EnviroTO
Senior Member
There is a waiting list for Q400s and I don't think in this environment many airlines are going to charter out their more efficient aircraft.
|
|
|
Dion's plane a bit of an oil burner
- Thread starter dowlingm
- Start date
There is a waiting list for Q400s and I don't think in this environment many airlines are going to charter out their more efficient aircraft.
afransen
Senior Member
Half a dozen of one, 6 of the other?
Anyway, what you're proposing is a price floor, so no guarantee that oil wouldn't rise higher than the plan, unless you're proposing a Venezuela- or Iran-style bonanza of subsidized oil. I also suspect that a price floor would oil feed the profits of oil companies, since they would just raise their prices as high as possible to the ceiling without looking too suspicious. It would also pose problems in terms of how often the tax would be adjusted. Daily? Sounds administratively difficult, when contrasted with a fixed rate.
nfitz
Superstar
That headline might be in his benefit. It would be a good headline - better yet if he went along as well. What a photo-op, without much risk of claims of opportunism!
Knowing the Liberals luck, it's more likely to crash somewhere - though perhaps that would be in their benefit too.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
It's an issue of hypocrisy. If a person wants to alter other people's lives, then they should set the example.
You should then rejoice at the dipping economy. Slower economic growth means less energy consumption, less production - everything you could really want. Remember that the great depression brought about a thirty-plus percent drop in the consumption of oil. Regardless, the globally averaged atmospheric temperature increased until 1940 (less production of CO2 by humans, but increase in temperature).
After 1940, globally averaged atmospheric temperatures decreased, even though the consumption of oil and coal went way up during the war and post-war period.
afransen
Senior Member
There is no hypocrisy. Dion isn't saying that people should avoid CO2 emissions out of the goodness of their hearts. They are saying that the user should pay. Fundamentally different...
Also, this line: "(less production of CO2 by humans, but increase in temperature)." is rather disingenuous, Mr. Environmental Consultant...
299 bloor call control.
Senior Member
That was a product of the excessive particulate pollution in the air, which reduced the amount of sunlight hitting the earth. It was from the further accumulation of CO2 that completed negated that cooling. When British clean air laws came in, warming actually accelerated even faster, because of the clearer skies.
Coincidentally, BBC2 just began a new three-part series on the whole climate science debate, entitled "Earth - The Climate Wars" hosted by a charming Dr. Iain Stewart, who also did a great series called "Earth: The Power of the Planet".
The first episode of the climate series is at:
http://thebox.bz/details.php?id=51512
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Which was quite localized and not in the southern hemisphere.
Which means it is a failure as a policy, as it will do nothing to reduce actual CO2 emissions.
It's still an issue of hypocrisy.
Sir Novelty Fashion
Senior Member
I'm just amazed that you can't rent a jet in this country, unless it's a 30-year-old beater in Iqualit. Couldn't they have grabbed something out of a California desert boneyard? Shouldn't they have had, I don't know, an intern looking this up a few months ago?
nfitz
Superstar
Then someone would be bitching that he got a non-Canadian plane. It's not like there is an excess number of high-efficiency small jets sitting around in Canada un-used. Air Canada had 2 available, and the NDP and Conservatives got them. Poor organising on part of the Liberals - but I bet Dion will have burned less jet fuel than Harper before this is over at the rate Harper is criss-crossing the country.
In the last 48-hours, Harper has already flown from Ottawa to Quebec City, down to Vancouver, back to Winnipeg, and is in Mississauga later today.
In the last 48-hours, Harper has already flown from Ottawa to Quebec City, down to Vancouver, back to Winnipeg, and is in Mississauga later today.
kEiThZ
Superstar
There is a waiting list for new Q400s. Doesn't mean you can't lease one from the likes of ILFC or any airline is you pay enough. And if the parties are buying carbon offsets, then would it not have been better to put that money towards renting a turboprop in the first place, instead of buying indulgences....I mean offsets... It would have been great for the Liberals to showcase made-in-Canada 'green' technology. Particularly when you are going around telling people that they need to change their lifestyle and burn less gas, this would have set a great example.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Yes, well that would be wonderful and all, if some were available. And yes, you mentioned that anything is available if one pays enough. Should the Liberals really be spending scarce campaign funds on a plane, rather than, you know, campaigning?
Anyway, the point is moot since a Q400 is half the size of a 737/319, making it far too small to accommodate the leader's team and the press corps.
Anyway, the point is moot since a Q400 is half the size of a 737/319, making it far too small to accommodate the leader's team and the press corps.
afransen
Senior Member
It was not at all clear that there was going to be an election at that time. Harper first started making noises about calling an election in mid-August. Even then, he hedged his bets.
The Liberals are rather cash-strapped and probably couldn't afford for a plane to sit in a hangar on stand-by.
Hydrogen: It isn't a failure as a policy. It (a carbon tax) makes a great deal of economic sense, and has been endorsed by many prominent economists as such, including Greg Mankiw, and Alan Greenspan, in addition to the 70 that endorsed the BC carbon tax. It is a success in that is revenue neutral, and greatly reduces the level of highly distortionary taxes such as income taxes and essentially replaces them with a much less distortionary consumption tax, along with some offsets for progressivity. Any reduction in carbon emissions is a fringe benefit.
And there is no hypocrisy. The Liberals paid a carbon 'tax' in offsets on their plane. Short of giving the money to government, they are more or less following their policy. Keep in mind, they have yet to emit an ounce of carbon from their plane. Harper and Layton have traveled across the country a number of times already, and both also advocate carbon emissions reductions--the Liberals should be in line behind these two for charges of hypocrisy, certainly.
Beyond that, I really don't give a damn about the stupid plane controversy. It's all so trivial in comparison to the policy implications.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Perhaps all the parties should travel with smaller entourages...
Also I am surprised this hasn't come up....but why not more teleconferencing as an alternative to flying somewhere...
H
Hydrogen
Guest
You've often argued here for the need of a carbon tax as a means to reducing consumption by making fuel more costly and as a means to changing consumer habits. This tax scheme is (supposed to be) revenue neutral to government, so no new money is actually to be raised; it will be matched with a drop in other taxes for the consumer. So what is to stop a person from just shifting their tax saving in one area to paying this little tax downstream?
If you really worry that CO2 emissions are such a problem, then you must see that this little tax shell game actually does nothing to reduce those emissions. You even refer to it as a fringe benefit yourself.
No CO2 emissions will result from this poorly thought out policy. It is pointless.
afransen
Senior Member
That's not really true. Consumption taxes (such as a carbon tax) have less deadweight loss than distortionary taxes such as those on income. Which is to say, shifting will mean the same amount of revenue while taking a smaller chunk out of the Canadian economy.
"No CO2 emissions will result from this poorly thought out policy. It is pointless."
It really depends on the time frame. I think this statement (as you intended it) is ridiculous as it is absolute. It is really quite simple neoclassical economics. If you don't like that, feel free to refer to economists that share your point of view so we can go beyond this silly back and forth.
Edit:
I would like to add that I think the big win for the Canadian economy is the shift towards more economically friendly taxation. I do expect the impact of a carbon tax to be significant in reducing carbon consumption. I am not too concerned about the eventual decline of carbon emissions, as there are plenty of other forms of consumptions taxes available, including increases to the GST.
"No CO2 emissions will result from this poorly thought out policy. It is pointless."
It really depends on the time frame. I think this statement (as you intended it) is ridiculous as it is absolute. It is really quite simple neoclassical economics. If you don't like that, feel free to refer to economists that share your point of view so we can go beyond this silly back and forth.
Edit:
I would like to add that I think the big win for the Canadian economy is the shift towards more economically friendly taxation. I do expect the impact of a carbon tax to be significant in reducing carbon consumption. I am not too concerned about the eventual decline of carbon emissions, as there are plenty of other forms of consumptions taxes available, including increases to the GST.