Carbon emissions | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Carbon emissions

DownUnder said:
That's not because of gas prices. People really affected by and worried about gas prices cant afford the cost of a new tesla. Carbon tax is just another kill the middle and lower class in the west scheme.
Click to expand...

And possible long term costs of purchasing a used EV.
 
People aren't buying EVs - sales are flat lining and Tesla prices are dropping because Elon is sitting on a sh*tload of them.
If I'm still driving/riding in ten years and not drooling in my soup we'll talk again then.
 
Brian P said:
Carbon tax = fossil fuel price = an influencing factor in, for example, whether someone picks an enormous gas-guzzling SUV to drive themselves to and from work, or the compact car which is all they actually need. Every time there's a fuel supply crunch, the resulting spike in prices has temporarily changed consumer behaviour. The 1973 crunch drove auto manufacturers to downsize in the late 1970s. The 1979 crunch led to people switching to imports and downsized vehicles again. And, a couple years after the crisis subsides, consumers forget ...

Right now, California has the highest fuel prices in mainland USA and it's by a rather significant amount (reference: AAA Gas Prices ). California also has the highest EV market penetration, 28.1% as of Q3 2023 (reference: https://www.autosinnovate.org/posts/press-release/2023-q3-get-connected-press-release ). I submit that although there are other factors at work (described in article), this is not a coincidence.

Prices influence behaviour.

Now, let's hear even a HINT of how to get people to change their habits otherwise.
Click to expand...
I think is naive to relate EV penetration in CA to cap n trade / carbon taxes. Ontarios carbon tax is double (.16/l incl HST) what Californians pay to at .08l. While taxed at the highest rate on the continent, Ontario has the lowest EV penetration when compared to states with similar demographics. I think this itself proves penalty taxes are not effective.

California adoption is closely tied to regulation(state owned vehicles make up a huge portion of those numbers) favourable climate for EVs, but mostly massive incentives supporting vehicle purchase and charging. It’s the same story as in all high penetration states, except for the carbon tax. I don’t see a way to refute that.

So, wanna change things? First, scrap the tax and use the $300m per year that provinces and Feds spend on administering the program. Use that to put supercharger stations into every one horse town along the Trans Canada

Mandate municipal vehicles go EV.

Create incentives that buy down purchase prices, heavier on lower cost cars and trucks.

Add incentives for charging infrastructure.
 
Mad Mike said:
I think is naive to relate EV penetration in CA to cap n trade / carbon taxes. Ontarios carbon tax is double (.16/l incl HST) what Californians pay to at .08l. While taxed at the highest rate on the continent, Ontario has the lowest EV penetration when compared to states with similar demographics. I think this itself proves penalty taxes are not effective.

California adoption is closely tied to regulation(state owned vehicles make up a huge portion of those numbers) favourable climate for EVs, but mostly massive incentives supporting vehicle purchase and charging. It’s the same story as in all high penetration states, except for the carbon tax. I don’t see a way to refute that.

So, wanna change things? First, scrap the tax and use the $300m per year that provinces and Feds spend on administering the program. Use that to put supercharger stations into every one horse town along the Trans Canada

Mandate municipal vehicles go EV.

Create incentives that buy down purchase prices, heavier on lower cost cars and trucks.

Add incentives for charging infrastructure.
Click to expand...
What you say makes sense to me....I'm sure it'll never fly.
 
Shaman said:
Fiber Internet service has been going down like Freeland's cocaine-high every few weeks; sometimes every few days here in South Frontenac and that's JUST South Frontenac. Bell lashed alot of the fiber trunks to their existing copper assets (which essentially is being done sly on government tax dollars, because the fact is that the copper cabling is badly aged and needs replacing regardless of what fiber can do for the customer) to save money on the installs.

And despite all that, Bell announced last week that they are losing a lot of money on rural Internet. The cost is too high for fiber, which is something I preached to the government for literally a decade, but got exactly nowhere. I spoke with Gudie Hutchings face to face about this, and boy did her face change when I told her that they have to replace all their copper assets, no matter what it is that they replace it with (cellular is an option, folks...) and so the government is essentially paying for Bell to replace their old, useless cables. Some of those analog trunks are down to 30% wire capacity and there are many underground areas that need to be pumped just for Bell to do any maintenance on them, all over Ontario.

Sorry ................. segue. That post just triggered me, lol
Click to expand...
I'm still trying to figure out what happened in our neighborhood a few years back.

We were given an opportunity to have our services put underground with hydro, Bell and cable sharing the costs. One big selling feature was our backyard poles were over 50 years old and replacing them would be difficult due to landscaping, pool, out-buildings etc that didn't exist at the time of construction.

Then Bell and cable dropped out but the project went on with roads cut, micro-tunnels, patios trenched etc. Bell now comes in and does its own road cutting and tunneling. We still need the backyard poles and they didn't suddenly become easier to get at if they tilt.

The transformers were removed from the poles using cranes and one of the operators told me the cost per house was over $65K. I'd like to see the math for the overall project.

On the plus side, if I buy a pair of Teslas and want fast chargers for both, requiring a service upgrade, the feed is taken care of.
 
Mad Mike said:
So, wanna change things? First, scrap the tax and use the $300m per year that provinces and Feds spend on administering the program. Use that to put supercharger stations into every one horse town along the Trans Canada
Click to expand...
Apparently the number is $480M. If so, the average income for the number of people doing it is $177K/year. This was released about two weeks ago by FOI. I find it hard to believe that they could spend that, but here we are.

I agree with the rest.
 
nobbie48 said:
Then Bell and cable dropped out but the project went on with roads cut, micro-tunnels, patios trenched etc. Bell now comes in and does its own road cutting and tunneling. We still need the backyard poles and they didn't suddenly become easier to get at if they tilt.
Click to expand...
They might have got the money through SWIFT etc. and Bell refuses to share any infrastructure with anyone, so they probably dropped out but spend big money anyway because they also don't want to be put out to pasture. I had a build project set up for Prince Edward County, and the municipality called up Bell and Cogeco to tell them that we were doing ground surveys to put in fiber and that the City was ****** that we were doing it but Bell / Cogeco wouldn't. Yeah. Thanks, guys.

So Cogeco went and got $800K from EORN to run fiber down to Wellington and Bell ran fiber down Rednersville road. So suddenly, about two weeks after we started poking around, both of them had fiber trucks on the roads pulling fiber. This demonstrates how competition in fiber in Canada is really only possible in areas where the big telcos have ZERO interest in trying to provide services. We immediately stopped work on the project and abandoned it, because you can't compete with that - there's more than 10 years amortisation at best with fiber, if you've got a monopoly on the area.
 
I enjoy the posts and debate regarding EVs, climate, politics etc.

I griped about Canada’s carbon tax and there was posts regarding, what are the alternatives. It’s a good question. We can critique what government is doing and disagree with how they approach issues such as climate change. But, how are we going to fix it?


I think before we fix anything, we have to really look at what is happening and get real with the issues. Thus my journey to find smarter people than myself that can articulate things that is easy to understand.

I’d like to share a video some of you may have seen. Some may have dismissed before looking because of the organization that arranged the speakers. I say give it a chance.

It may not have the magic bullet solution but, I think it frames things in a better light.

 
I skipped through. (Too long-winded.) Appears to advocate a combination of business-as-usual, throw up hands in defeat, and "let's do nothing because the rest of the world does nothing". Not a long-term option.
 
nakkers said:
We can critique what government is doing and disagree with how they approach issues such as climate change. But, how are we going to fix it?
Click to expand...

An app that monitors your carbon use in real time? I don't see it costing more that a quarter of a billion dollars to get the (current) government to have one up and running by next fall.
 
Brian P said:
I skipped through. (Too long-winded.) Appears to advocate a combination of business-as-usual, throw up hands in defeat, and "let's do nothing because the rest of the world does nothing". Not a long-term option.
Click to expand...
Brian,

Understand your reasons for skipping through. If you suffer through, I believe Scott Tinker shows a perspective of global energy demands and reasoning. And doing so while reframing energy definitions that I find interesting.

IMO, during his opening remarks, “science is a process requiring doubt” resonates with me.

It’s not to suggest we do nothing. But, we should question everything.
 
Gravity perhaps? still a theory. Evolution perhaps? Still a theory.
You can only question things that you are qualified to question. Bohr could question Einstein.

Doubting AGW at this point is seriously misguided.
 
MacDoc said:
Gravity perhaps? still a theory. Evolution perhaps? Still a theory.
You can only question things that you are qualified to question. Bohr could question Einstein.

Doubting AGW at this point is seriously misguided.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with the statement that you can only question things that you are qualified to question.
 
and what do you think you might accomplish?
Why not spend the time on what to do about the reality of AGW
....there is lots of space for discussion in that frame.
 
Soulcatcher668 said:
That's a stance that leads to tyranny.

Who gets to decide who is qualified?
Click to expand...

When you are sick, talk to a medical doctor.
When your furnace is broken, talk to an HVAC technician.
When you car doesn't start, take it to a mechanic.
When you need a haircut, go to the barber.

It's okay to talk to the barber about your sick child, but better to take actual advice from your doctor. It's okay to talk about hairstyles with your doctor, but better to get the barber to actually do it.

Who decides the qualifications of any of these people?

I spent several years in engineering school followed by several more working under others before I got a piece of paper that says I'm an engineer. I have a specific range of knowledge. If something involves a different range of knowledge, I defer to someone else who has that range of knowledge.
 
Brian P said:
When you are sick, talk to a medical doctor.
When your furnace is broken, talk to an HVAC technician.
When you car doesn't start, take it to a mechanic.
When you need a haircut, go to the barber.

It's okay to talk to the barber about your sick child, but better to take actual advice from your doctor. It's okay to talk about hairstyles with your doctor, but better to get the barber to actually do it.

Who decides the qualifications of any of these people?

I spent several years in engineering school followed by several more working under others before I got a piece of paper that says I'm an engineer. I have a specific range of knowledge. If something involves a different range of knowledge, I defer to someone else who has that range of knowledge.
Click to expand...
So it's not OK to talk to your barber about haircutting?

I had a medical issue a few years back that many different specialists could not diagnose.
The neurologist finally wanted to prescribe anti-seizure medication. I asked why and they told me "It might do something"

Just because someone is 'qualified' does not mean they are good at their job.
 
MacDoc said:
and what do you think you might accomplish?
Why not spend the time on what to do about the reality of AGW
....there is lots of space for discussion in that frame.
Click to expand...
For one, have a better understanding of the issues that are impacting all of us. From my experience, the best and the smartest people are not necessarily the same people making the decisions that affect our lives. And those making those decisions, are selective of these expert opinions to support their own agenda.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist. The future of the environment is important to me.

Not being an expert myself, I hope to ask the right questions to become more informed. That isn’t to accept things should remain the same. I’m very appreciative of the progress society has made since the beginning of the industrial age. And I look forward to the progress society makes in the remaining years I have on this place and hope I feel great about my children and future generations before I take my last breath.

I believe we can do better when discussing differences in opinion in general. We can do better to collaborate and compromise and accept our differences. Avoid demonizing those that don’t agree with a given opinion.


The climate does change. The temperature of earth is increasing. There are varying opinions from several experts and scholars as to the impact this trend will have and what we should do about it. The predictions and outcomes from these experts vary from the end of days to the world has never been better.

I don’t think having a carbon tax and having the government redistribute those funds is an effective way towards progress. It hurts more than it does benefit its intention. I’m still not sure of the benefits this scheme is actually providing. From my arm chair point of view, it appears to cause higher energy costs and increased costs to all commodities we consume. Even when those commodities are essential or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom