pencils and drapes isn’t a good example.

In fact, the tax is so ridiculous that it hasn’t changed people's habits one iota. I know it hasn’t mine. If government really considered the carbon tax as a recovery for negative externalities it would be charging $50/tank, not $5.

[Coreyburger]

In fact, the tax is so ridiculous that it hasn’t changed people's habits one iota. I know it hasn’t mine. If government really considered the carbon tax as a recovery for negative externalities it would be charging $50/tank, not $5.

 

Yes, they should be charging a lot more than they are.

 

As for changing behaviour, yes it has. There is decent evidence gasoline use is down in BC due to carbon tax: https://papers.ssrn....ract_id=2874417

Edited by Coreyburger, 03 December 2019 - 07:58 PM.

[Mike K.]

Ok, what’s on page 9 of that research paper?

[Mike K.]

I’m kidding, don’t go looking up page 9.

There’s been as much research into why the tax is irrelevant as there has been why it’s relevant. Plenty of externalities at play here that can paint the numbers in any which way.

[rjag]

Yes, they should be charging a lot more than they are.

 

As for changing behaviour, yes it has. There is decent evidence gasoline use is down in BC due to carbon tax: https://papers.ssrn....ract_id=2874417

 

We find that households residing in Vancouver and other cities 

 

 

The more you tax a people the more they find ways around it. Pt Roberts and Bellingham are making serious coin on fuel sales.

 

Reagan said it correctly “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” 

 

And he also nailed it when he said We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.” 

 

Taxation to implement behavior modification with said taxation revenues being used in general revenue misses the point 

Edited by rjag, 04 December 2019 - 08:20 AM.

[Mike K.]

The studies pointing to the grand success of the carbon tax conveniently avoid talking about per-capita fuel use reductions starting many years prior to the introduction of the tax in the form of fuel efficiency and growth in neighbourhood amenities. We tend to build more mixed use housing along major corridors. The result is less need to drive for a segment of the population to access common services, and if they do they tend to drive a vehicle getting 25mpg as opposed to 19mpg.

The carbon tax is too low to change behaviour. Would it actually force someone to not drive to work at 10 cents as opposed to 8.7? Is the magic number 11 cents? The transit tax is 5.5 cents. Has its introduction pushed legions of drivers to use the bus? No.

[rjag]

Mike, it wont ever be enough...the idea is to get you out of personal auto completely. Regardless if its EV or not, they dont want you driving or parking on public roads. Those roads are for mass transit, movement of goods etc.

 

Only Government Officials will be permitted private automobiles and exclusive use of Zil Lanes 

[LeoVictoria]

[Mike K.]

^Excludes Alberta, lol.

 

Of course it does 

[LeoVictoria]

The carbon tax isn’t a recovery for a negative externality. It’s a cash grab. I understood what you were saying, but using the carbon tax which is now a slush fund for new pencils and drapes isn’t a good example.

In fact, the tax is so ridiculous that it hasn’t changed people's habits one iota. I know it hasn’t mine. If government really considered the carbon tax as a recovery for negative externalities it would be charging $50/tank, not $5.

 

That's what I'm pointing out.  You pretend to care about things like the waste from new vehicle sales but in fact it is just that: pretend.  You clearly have no interest in what would be required to solve it, which is properly priced externalities.

Yes carbon tax is not currently high enough to capture the full cost of the negative externalities, and it will be going up slowly over time.  

 

That's what is called on the internet a "concern troll".  

 

 

What is 100% indisputable is that the carbon tax is pricing a negative externality.  Whether it is or is not a "cash grab" (completely meaningless term) is immaterial. 

[LeoVictoria]

The studies pointing to the grand success of the carbon tax conveniently avoid talking about per-capita fuel use reductions starting many years prior to the introduction of the tax in the form of fuel efficiency and growth in neighbourhood amenities. We tend to build more mixed use housing along major corridors. The result is less need to drive for a segment of the population to access common services, and if they do they tend to drive a vehicle getting 25mpg as opposed to 19mpg.

The carbon tax is too low to change behaviour. Would it actually force someone to not drive to work at 10 cents as opposed to 8.7? Is the magic number 11 cents? The transit tax is 5.5 cents. Has its introduction pushed legions of drivers to use the bus? No.

 

Realize the argument you are making is that price does not affect consumption.   And then realize that the entire free market system is based on this exact thing being true.  

[LeoVictoria]

Mike, it wont ever be enough...the idea is to get you out of personal auto completely. Regardless if its EV or not, they dont want you driving or parking on public roads. Those roads are for mass transit, movement of goods etc.

 

Only Government Officials will be permitted private automobiles and exclusive use of Zil Lanes 

 

Another reason to buy the cybertruck.  The thing is almost made of tinfoil, imagine how well that would shield the government's mind control rays.   And with Tesla's Bioweapon Defense mode HVAC system you could also scrub the mind control chemicals out of the air that are being sprayed from airplanes.  And when the governments jack booted thugs come for you you can get into your bulletproof truck and speed away.

 

Win Win Win for the VV regulars.

Edited by LeoVictoria, 04 December 2019 - 11:57 AM.

[Mike K.]

^ we'll use that in our next full length VV film.
 

That's what I'm pointing out.  You pretend to care about things like the waste from new vehicle sales but in fact it is just that: pretend.  You clearly have no interest in what would be required to solve it, which is properly priced externalities.
Yes carbon tax is not currently high enough to capture the full cost of the negative externalities, and it will be going up slowly over time.  
 
That's what is called on the internet a "concern troll".

 
Oh man, that's a lot to digest. What makes you think I pretend to care?

[rjag]

Another reason to buy the cybertruck.  The thing is almost made of tinfoil, imagine how well that would shield the government's mind control rays.   And with Tesla's Bioweapon Defense mode HVAC system you could also scrub the mind control chemicals out of the air that are being sprayed from airplanes.  And when the governments jack booted thugs come for you you can get into your bulletproof truck and speed away.

 

Win Win Win for the VV regulars.

 

Jeez Leo, welcome back...missed the angry lectures. You sure have a way of making people want to engage with you!

 

Hope you arent like this in real life? 

[LeoVictoria]

Jeez Leo, welcome back...missed the angry lectures. You sure have a way of making people want to engage with you!

Hope you arent like this in real life?

Just like to drop by once a year to check if things have changed on VV yet.

And what, you can write a ridiculous post about government banning cars and I can’t poke fun in response?

No response on the fact carbon taxes price negative externalities of CO2?

Edited by LeoVictoria, 04 December 2019 - 02:03 PM.

[Tom Braybrook]

...two questions to ask before/after you read this...

 

is jack mintz on the board of imperial oil?

 

is the university of calgary's school of public policy a shill for the big oil lobby?

 

https://business.fin...-in-our-budgets

[LeoVictoria]

...two questions to ask before/after you read this...

is jack mintz on the board of imperial oil?

is the university of calgary's school of public policy a shill for the big oil lobby?

https://business.fin...-in-our-budgets

Basically two problems with that article:

1. Concerns about cost to reduce emissions has to be balanced against cost of not reducing emissions and climate change which will be much higher.
2. Concern that governments won’t raise the required revenue is ridiculous. Loss of revenue from gas taxes will obviously be made up through other taxes.

[Mike K.]

Just like to drop by once a year to check if things have changed on VV yet.

 

You mean, now that your blog followers have all bought houses for $300k more than they would have five years ago had they not bought into the doom-and-gloom you've scooted over to grace us with your judgements of people's lives? 

[rjag]

Just like to drop by once a year to check if things have changed on VV yet.

And what, you can write a ridiculous post about government banning cars and I can’t poke fun in response?

No response on the fact carbon taxes price negative externalities of CO2?

 

Ah yes of course, Leo who doesnt understand generic sarcasm where its not aimed at a particular person... but takes offense anyway...sad to see you havent changed much, still got that chip on your shoulder eh?