Conversation

Notices

1. Adam (inkslinger@mastodon.club)'s status on Thursday, 07-Mar-2019 14:02:29 EST Adam

   The Alberta carbon tax is actually good, but the NDP have done a shit job of showing people that it's working.

   https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/keith-gerein-its-time-for-the-ucp-to-show-its-cards-on-climate-change

   1. M. Grégoire (mpjgregoire@mastodon.club)'s status on Thursday, 07-Mar-2019 14:08:06 EST M. Grégoire

      in reply to

      @ink_slinger *Is* it doing much good? The article says that Albertans are taking money from the #CarbonTax and spending it on solar panels, LRTs, light bulbs etc. Those measures probably reduce energy usage. But you can't measure the effectiveness of a policy by how much money is spent implementing it.

      #abpol

      1. Adam (inkslinger@mastodon.club)'s status on Thursday, 07-Mar-2019 15:19:50 EST Adam

         in reply to

         @mpjgregoire True. I suppose it's not accurate, based on that, to say it's working. Rather, the money is being used for the intended purpose of reducing carbon footprints and is going back into the community rather than just being the *waves hands* government money grab the UCP suggests.

         1. M. Grégoire (mpjgregoire@mastodon.club)'s status on Thursday, 07-Mar-2019 17:04:41 EST M. Grégoire

            in reply to

            @ink_slinger I'm not even sure how certain one can be about "reduced carbon footprint". If doughnuts are half off, maybe you buy twice as many; the same may hold true for energy efficiency.

            In an ideal carbon tax, it's the increased cost that's supposed to do the work of cutting emissions, not the money that is raised.

            1. Adam (inkslinger@mastodon.club)'s status on Thursday, 07-Mar-2019 17:14:13 EST Adam

               in reply to

               @mpjgregoire Why not both? Ideally, people cut emissions to avoid the tax, of course. But why *not* invest the money that is raised to further reduce emissions?

               An oversimplification, perhaps, but the principle seems sound.

               1. Adam (inkslinger@mastodon.club)'s status on Thursday, 07-Mar-2019 17:17:35 EST Adam

                  in reply to

                  @mpjgregoire As to the doughnut analogy...depends on what we're talking about, I suppose. Maybe some industrial emissions remain the same because they can now "afford" to operate twice as long because their energy costs are cut in half due to increased efficiency (not that simple, due to other overhead costs, I know).

                  But in other contexts, emissions are truly reduced. I'm not going to leave my lights on all night just because LEDs are more efficient than incandescent.

                  1. Adam (inkslinger@mastodon.club)'s status on Thursday, 07-Mar-2019 17:18:11 EST Adam

                     in reply to

                     @mpjgregoire But, yeah, ultimately all of this stuff is super complicated. I guess that's why I'm just some asshole on the Internet and not a public policy wonk.