Public support for carbon tax waning quickly : canada

[–] AnotherDirtyAnglo@lemmy.ca 31 points 11 months ago (2 children)

And kids don't want to eat their vegetables or go to bed on time... Sometimes people need to be encouraged to do the thing they don't want to do, but is only in their best interest.

The stupidest part of this whole thing is now easy it would be to set up in a way that people could accept...

Levy a small carbon tax, nation wide, on all energy, for all users. The carbon tax goes into a fund, which is re-distributed to encourage the right behaviour:

Improve / expand public transit
Fund energy-efficiency retrofits
Subsidize green power initiatives
Rebates on zero-emission transport like electric bikes, and compact electric cars
Retrain existing oil & gas industry workers to install/maintain electric infrastructure
Cash for Clunkers to get polluting vehicles off the road
Build new, ultra-energy efficient homes based on an improved building code
Tax rebates to everyone in the lowest tax brackets.

Please, steal this idea.

[–] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And kids don't want to eat their vegetables or go to bed on time... Sometimes people need to be encouraged to do the thing they don't want to do, but is only in their best interest.

I work as a public servant and I say this like once a week. The general public acts like a spoiled child who wants to eat candy for dinner. The public do not care that candy isn't nutritious, they do not care that they will rot their teeth out if they eat out for every meal, they do not care that it will give them an upset stomach. They know what's best for them and candy is what's best.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago

That and they think that if their siblings eats vegetables they then don't have to eat them themselves, so they prefer to force someone else to eat them in their place.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago

But it's already financially beneficial to the majority! That's what's most frustrating to me!

[–] zaphod@lemmy.ca 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Of those who say they receive more than they pay, support for the carbon price reaches 79 per cent. Among those who believe they spend more than they get back, the results are flipped: 82 per cent oppose the tax.

Got it. So people who don't understand the policy don't support it, and people who do support it do. That tracks.

Fix the messaging and the problem is solved. This isn't rocket surgery, but for some reason both the NDP and Liberals are piss poor at messaging (to wit: the Alberta UCP going on an advertising spree about their assinine Alberta pension plan idea while the silence from the opposition has been deafening).

[–] AnotherDirtyAnglo@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

And those people who don't support it because they pay more in carbon tax are the ones who need their behaviour to change... So, it works.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (3 children)

We can't tax our way out of climate change. We can't just put a tax on gasoline without creating viable alternatives to driving in our cities. We need bike lanes, walkable neighbourhoods and functional public transit.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's the least painful, most economically efficient way to encourage those things and other transitions. When it comes to transportation, higher gas prices have historically resulted in a market for more fuel efficiency (and inflation-adjusted low gas prices have lead to oversizing of vehicles). Unlike the 70s, this time, the carbon tax is brought in slowly and smoothly over many years to encourage conservation (including the things you mention), drive demand for more fuel efficiency, and in the long term, encourage the electrification of the remaining fleet.

The vast majority of Canadians want the government to do something serious about climate change, but they don't know what that thing is. Economists said a carbon tax and rebate was the most efficient, but public support isn't driven by economic papers, but by propaganda machines. It's just too easy to blame the carbon tax for everyone's problems. It's the perfect boogeyman for inflation. Heavy handed regulation of industrial emitters would probably be the most supported by the public, but it would have a terrible impact on Canadian industry, and actually be limited in it's effectiveness, as most of Canada's emissions would still be "free."

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The market shouldn't be focused on fuel efficiency but on total energy efficiency. Constantly pushing cars to be more effecient is still significantly less effecient than well built transit and active transport like walking. Our cities are built based on sprawl and strict zoning, consuming more land and requiring more resources to build roads and infrastructure. Existing spaces in downtowns or old retail sit vacant for years while new developments continue outside of town.

The government can reduce carbon emissions by encouraging people to use less carbon during their daily commutes by building effecient cities. Denser housing and commercial units are also more themerally effecient. This could actually reduce the amount of carbon generated from transportstion and heating rather than collect money from the carbon generated.

[–] ChemicalPilgrim@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Increasing the price of carbon means people will have an incentive to stop generating so much of it. If it's free to put another ton of CO2 into the atmosphere many people won't think twice about doing it.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Yes, but there has to be viable alternatives to actually let people change.

People won't stop using the highway for their commute if there isn't another option like a train, reliable rapid transit bus, or an affordable apartment closer to the office.

[–] ChemicalPilgrim@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Most people won't demand any of that if gas is cheap. It requires political will to get public transit built and funded.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Public transit is the standard and the normal around the world. People will commute to work in whichever way is fastest and conveneient for them. Many people would rather read a book or browse the web while a train takes them to work over sitting in traffic. The only reason we don't currently demand it is because many people in Canada have never experienced good transit and walkability so they really don't know we could be building much better. Your mobility freedom in this country is nearly dependant on a driver's lisence or access to a car.

We shouldn't have to be doing the tax shake down and public revolt steps when we know by the numbers that transit is more energy and carbon effecient. Once those alternatives exist, a carbon tax would be much more effective because now people actually have a choice in their transportation.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The carbon tax isn't a "shakedown" btw, the income is redistributed.

Are you suggesting there is a city in Canada that doesn't have some form of public transit? I'm not aware of any large cities like that so I really struggle to understand why you feel the carbon pricing wouldn't be effective right now.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Having public transit is not the same as having reliable and competitive public transit. The transit has to be reliably competitive in travel time and cost to truly see people shift to using it. If most car commutes in the city are 25 minutes, and the average transit time is 1hr 15 minutes, the transit is not competetive enough to attract riders except those with no other option at all.

Transit can be improved by extending the network, increasing the frequency, improving the speed (like dedicated bus lanes or light rail lines), and competitive pricing.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

All of those improvements do and are happening though, but ridership is used to inform the changes.

The denser parts of cities do have transit that accomplishes what you're asking for.

[–] Someone@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately a lot of people don't live in cities at all, let alone the dense parts with the service like you describe. EVs may not be the answer overall, but for many people across the country they're the only viable first step away from ICE vehicles.

Right now with affordability the way it is, it feels like we're getting a lot of stick without much carrot.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

A lot of people do love in dense areas in cities though. That's what makes them dense.

And programs like the carbon pricing makes those places more attractive to build denser housing.

EVs don't even need to be the only alternative, if the carbon pricing is encouraging someone to buy a more fuel efficient ICE vehicle, the incentive is still working.

I still have such a hard time understanding how people are calling the carbon pricing setup a stick, most of us are getting more money back from the program. Yes overall oil prices worldwide have gone up since the program started, but international oil prices aren't impacted by Canadian carbon pricing policy...

[–] Someone@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago

Not everything is black and white. I can agree with the idea of a carbon tax while also acknowledging how it can feel less fair to different people in different areas.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/axe-the-tax-and-carbon-rebate-how-canada-households-affected-1.7046905

This post might help you understand how the carbon tax and rebate system works

[–] Oderus@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Yes, but there has to be viable alternatives to actually let people change.

But what comes first? An incentive to change or an alternative to the status quo that's been here for over 100 years?

Incentives are needed. Otherwise, as long as it's free to pollute, people won't do anything.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Public transit is public infrastructure.

Did you move into your house before the road to it was built? Or before the water, sewage, and electricity was built?

If we thought of transit the same way, we could have policies like developers need to consider transit connections on new developments just like they'd need to consider roads, sewers and electrcity. The longer we put off building transit, the longer its gonna take to have it working and reducing carbon emissions.

[–] Oderus@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Did you move into your house before the road to it was built? Or before the water, sewage, and electricity was built?

What does that have to do with a carbon tax or what I said? Seems you're making an argument on my behalf and then arguing with yourself.

[–] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

The alternative to the status quo is the incentive to change. If you build the transit and make it a viable alternative in terms of costs and time, people will take it: millennials, gen z, and soon gen alpha aren't driving at the rate of previous generations for many reasons, they want public transit but they are forced to drive. If cities actually start to prioritize public and active transit infrastructure improvements over those for single occupancy vehicles in a meaningful way people will take them. This is one of those candy for dinner scenarios where the public wants what they want without understanding why it's not good for them and the gov't needs to step up and do what's right instead of caving to the pressure.

[–] Oderus@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The alternative to the status quo is the incentive to change

That doesn't even make sense because it assumes there's already an alternative and public transit is not an alternative method of transportation for many if not most people.

It works for me, so I use public transportation daily but I know many people I work with drive in because they live far from work and public transit is a nightmare if you have to transfer between train/bus or bus/bus. Even then, my bus is often late, or doesn't show up and there's nothing I can do about it other than complain to the city, which they just ignore anyway.

Adding a cost to driving will force people to reconsider their habits and when enough people have to change, we can demand the city do better with transit. Right now, if you have money, you will not take public transit. It doesn't make sense for people with money and poor people have no choice to take public transit.

[–] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Adding a cost to driving will force people to reconsider their habits and when enough people have to change, we can demand the city do better with transit. Right now, if you have money, you will not take public transit. It doesn't make sense for people with money and poor people have no choice to take public transit.

And if there is no viable alternative for then to turn to they will not change their minds. We build the infrastructure first, and change the public's mind second with improved commute time, more money in their pocket, etc. I'd rather not wait several years after the public has finally got it through their "me first mentality" to start the decades long process of expanding our pathetic transportation infrastructure to bring us to s21st century standard. We are a half a century behind countries in Europe and Asian in regards to our transit infrastructure, the best time to build it was 50 years ago, the second best is today not in 5 years when driving a car is no longer possible for the majority of people.

I could take the bus to work, but it turns my 2hrs of driving a day into 5 hours of commuting. I would never give up my car until that option is viable, and that's not going to happen until we have the infrastructure to make it viable.

[–] Oderus@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Viable is subjective. If you have enough money, public transit is never viable. Poor people already can't afford to drive so we're trying to change the minds of people who can afford to drive but don't want to take public transit. The 'me first mentality' is what got us into this mess to start with so the solution needs to speak to those people and money does that.

My buddy at work just changed his driving habits due to increasing costs so he's going from a 25m drive to 1h15m taking public transit. Hardly ideal but that's the point as no city government has the money to spend on new public transit infrastructure until enough voters want it to happen.

Using your own example, you'll continue to drive despite the negative impact to the environment unless the city magically makes your 5 hour commute as quick as your 2 hour drive or the cost of driving forces your hand. Speaking of 'me first mentality'...

[–] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Public transit is viable if it means you're commute is faster. There will always be people with an excess amount of money but why do we give a shit what they want, they are a demographic who doesn't need support. Better public transit for those who can't afford to drive means less cars on the road for those who need to or choose to drive which means faster commutes for everyone. It's a win win situation but people are too short sighted to see that.

Cities, provinces, and the feds have the money to build out our public transit infrastructure they just don't want to because it means more work and a chance they will lose votes. Much like parent of the child who wants to eat candy for dinner, the gov't needs to step up and act like the leaders they claim they are, and not roll over like some weak ass parent who is scared of their kids. Vancouver Island, where I live, has a rail corridor going from Courtenay to Victoria that could realistically serve the majority of the islands population yet the municipalities refuse to look at it because the people who vote (seniors) think it's a waste of money, don't want change at the end of their lives, and have all the free time in the world to organize, to write letters to politicians, to go on media campaigns, etc.

Also, I find it laughable that you think I have a me first mentality for not wanting to waste 5 hours of my day commuting when my government refuses to give me a real alternative. If the rail corridor was open and I still chose to drive then sure, that's valid criticism. Until I can move closer to my job (doubtful with $2000+/month for a 2 br) or there's a viable alternative that doesn't mean I lose all agency in my life to save $20 a month then I'm going to continue to drive and if the govt wants me to stop because they "care about the environmental impact" then they can do their job and uphold the public interests and give me and everyone else on the island a real, practical, and economic alternative to driving. This is no different than blaming the consumer about all the plastic bottle waste instead of regulating the industry that produces them.

[–] Someone@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

I am also on Vancouver Island and I completely agree with you. I work at 2 different locations and either one my commute to work is about 45 minutes by car, by bus it is actually impossible. One location has the nearest bus stop 6km away (all 90km/h highway with narrow shoulders) while the other would drop me off at the front door, the schedules don't line up though and I'd have to leave my house for work before I got home the day before. It's theoretically possible to do in about 2 hours, but only with perfect connections and they only line up right in the middle of the day. Not to mention it would require tickets for 2 separate transit systems which add up to almost the same as gas. Housing prices are so insane here too, that moving anywhere (whether it's one house over, right beside work, or anywhere in-between) would cost me more in monthly rent than I'd pay in gas if I drove a Hummer to work.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

And if there is no viable alternative for then to turn to they will not change their minds.

Policy like this isn't meant to impact everyone the same way.

If a city has public transit, they likely have coverage targets. Every city does this differently, but in most cities, the majority of people are targetted to be covered.

This means that if more people start using the system who are covered, it's more likely the system itself will be expanded to cover more places.

But you're all missing the 2nd incentive, this could also incentivise people to move to places near transit and could encourage higher density buildings near better transit.

Both of those are things you want, and both of them are things the carbon pricing helps do.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

How do you build transit infrastructure when you don't know where the demand is?

I encourage you to look into China's bullet train network, they did what you're suggesting. And the last I heard the system is struggling because the stations and lines weren't built where people actually needed them so it's heavily underutalized.

The most successful public transit systems were ones built up over time. It's going to take decades to fix public transit in many of our cities, are there any cities that aren't doing this?

Also remember that city policy falls under provincial jurisdiction. I was surprised this year to even see the feds start trying to throw money at that problem and incentivise cities to rethink zoning. But it takes time, and it also takes voting people who care into the right spots (city hall and provincial governments)

[–] Someone@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

But what comes first?

The carbon tax disincentive came first, and I think most reasonable people would agree it made sense whether it cost them personally or not. The problem is that for a lot of people the disincentive keeps growing while the alternatives haven't improved at all.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca -1 points 11 months ago

No city can just build alternatives if they don't know where the demand is.

Before a city can justify building anywhere,there needs to be demand. Both sides need to increase in stride.

Viable, but not perfect alternatives do already exist, and if more people use them they will get better, that is exactly what putting a price on carbon does.

[–] Anon819450514@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Almost like they should prepare and build those public services before applying tax. Applying a tax with no alternative is just a greed tax.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What's the tax in this case? The current carbon tax is redistributed equally, so there's no greed there, it's effectively more of a wealth transfer then a tax.

[–] Anon819450514@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Even though the carbon tax gets dristributed equally at the end of the year, everything around me is inflated because of gas prices, all year long. A new electric car is damn expensive, I don't have the wealth to buy an electric car. If I have to pay a tax on everyday stuff, then I won't ever have the money to buy an electric car. At the end of the day, the government is taking money I could have used for something else, even though I "get" it back at the end of the year, I should be able to make my own decision hence the "why tax me, or why punish me when there is no alternative".

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/axe-the-tax-and-carbon-rebate-how-canada-households-affected-1.7046905

Just a reminder that you're getting money money back from the carbon rebate program then you are putting in (and the calculation accounts for everything around you getting more expensive)

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The rebate is paid out quarterly

The trouble you're having is with increased gas prices is a global problem not caused by the carbon tax, oil prices have gone up everywhere.

You asking to get rid of the carbon tax is just you asking to have less money in your pocket, which is hard to understand when you're also complaining about costs.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

Find out what the carbon tax goes to.

[–] MooseGas@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

I don't understand why they don't use carbon tax revenues to fund public transit, electric car rebates, and other noticeable benefits. Instead, I pay carbon tax to heat my house, on my fuel and I still have to pay $20 a day in transit.

Instead, it's a black hole of who knows where it goes. This is the Canadian way of solving problems though. More taxes and no accountability until it bites us in the ass.

I'm just going to edit to add:

Electric cars aren't great in Canada. Distances are often too far and cold weather really restricts batteries. We will always need some type of fuel.

Same with home heating. Heat pumps don't work in very cold weather. We will still need to burn fuel.

In both cases we are paying carbon tax when we really have choice of "cleaner" alternatives.

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 11 points 11 months ago

Instead, it's a black hole of who knows where it goes.

It goes into those cheques they mail out every few months, that they somehow completely failed to label "carbon tax rebate" cheques.

[–] Sir_Osis_of_Liver@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The federal carbon tax doesn't go into a black hole its rebated back to taxpayers.

Atlantic Canada only got limited access to natural gas in the last fifteen years. Most homes are heated by electricity or fuel oil, both more expensive than NG. After the oil shocks of the 70s, governments incentivized switching to electricity. Over 60% of houses in NB are heated that way, mostly by baseboard heaters. Baseboards are roughly 100% efficient, while heat pumps are 2 to 3 times that.

Air to air heat pumps work down to about -20C, after that the heating coils will kick in. That's when heat pumps gets more expensive, on par with baseboards.

Base rwd Model 3 has a range of 430kms. With a 20% drop, you're still at 345kms in really cold weather. Even in Toronto, 75% of driving commutes are less than 25kms, and it's the worst case scenario.

One thing people like to ignore, average house sizes have doubled since the 1960s (1200sq ft to 2400sq ft) even as families became smaller than ever. Add in stupid fashions like 10ft ceilings, and heating costs are going to go nowhere but up.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

Ford analysed billions of km from their professional users to determine the range necessary on a full battery on the e-transit, they then increased that number by a good margin just in case.

200km. That's the number they came up with after analysing the habits of people who use their vehicle daily for work and people who take their car to travel 15km to and from work complain that electric cars don't have enough range with 300km+ available! Heck, you save so much on maintenance and gas that you can just rent a gas car when absolutely required!

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Oh fuck off

My mother does 35000km a year and she did it with a Nissan Leaf (250km range) until we moved far enough that she decided to get an i3 with the generator (180km electric + gas generator) so she can do it without having to charge the few times a year she'll come visit, 95% of the time she doesn't need gas at all and she only charges at home. Before getting the i3 she was renting a gas car once a year to visit our family just because of one stretch where she wasn't sure the charging station would work. The Canadian average yearly mileage is less than half of that, it's just excuses to not change to something new even if it's better.

Not even going to touch on how wrong you are about the carbon tax because others have already covered that.

Edit: Heat pumps work at temperature under -25 and you can use other types of electric heaters for the days that go under that, no need to use fuel.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

It's not a black hole. It's nearly completely paid back to Canadians evenly such that most Canadians get more back.

What's also neat is that every single province could do exactly what you're suggesting. All the federal government mandated was a price on carbon, each province could implement whatever system they wanted.

Like everything these days, our worst problems are at the provincial levels, and people don't seem to understand or realize that.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/axe-the-tax-and-carbon-rebate-how-canada-households-affected-1.7046905

I know you had a lot of unbacked up claims in your comment, but I wanted to remind you that most people get money back from the carbon rebate then they paid in.

[–] rab@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yeah because it's just pinning the issue on regular people who have no control over climate change

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/axe-the-tax-and-carbon-rebate-how-canada-households-affected-1.7046905

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

The carbon pricing redistributes the earnings back to people.

This then does let people have an impact on climate change by influencing them to choose products that produce less carbon and therefore appear to cost less.

The genius is that the price difference is artificial, if on average people in the province choose the more expensive option, they will make back the difference quarterly.

As is the system only really penalizes people who consistently choose the more carbon inefficient options and do it a lot.

Canada

Communities

Rules