The True Cost of Canadian Carbon Taxes
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июн 2024
- Discussion on carbon taxes, exemptions, and how the carbon tax is affecting your grocery bill. With referenced examples
If you disagree with what I've presented please let me know down in the comments or come to my discord and discuss with me.
Below are my socials if you'd like to follow future videos and updates.
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / dddecarbon
Reddit: / dddecarbonization
Time stamps:
0:00 Intro
0:40 Tombe's Assessment
1:18 CPI vs Carbon Tax
2:44 Hidden Costs and Exemptions
4:53 Genesse Coal Plant Example
6:37 Food Costs
7:48 Danielle Smith Is Dumb
7:55 Food Cost Table
References:
1. Canada: food consumption per capita by product 2022. Statista www.statista.com/forecasts/13....
2. Canada’s 2024 food price report is here. What experts are saying. vancouver.citynews.ca/2023/12....
3. Rack, Y. Canada’s carbon tax: Who’s paying (and not paying). Corporate Knights www.corporateknights.com/clim... (2022).
4. International, R. C. Canada’s carbon price is set to increase by $10 on April 1. RCI | English www.rcinet.ca/en/2021/03/27/c... (2021).
5. Winter, J., Dolter, B. & Fellows, G. K. Carbon Pricing Costs for Households and the Progressivity of Revenue Recycling Options in Canada. Canadian Public Policy 49, 13-45 (2023).
6. December 7, P. O. O. published on P. O. & 2023. Carbon pricing is not to blame for Canada’s affordability challenges. Policy Options policyoptions.irpp.org/magazi....
7. tdus. Cows and Climate Change. UC Davis www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/mak... (2019).
8. Crude Oil Prices - 70 Year Historical Chart. www.macrotrends.net/1369/crud....
9. Government of Canada, S. C. Electric power selling price index, monthly. www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/... (2016).
10. Enabling a True 24/7 Carbon-Free Resource Portfolio for Great River Energy with Multi-Day Storage. formenergy.com/wp-content/upl....
11. Ritchie, H., Rosado, P. & Roser, M. Environmental Impacts of Food Production. Our World in Data (2022).
12. Food costs for typical family of four projected to rise by $700 in 2024, report says. The Globe and Mail (2023).
13. Agency, C. R. Fuel charge relief. www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agen... (2023).
14. Genesee Generating Station. Capital Power www.capitalpower.com/about-ge....
15. Thomas, L. How Indirect and Direct Manufacturing Costs Impact Profitability. aPriori www.apriori.com/blog/discover... (2023).
16. LILLEY: Trudeau targets cow burps and your ability to afford beef. torontosun torontosun.com/opinion/column... (2023).
17. News ·, R. J. · C. NB Power to dodge major carbon taxes after Ottawa proposes looser rules on coal plants | CBC News. CBC www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-br... (2018).
18. Product Carbon Footprints (PCF) and Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) | myclimate. www.myclimate.org/en/get-acti....
19. Chen, Y. & Tombe, T. Rise, Stall, or Fall: The Key Drivers Behind Inflation’s Path in Canada. SSRN Journal (2023) doi:10.2139/ssrn.4633068.
20. Loveday, D. & Ferguson, K. Rob Holland, Director Center for Profitable Agriculture.
21. Chen, Y. & Tombe, T. The Rise (And Fall?) of Inflation in Canada: A Detailed Analysis of Its Post-Pandemic Experience. SSRN Scholarly Paper at doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4215492 (2023).
22. The State Of Carbon Pricing In Canada. Canadian Climate Institute climateinstitute.ca/reports/t....
23. U.S. Crude Oil First Purchase Price (Dollars per Barrel). www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Lea.... 
Кино
I found this very through! Good work keep it up!
The evidence presented does not demonstrate that the carbon tax will be both efficacious in achieving its objectives and equitable in its implementation.
@@ardentenquirer8573 I love the help with algorithm but you as stating things that were not the point of video.
@@DDDecarbon You make the claim " The truth of the Carbon tax you are not giving people the truth!The government has consistently failed to conduct a thorough examination and clearly articulate the anticipated outcomes resulting from these changes. There seems to be a glaring absence of a definitive statement from the government that delineates desired outcomes and their corresponding benefits. Ideally, these outcomes should align closely with the aspirations and necessities of the citizens, ensuring that policies genuinely cater to what the people desire and need for a fulfilling life.
@@ardentenquirer8573 I believe in the carbon tax the same way I believe in the clean air act. CO2 is a negative extranality that is not accounted for by the market and should be costed into the market. It is a simple and elegant as that. And if you bothered to watch any of the videos you've commented on you'd be able to at least argue against those points but since you clearly haven't watched my videos I have to repeat myself. I know this cause literally the only thing you reference is the video name, and none of the substance.
This series of three video's is excellent ... for someone like me with the background and time to consume them. Consider producing a single short video summarizing your response to Poilievre's claims ... one that the average soccer mom ... or dad ... might consume if they found it in a feed. I think we all really want an election based on facts rather than on disinformation ... and your material can be a big help!
Good idea, I plan on making a few shorts and some more videos on numerous other policy topics. I do have a couple work trips coming up so there will be a bit of a wait sorry.
What about the hidden costs of carbon pollution? Right now ordinary people bear all of the costs of pollution, so we need to tax the polluters even more to transfer that wealth to people.
CO2 IS NOT POLLUTION YOU NEED IT FOR PLANETS TO GROW. IT IS PART OF THE NATURAL CARBON CYCLE ON EARTH
This video is mainly about the hidden costs. That's why I go into the life cycle analysis and average costs.
Since the carbon tax is about scope 1 emissions all you need to look at is lifecycle emissions. Making the math a lot easier.
Though I do agree. The industry definitely isn't taxed enough. And that report I used also comes to the same conclusion.
So you're just a moron who defends a tax that attacks your average day person when we know for a FACT that over 70% of pollution is done by corporations. You're just a shill for the elite with no regard for your fellow man
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is essential for plant and tree growth. Humans breath it out continuously. Climate change is the next hoax after the covid "vaccines". Temperatures are rising, as they did in the time of the Vikings when they farmed extensively in southern Greenland, but not for the reasons that the lefties tell us. The latest rant by these fanatics warns that the earth will boil. They have the scientific knowledge of a toddler or they are lying with a straight face. Climate clowns have been predicting the end of the earth now for more than half a century. So many catastrophic predictions have come and gone. It is a means to tax, instill fear to control the population, and promote the leftist agenda. Only the ignorant blame climate change on humans. The more scientifically ignorant these fanatics, the more outrageous their beliefs. These morons should be locked up so that they don’t hurt themselves or cause more damage to society.
Can you discuss how policy is affecting KPIs, at what point we'll see an ROI and what factors will be present given the new landscape?
I didn't hear much about how our policies can work in isolation to achieve stated goals nor how 0 emissions everywhere at this point can reverse the changes already taking place like accelerated increase of methane.
Correct me if I'm wrong but by KPIs you mean reductions in CO2 emissions? And ROI you mean when when we'll start reducing emissions globally or is this an economic question? I'm not quite sure what you mean by factors present.
1. From the studies I've seen you around 4-6% CO2 reductions at a 40$/t (on 30% of emissions) so average like 15 $/t. A recent study showed BC's plan reduced per capita emissions by 15%.
2. It is hard to know, it kind of depends on how well we stick to commitments. I believe the IPCC is predicting a temperature of 2.5-3 degrees by 2100. But with commitments from Paris Accords that number should be closer to 2.
You're right these policies don't work in isolation. But the EU is making massive strides to decarbonization, the US emissions have come down by a couple percent, and there is something like 25% of global emissions have some kind of carbon tax on them currently.
Zero emissions today would have a huge impact. I'm not quite sure where that data is from. We'd hit 1.5C by 2100 if we stopped emitting today.
Sorry I'm on mobile right now and don't have all the exact numbers off hand, but these numbers are close off the top of my head.
Anyway hope this answers most of your questions. Happy to answer any other questions or you can come to my discord and chat.
@@DDDecarbonIt's a well thought out answer, and I thank you.
The only KPI that matters is global temperature and by that matter, reduction in natural disasters since that's the only reason to focus aggressively on C02 reduction.
It's important to be able to gage these metrics, but I fear we don't have an accurate way to, nor is there an end game leading to this outcome.
When 100% of the world switches to grid powered energy before we peak in number of disasters impacting infrastructure, that contributes to a host of other negative outcomes that the policies are designed to mitigate (health, wealth, prosperity, quality of life, etc).
Your math is on point, but I think it's very narrow in terms of risk/benefits and desired outcomes for the vast majority affected today by the policies.
@@nospamman4443 I disagree with the natural disaster part to some degree, there are a number of other negatives with just having a hotter earth like crop death for instance. That's why economists break out the data to include and not include them when estimating the right carbon tax. But you're right the most important KPI is temperature.
I agree the math is narrow I was just trying to show this specific case for Canadians, since there is a lot of misinformation on this subject. And blaming the carbon tax for inflation. All the stuff you mentioned is a number of videos in and of themselves.
@@DDDecarbon in a follow up video, it would be nice to contrast how temperature and C02 affect crops given that both are important and mutually inclusive in determining the quality and yield of crops. Thanks for the great info!
@@nospamman4443 awesome idea! I'd love too. However Potholer54 has done some of that if you're interested:ruclips.net/video/VJoijPh2i-A/видео.htmlsi=YCHyXEpHwclHSSYN
I took a lot of inspiration from his channel.
When analyzing any government policy, I always wonder who the person is and wonder what level of education they have. This isn't to discredit anyone, as you've listed your sources description, but rather to see a level of credibility they have. What level education or experience do you have? And is it related to this government policies?
I'm an engineer, and I work in the natural resource industry to not dox myself too much. Hence why I use an avatar and not my face. I'm younger but do have a couple of papers written around this subject matter regarding hydrogen, renewable energy etc.
TBH my referencing is pretty lazy for these videos. I should be time-stamping the references or putting numbers on screen and linking those to the references.
But I like math, not as great on the English part haha, so I like to recreate the math that happens in studies to give myself a better understanding of the data. That's not always possible since sometimes only the derivations are available and final results but not a bunch of the middle work.
My goal with the channel is to not only communicate the information in these studies but actually show people an example of how the math works so they can have more confidence in what is being shown.
Feel free to jump into my discord if you want to chat and I guess see for yourself haha.
When beef is raised on regenerative farms, its a massive carbon sink.
That's not really true at least from what I could find. There seems to be one study that supports this claim kind of. But the study is yet to be peer reviewed and was prepared by the people with the most to gain, I wouldn't put it high on my list of trusted sources. working-lands.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/WOP-LCA-Quantis-2019.pdf. Regardless it don't think massive carbon sink would be the term I'd use, more like mild sink. Also it costs more money and takes up more land so there's definately trade offs. The other research I was finding was more in line with a 46% reduction in emissions, which is good, but not a sink. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248168/ and www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17310338
This was a cursory glace, so I could definately be missing something, but a 50% reduction is still great especially if you pair it with something like methane reduction diets.
@@DDDecarbon You're not looking hard enough to find the evidence that regenerative farming practices are a carbon sink, probably because eating meat doesn't align with your ideology. There is countless science on regenerative faming sequesters carbon.
Solar and wind are not the best option, nuclear is. The capacity factor of nuclear is like 98%, wind and solar is like 25% if you're lucky. Once you add in the cost of a backup system for W&S, nuclear wins without question.
This is not accurate, that's why we do the LCOE estimates, they include battery systems and capacity factors are included in the overall payback and costs. At the end of the day nuclear is really hard to green light, they consitently overrun their costs and have significant delays. You have to compare capacity factors to cost to install, when you normalize that you can produce more energy from solar and wind on a per unit basis. Plus they are more polically easy to get up and running. Nuclear unfortunately loses on nearly every metric once you include all the costs and the risk factor (not safetly but North America's inability to build them cheaply or on time).
I'm making a video about this and it should be up in a couple of days and even when I give nuclear the benefit of the doubt is comes out as still more expensive than solar, producing less energy, and it looks even worse against wind which has a capacity closer to 45%. Nuclear is a good secondary system but for primary purposes solar and wind have kicked its ass, this conversation might be different if we didn't dog fuck 40 years of nuclear development but alas.
@@DDDecarbon no. you're letting your ideology get in the way. nukes not getting the green light is due to govt bureaucracy, not because they are ineffective. cost overruns apply to all projects not just nuclear. small scale nukes also have a tonne of potential. and what you're leaving out is that wind and solar have very limited siting options and require massive footprints. the wind doesn't blow everywhere, the sun doesn't shine well everywhere. nuclear can be sited much easier. and the cost of energy storage systems puts WS outside of reality if they don't have coal/gas/nuke baseload. I don't know why the climate crisis crowd fights nuclear and regen farms so hard. They are the best solutions. promoting wind, solar and vegan diets over nukes and regen meat shows its ideology based, not science based.
Interesting analysis but I'm not convinced carbon is the metric that matters. From what I've seen it is more of a dogma that co2 effects the climate in the method that concensus dictates atm.
Not saying that humans don't effect the environment, just concerned that fixation on carbon may lead to negligence on holistically stewardship of the environment.
Also generally not a fan of taxes, but from what I can see it'd be more effective to put large tariffs on imports from countries that use high pollution sources of energy like coal rather than internal taxation.
Going into how carbon dioxide affects climate is a video series in and of itself. Without having to read lots of papers NASA does a good job of explaining the evidence climate.nasa.gov/.
Humans are like 99% the cause and you could argue a small amount from volcanoes. But other things like solar radiance and Milanovich cycles would predict colder weather not hotter.
Most people aren't fans of taxes but this one's more like the clean Air act. If you watch my first video.
The EU is implementing an important carbon tax. So if Canada doesn't do things to decarbonize we'll get dinged pretty badly. I also believe in a carbon import tax to make a level playing ground.
Oh, that's cute. I replied to DDDecarbon's reply to you last night with a bunch of facts and it got erased today. Just more evidence that this guy is probably a political plant to gin up support for Trudeau and steal support from Poilievre.
Tax on tax.Why are my bills and food cost gone up past the rebate?
Cause we have terrible anti-trust policy in Canada.
Subscribed. Well researched number crunching and respectful towards my own opinion (that we should 🪓 the tax) .
Previous video had the collected prodeeds of the tax going 90% back to people and 10% towards subsidies for renewables.
If the goal is to incentivize people why return 90%, just make it 10% and actually apply it to subsidies?
Needlessly complicating it.
We could avoid all this math by just applying 1% CST to all goods and services. Give the poorer folks a nice CST rebate on top of their GST rebate. Done nice and easy.
Possibly, you'd want to look at the math and number crunching to make sure it's actually incentivizing that behavior. Though I think taxing emissions are easier cause the math is simple since it's basic mass and energy balance calculations. You also want to incentize things like say solar and wind since they produce very little emissions they should benefit from not being taxed. A CST might be too broad, but I'm glad we have some common ground always happy to chat in my discord if you're interested.
Because in a country where most people are taxed over 40% of their income what's the harm in stealing more of their money?
@@masterhodir890 I'm not for taxes. I'm here to see how people I don't necessarily agree with think and get a better understanding of a subject I don't have the time or inclination to research in the same detail.
Watching all the numbers get crunches shows me all the different ways the carbon tax may be over or under represented and makes me think it's over complicated to determine what effect it's truly having, where adding something like a GST is more straightforward. I'd still want it scrapped too, but it would be easier to provide a solid defense for or against it.
Comment for the Algorithm.
It's essential to critically analyze the stated goal of "reducing emissions" in relation to the government's immigration policy. While the objective might seem straightforward, its alignment with broader policies becomes questionable. For instance, one must consider the tangible repercussions on everyday citizens, such as the evident impact on grocery bills. Merely explaining how exemptions function does not inherently validate their fairness or equity. In fact, the very essence of fairness is brought into question when exemptions are examined closely. Thus, the disconnect between the overarching emission reduction goal and its implications, especially concerning immigration policies and exemptions, underscores the need for a more comprehensive and transparent evaluation.
I literally do the math for the grocery bill costs. You have the audacity to comment this much on my videos and not even watch them?? Also you write as if you're writing an english thesis by my estimation to make you sound smarter since nothing you actually say has any substance. This entire comment could be summarized in 2 lines or less. Again bringing up Immigration is completely irrelevant to the video topic being discussed.
To ascertain the credibility and efficacy of the policy, it's crucial to demonstrate its soundness and validity. In essence, the key questions are: Will this policy effectively achieve its intended outcomes? Furthermore, will it do so in a manner that ensures fairness and equity for all stakeholders involved? You have not proved this point yet!
There is only so much one can cover in a single video. And my focus was on the mechanics of the policy. My previous video delves deeper into how it works.
If you'd like to discuss this directly I invite you to my discord server.
Data dorks are the worst. Meanwhile in real life...
As mentioned before I live in BC where there's been a carbon tax since 2008. I see Im charged carbon tax on my home heating, and at the pump. I have never received a carbon tax rebate. Also this tax has made zero difference globally on co2 emissions.
I love that line - I'm a proud data dork.
I'm not sure how much money you make but if you're saying that you recieve nothing then you're making at least more than 61k/year www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/income-taxes/personal/credits/climate-action
The tax has reduced per capita emissions in BC by over 15% which is a huge win. We have to realize a lot this will take time, we are not just turning the corner on prices that actually incetize things like carbon capture. Once that occurs we'll have a huge reduction in emissions. This is a step function not a linear one. It's a good thing the EU is also doing things like this and the US is decarbonizing too. You look at Canada in an insular way but we're part of the broader system and doing our part.
You are also making economic decisions that driving is better than walking or biking or bussing. That's the beauty of the tax you have the freedom to choose whether you pay it or not. You've made that mental calculation that paying for it is more beneficial than not. Congratulations on participating in a functioning capitalist economy, its awesome when the free market works.
I will extend an invite to my discord if you want to chat more or look into ways on how you can reduce your emissions and costs.
@@DDDecarbon so BC reduced it carbon emissions by 15% but what is that globally? The beauty of the tax are you for real? Some people live in remote locations in BC where walking or riding a bicycle are not viable option.
@@SuperCody888 that is municipal issue that can be fixed. Globally like the EU which will start putting import carbon taxes on goods. So by not decarbonizing now we jepordize trade relations with them. It takes time to reduce emissions but we have the technology to do it and the policy tools like the carbon tax to make it work.
@@DDDecarbon but that doesn't answer my question. If BC reduced its carbon emissions by 15% how much is that globally?
@@SuperCody888 I see what you're trying to do, which is minimize what's being said by saying the emissions are low. But in the same breathe you seem to be saying that this carbon tax which is objectively low is somehow a problem. It's all totally irrelevant, that's why we look at per capita emissions. At the end of the day the carbon tax has reduce carbon emissions and had zero impact on GDP, which makes it objectively a good policy.
"Dungeons Deadlifts and Decarbonization," are you prepared to assert confidently that this policy, along with its numerous exceptions, accomplishes three crucial objectives? First, will it genuinely achieve its intended goals? Second, does it ensure fairness and equity for all? And third, does it avoid putting the less privileged at a disadvantage? If you cannot substantiate these three claims with certainty, then advocating and making videos for such a policy will inadvertently do more harm than good. " Unintended consequence"
I've answered your questions as thoughfully as I can, but you've posted on both my videos so far, not engaging with any of their substance. Stawmanning my positions and bringing up things that are irrelvant to the context of the videos. I'm happy to soak up the engagement, but you are clearing engaging in bad faith. I've invited you to air your positions multiple times and you've yet to answer.
All the claims you've put here I've answered before to you on my previous video and to people in Reddit comments.
1. Yes it works, there is a body of reserach showing such and I plan on making another video about it.
2. This is irrelevant, we don't measure the effectiveness on fairness. It's measured on effectiveness
3. Poor people get more back from the rebates since they are generally lower carbon emitters
All your comments just go to show your lack of understand in this field and I would encourage you to watch Potholer54's videos to get at least a cursoury knowledge of the subject matter before you comment irrelevant and nonsensicle dictations.
You know what does more harm than good? Unabated climate change, it's why we implement the carbon tax to reduce emissions such that the negative consequences don't compound over time and create worse outcomes in the future. It's a question of mitigation vs adaptation. And mitigation now is less expensive than adaptation later. So no it does not do more harm than good. Doing nothing like you seem to imply in your comments is causing more harm. This is the broad economist view on subject which I explained in my previous video that you also strawmanned and misrepresented.
@@DDDecarbondon't waste anymore time with these trolls, especially when you've put the answer in these excellent videos
@@DDDecarbon NO YOU HAVE NOT YOU ARE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ON THE CARBON TAX NOR THE CARBON CYCLE. YOU ARE LYING!!!!DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET? YOU DRANK THE KOOL-AID
The title suggests an exploration of the 'truth' regarding the Canadian carbon tax. However, it prompts the question: What specific story are you aiming to convey? It appears that the carbon tax has evolved into more than just an environmental initiative; it seems to have transformed into a strategic political tool aimed at garnering votes and financial resources. When assessing its efficacy in curbing fossil fuel consumption, particularly in the context of a growing population, the evidence suggests otherwise - the impact is minimal, if at all. Moreover, a pertinent observation reveals that the implementation of the current carbon tax framework lacks uniformity and fairness. Consequently, it falls short of achieving the principles of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) that are advocated by the liberal party.
To truly understand the carbon tax's purpose and effectiveness, it's essential to define its primary objective. Could you please articulate the specific goal of the carbon tax?
The goal is to reduce emissions. And this video explains its impact on your grocery bill and how exemptions work.
The impact has been marginal but that's largely due to the very low price. It takes time for systems to change. The tax has been in effect since 2019. And we're just getting into the range where the incentives are nearing the price on expected step changes.
@@DDDecarbon Will it reduce emissions or is it a political tool?
@@DDDecarbon Why do we have exceptions if it is not just a political tool?
You have to prove that the policy is sound or valid or in other words will it work and will it work fairly
@@ardentenquirer8573 Any policy can be used as a political tool...... Both of these can be true at the same time. I'm not defending the liberals I'm defending the concept of a carbon tax.
Your point about "The truth of the Carbon tax" highlights a real issue with how clear the government is about this tax. The narrative presented in "Dungeons Deadlifts and Decarbonization" appears to propagate a skewed and incomplete perspective, potentially misleading the public. Instead of clearly explaining the carbon tax and its effects, the government seems to skip over important details. This lack of clear information is a problem because people deserve to know exactly how this tax might affect them.
Merely providing a surface-level explanation or offering tax refunds doesn't absolve the inherent regressive nature of this tax. True dedication to the welfare of the public mandates a thorough evaluation that aligns with the genuine aspirations and necessities of the community. Policies must not only be effective but also be calibrated to resonate with broader societal goals for prosperity and sustainability.
I don't understand how you can use so many words and say almost nothing. This isn't a rebuttle to anything I did, you once again have not engaged with a single thing I said. Please if you're going to say I incorrect which I could be then point out specifics. My first video's job was to explain how the carbon tax works and why you'd implement it. This one on the other hand is more about the actual costs. Again numbers you have not rebutted in any of your many comments because you don't substatiate your claims. You seem to prefer screaming into the void hoping people who watch my video are confused or impressed by your word salad.
I once again invite you to come debate me or discuss with me on the topic if you're so passionate about. This way I can fully explain my position and you can yours.
When I see a verbose post like this my first thought is that it was written with chatgpt.
To truly understand the carbon tax's purpose and effectiveness, it's essential to define its primary objective. Could you please articulate the specific goal of the carbon tax?
Until you state the goal we have no truth.
I explained this in the previous video. The main goal is to reduce emissions.
@@DDDecarbon If it is not a political tool why are there certain exceptions
@@ardentenquirer8573 Any policy can be used as a political tool and I'd argue that not taxing home heating was that way. However that's irrelevant to whether the concept of the policy is good or the purpose of my video. Which is to describe how it works.
There's lots of exceptions which definately diminish the effectiveness. However even with government incompetence it's still caused a 15% reduction in per capita carbon emissions in BC which shows how effective it is. And we can expect even better results at higher prices as it becomes more economical to produce less emissions like the Genesee coal plant.