In one fell swoop the federal government has blown-up one of — perhaps the only — remaining core, signature policy items it has fought for over the past decade.
I think Trudeau's announcement has 2 main probable outcomes - though it is possible both could happen.
1) after spending all his political capital on defending the exemption in it's current state, he agrees to review it, then eventually pauses it for all home heating. (Wait 1.5 weeks?)
2) the change in direction fractures the NDP coalition and he gets forced into an election that he doesn't want to have yet.
There are some other interesting possibilities like him stepping down as leader of the party - but I don't think he's got the leadership skills to see that the party might be better off in the long run if he did that.
I think the first option is the most likely - I imagine he'd have a hard time winning in court if AB really does take him back to court because he's now shown he's willing to apply the tax unevenly. The public support isn't likely to return to where it was now that everyone knows it's not a tax they're actually benefiting from (news flash - the public never benefits from a tax, all taxes create a deadweight loss and they always get passed on to consumers in one way or another. the carbon tax was DESIGNED to motivate people to reduce their carbon footprint through financial repercussions, for anyone wanting to understand more, you can search up "internalizing an externality in the marketplace" in relation to microeconomics and also look at the effects of taxation on consumer surplus - there is a good amount of info out there. The whole financial argument has always been propaganda because all taxes - whether they're applied to the supply side or the demand side, end up still impacting economic surplus, but only those who've studied economics would have known that.)
Anyways - will be interesting to see what happens. (I'd love to hear other people's predictions, I'm finding this to be a fun prediction game and would love to hear other's thoughts!)
The quote is directed at a specific Bill. Unfortunately for Canada it can be repurposed to describe other Liberal initiatives.
Their forte was being masters at wedge issues and holding onto power; but the clothes are worn, enabling us to see through the holes that can’t be desperately patched over anymore. They are lame Lame Ducks while the CPC prepares, and waits, to take over the reigns.
Ken, I genuinely empathize with Justin. It’s a tough job being PM in the modern, global, digital, climate stressed world, and the long knives are unsheathed on top of his personal tribulations. Senator Percy Downe essentially closed a chapter in history that was already on the rocks. Justin will be fine, just like Stephen Harper, who was the calmest person on the campaign plane when he realized it was all over. Life goes on after a big weight is lifted from your shoulders.
The grand mistake the Liberals made, per my thesis, was to concentrate on victimhood and activism for the sake of votes and ignore or aggravate, or seem to ignore and aggravate what used to be called the silent majority. The people who quietly did what they were supposed to do, who became the lightning rod for the blame game, turning even them into quasi victims. The Liberals couldn’t mine that victimhood for votes because they wouldn't play along, and now most of the ore has been refined and melted down into conservative ingots.
Tom, I am an Albertan so that colors my thinking entirely.
I hate JT [See? I cannot bring myself to use his proper name.] as I am entirely aware of how he has declared war on my province and in so many ways left us essentially defenseless against his relentless assaults.
In truth, for many decades I was a proud Canadian but now I am an Albertan first and a Canadian only by accident of birth. I do not empathize with him for he has dug his own hole (grave? we can only hope!) and seems to be pulling the dirt in after him (again, we can only hope). I have found so many ways to despise him that I cannot enumerate them all.
I do agree that it is hard to be a leader in modern times and I further acknowledge that you definitely cannot please all the people all the time - nor should one try, I say. The real key, I believe is to do your best for your populace; I believe that he learned to hate Alberta at his father's knee and, further, that he learned his lessons well.
I agree that the LPC has used this whole victimhood / activism industry shamelessly and have done so with neither regard to the consequences on the country nor the effect on individuals.
I could go on endlessly about my disdain for and my belief in the lack of integrity of JT and the entire LPC but that is an exercise that I will avoid for now. Having said that, I welcome your position, even as I dispute it. Democracy, you know; and I am not attempting to shame you or call you a Nazi or some such (as a certain PM does far too often) but I instead accept and celebrate that we can agree to disagree in a civil fashion.
The NEP (National Energy Program - You will know the letters all too well; but younger readers from outside the west may not.) completely altered the course of my life as I lived and had a business in Alberta during that unfortunate and unpleasant time. I love Alberta. I could never hate it.
I also love Canada to which my father and I came to with two suitcases and $50, from communist East Germany. The succession of totalitarian regimes in Germany also altered the course of my family’s lives; but I still love Germany and do not hate it. My wife’s grandfather disappeared into the Gulags and the family farm in Ukraine disappeared into collectivization. Her family loves the Russian people, they just can’t live there.
When my son was small, a logger high graded and stole the back five acres of my timber that I had culled by myself fifteen years before. The police said settle with him. I don’t hate him or the police. For the sake of my son I did my best to let it all go and very patiently waited for the bush to grow back as I knew it would. I didn’t get compensation as locals told me the logger couldn’t pay; so I made him pile the tops for me to make into firewood to imprint a lesson. He did the same thing to an elderly lady the very next year. I still didn’t hate him. I just didn’t like what he did.
I don’t hate either of the Trudeau Prime Ministers. It is ok to not like what they did. It is not ok to hate them.
People do a lot of things that we don’t like. Forgiving them is far better than hating them. Hate is destructive to societies and very destructive to personal health.
“Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”
Thanks Ken. You are sharp. I anguished over how to put "the emperor has no clothes" in the post and was too cowardly to do it directly. Now I can’t use the software autocorrect defense anymore if they come after me. :)
Some valid stuff. Just one point though, while the percentage of Atlantic Canadian who use oil to heat is very high, in absolute numbers there are almost as many oil heated homes in Ontario, mainly rural, but of course these are in ridings that won't vote Liberal so the media is not flagging it as it doesn't suggest the same cynical vote getting.
Having a carbon tax on home heating never made sense in Canada. The theory behind the tax was to make fossil fuels more expensive causing the populace to use less. In most of Canada turning down the heat is not realistic and would mostly apply to the less well off. While the tax might have been advertised as equal the consequences of the tax are far from equal.
The idea behind carbon taxes is to make fuels *consistently* more expensive to encourage people to use less carbon emitting fuel. That could take the form of greater energy efficiency (heat pumps, more insulation, better windows), less energy use (smaller homes, turning down the thermostat), or switching to energy sources with less carbon input (electric heating, geothermal, and again heat pumps.).
The limitation is that all of these things tend to cost a lot to implement. Unless carbon taxes are very high, it doesn’t make economic sense to replace these things until they wear out. So, the pace of change is going to be slow compared to what activists hope to see. That’s also where the consistency of the carbon tax comes in: energy prices vary cyclically. We don’t see people rushing out to replace their pick-ups with smaller hybrid vehicles just because gas prices spike for a few months. On the other hand, when gas prices are low, people *do* seem more likely to buy that big gas-guzzler they like rather than thinking ahead to the next time gas prices spike.
You’ve identified another limitation to the carbon tax theory: not everybody is going to be affected equally, and not everybody has the same flexibility to alter their carbon emissions.
We are being punished for using fossil fuels rather than being incentivized to use other options. I had a heat pump and took it out because regular heat pumps are not efficient below 5 C. I saved $200 per hydro bill and paid for the conversion in quick order. In most of Canada even CCHPs need backup heat sources and all the government push to heat pumps is disingenuous. One of the reasons my hydro bill was so high is that heating put my hydro usage into 2nd and higher tier of charges. If governments want us to stitch to electricity why penalize us when we use more. Rather than penalizing us on fossil fuels and providing direct subsidization of heat pumps and EVs, governments might be better off by subsidizing the energy they want us to use.
The author may be finally figuring out that this government only cares about staying in power, regardless of principle. Actually, most governments at all levels have this issue.
I'm still waiting for Canadians to catch on to the fact that home heating is the tip of the iceberg.
Nearly every good made or modified in Canada takes energy to do so, and much (most) of that energy is subject to carbon tax, making it all more expensive, then GST is often charged on the carbon-tax inflated cost.
Nearly every good and service sold in Canada has to move from one place to another in a car, truck, boat, plane, or train. The carbon tax applies to not only the fuel to move those vehicles, and the oil to lubricate them, but quite literally the steel and plastic they are formed from, making them all more expensive, then GST is often charged on the carbon-tax inflated cost.
All of this, along with ridiculous government spending, contributes to inflation.
I differ with The Line's editors on the carbon tax. I see it as nothing but a political slush fund for whatever government institutes it, all to help assuage our guilt at our 'climate sins'.
The 'carbon market', cap & trade, carbon taxes / taxes on pollution - the whole thing smacks of the Catholic Church selling indulgences to atone for moral sins in the Middle Ages. To this day, the pope still grants indulgences, usually for prayer, but also for approved 'charitable donations'.
I digress.
All this while the US - with a Democratic president who chats about climate change all the time - has no national carbon tax.
History will ultimately judge what rubes we've all been for going along with this nonsense.
If we seriously wanted to solve the 'climate crisis' which has been talked about in one form or another since the 1970s (basically my entire life), we would have moved whole hog into nuclear power generation. If we had used that cheap, clean power to build our electrical grid, we might actually be able to have a conversation about all our homes and many of our vehicles to be affordably electrical.
The smartest country in the world reacting to the 1973 energy crisis was France, who initiated a policy of nuclear power generation that remains today at around 70% of their total grid.
Many other countries followed the wise lead of the French with nuclear power, including Canada.
But for hydro and coal and natural gas, we could have gone much further with nuclear power.
First, your comparison of " ... cap & trade, carbon taxes / taxes on pollution ..." to indulgences is a wonderful comment. And so very true.
Second, you note " ... the 'climate crisis' ... has been talked about in one form or another since the 1970s ..." I would point out that during that period, the "climate crisis" was defined as "global cooling" by many [so-called, but not really] experts, including Saint David Suzuki.
As for the nuclear power option I somewhat agree but I do note that we still need to deal with the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Now, if only all the angst about "climate change" had been expended on research into safe disposal ...
I too find carbon taxes a horrible kluge. Its a regressive tax no matter what the rebate. Instead of spending Billion$ on bullshit corporate subsidies to build battery plants, EV car subsidies, they could have spent the money building better transit or nuclear power plants that really make environmental changes. Some people reduced carbon because they can't afford to drive/heat their homes but most don't see viable alternatives to ICE cars or NG heating since changing is very expensive.
Our rural home was built in the early 1970s. We still have our original natural gas furnace, because it was built like a tank. Only things we have to occasionally do to it are clean the ducting and change out the gas valve and thermocouple - and that's only once a decade. I think we replaced the original electric fan motor over a decade ago.
That's FIFTY years of trouble-free and very affordable home heating. I bet we have under $1,000 into our home heating since the home was built in 1973.
As for efficiency, that's more complicated than most people think.
Our furnace maintenance man advised that we keep our old furnace until the heat exchanger finally fails. He has explained to me that while the newer 'energy efficient' natual gas furnaces accomplish that efficiency by having a smaller outlet pipe (the one that sends the heats to the house ducting in each room). The trade off is that the furnace has to run more often to maintain the heat in the home - meaning the electric fan operates much more frequently, which adds cost in electricty to run that fan. So there's no free ride.
Another thing we noticed when we installed all LED lighting in our home ten years ago is that our noticed that our old furnace kicks in a bit more frequently than it used to before . This is because the old 'inefficient' incandescent bulbs actually provided some heat in each room when they were on. With LED, no heat is emenated from the bulbs.
There's no free ride.
I won't be installing a heat pump. Subsidy or not.
I am aware that The Line has accepted the narrative of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming/climate change/extreme weather - so I’ll leave that debate for another time. It has been my observation, however – and the carbon tax is a shining example - that
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave when with “carbon pollution” we practice to deceive.”
There are rumors of the Feds offering exceptional funding to the City of Toronto. If that happens, the Liberal startegy to buy votes becomes even more obvious. This definitely screams end of regime.
The hallmark of this Liberal Government has been divisiveness. Divisiveness, confusion, having everyone mad at each other.
Giving a three year reprieve to a regional subset of Liberal voters plays the divisive cards in spades. I just haven’t figured out how deep sixing the carbon tax regime to create the chaos benefits the Liberals.
As a rural Ontario homeowner with another of Ruess's Frankenstein heating systems, the carbon tax exemption on heating oil, if it actually goes through, would come as a welcome respite. My issue (until this surprise headline) has been a desire to see an orderly accounting of how the rebate has been calculated and delivered to Canadians. My diesel bill runs over a thousand dollars per year for my tree farm; the heating bills, oil and propane, top $7K, though our gasoline bills are low because of a hybrid which does most of the driving.
I don't recall any deposit to our bank account except one un-named item last summer in the low $300 range. I resent having no method of tying this small handout to major expenditures on petroleum products, most particularly heating oil.
Last week's oil delivery produced the usual blurred invoice, but the amount was a bit lower than the previous bill last spring. A line-by-line analysis of the two documents still had the GST/HST charge of about $90. but we couldn't find the $86 charge with the incomprehensible code which was on the previous bill.
I sent a note of thanks to a Liberal MP in my contacts list. He cautioned that the fee holiday is only for three years to give us time to switch to a heat pump.
Three years is an eternity for the owners of an old house facing winter.
Don’t forget some provinces were cooperating before 2015 and before the Feds decided to takeover by forcing the carbon tax. As was clear during the SC hearings it was based on the Ottawa view toward the provinces that ‘we can’t trust you, but you can trust us’ (add in an Ottawa lawyer wink there for some good old middle finger attitude too). So if the carbon tax falls through, the opportunity cost of what the provinces could have achieved if they had been left to continue their work will need to be debated too.
Actuall one other point. The carbon tax can save you money. I have heat pump and my fossil fuel usage is way down compared to before I got it, which means I pay less carbon tax. Still get the same rebate though, so I'm ahead. That's how it's supposed to work.
Marginal MW are not usually needed at night, when it is coldest. In fact there is surplus electricity at night. Makes it very cheap to charge my car as a result. Best way to axe carbon taxes is to emit less carbon.
That mine works in conjunction with my furnace (gas) which comes on at -5C, so that I use very much less gas. Ground source heat pumps have no issues with very low temperatures. Mine is air source, and I understand even air source ones are much better than they were. HVAC companies have not been in favour of heat pumps, not sure why ($ probably), and have been spreading misinformation. Our older model keeps the house very comfortable summer and winter. We needed to replace our AC unit and this was about $1000 more. Had to insist with the HVAC dealer.
I think Trudeau's announcement has 2 main probable outcomes - though it is possible both could happen.
1) after spending all his political capital on defending the exemption in it's current state, he agrees to review it, then eventually pauses it for all home heating. (Wait 1.5 weeks?)
2) the change in direction fractures the NDP coalition and he gets forced into an election that he doesn't want to have yet.
There are some other interesting possibilities like him stepping down as leader of the party - but I don't think he's got the leadership skills to see that the party might be better off in the long run if he did that.
I think the first option is the most likely - I imagine he'd have a hard time winning in court if AB really does take him back to court because he's now shown he's willing to apply the tax unevenly. The public support isn't likely to return to where it was now that everyone knows it's not a tax they're actually benefiting from (news flash - the public never benefits from a tax, all taxes create a deadweight loss and they always get passed on to consumers in one way or another. the carbon tax was DESIGNED to motivate people to reduce their carbon footprint through financial repercussions, for anyone wanting to understand more, you can search up "internalizing an externality in the marketplace" in relation to microeconomics and also look at the effects of taxation on consumer surplus - there is a good amount of info out there. The whole financial argument has always been propaganda because all taxes - whether they're applied to the supply side or the demand side, end up still impacting economic surplus, but only those who've studied economics would have known that.)
Anyways - will be interesting to see what happens. (I'd love to hear other people's predictions, I'm finding this to be a fun prediction game and would love to hear other's thoughts!)
The tax has never been applied equally. Quebec has a cap and trade scheme that is difficult to benchmark against a comparable carbon tax.
Quebec is also the reason Atlantic Canada doesn't have NG and has to use fuel oil :) but Quebec is Quebec.
Harrison, the Liberals can be summed up by one very prescient quote by Christian Leuprecht:
“This Liberal government came to power claiming it would engage in evidence based decision making. Instead this Bill amounts to decision based evidence seeking.” ( 00:59:49 hh:mm:ss mark of https://www.cpac.ca/episode?id=ae15922e-3a3a-4ac1-ace7-da29e9a811ed )
The quote is directed at a specific Bill. Unfortunately for Canada it can be repurposed to describe other Liberal initiatives.
Their forte was being masters at wedge issues and holding onto power; but the clothes are worn, enabling us to see through the holes that can’t be desperately patched over anymore. They are lame Lame Ducks while the CPC prepares, and waits, to take over the reigns.
Tom, you say, " ... the CPC prepares, and waits, to take over the reigns."
Delicious pun, that: reins and reigns.
Ken, I genuinely empathize with Justin. It’s a tough job being PM in the modern, global, digital, climate stressed world, and the long knives are unsheathed on top of his personal tribulations. Senator Percy Downe essentially closed a chapter in history that was already on the rocks. Justin will be fine, just like Stephen Harper, who was the calmest person on the campaign plane when he realized it was all over. Life goes on after a big weight is lifted from your shoulders.
The grand mistake the Liberals made, per my thesis, was to concentrate on victimhood and activism for the sake of votes and ignore or aggravate, or seem to ignore and aggravate what used to be called the silent majority. The people who quietly did what they were supposed to do, who became the lightning rod for the blame game, turning even them into quasi victims. The Liberals couldn’t mine that victimhood for votes because they wouldn't play along, and now most of the ore has been refined and melted down into conservative ingots.
Tom, I am an Albertan so that colors my thinking entirely.
I hate JT [See? I cannot bring myself to use his proper name.] as I am entirely aware of how he has declared war on my province and in so many ways left us essentially defenseless against his relentless assaults.
In truth, for many decades I was a proud Canadian but now I am an Albertan first and a Canadian only by accident of birth. I do not empathize with him for he has dug his own hole (grave? we can only hope!) and seems to be pulling the dirt in after him (again, we can only hope). I have found so many ways to despise him that I cannot enumerate them all.
I do agree that it is hard to be a leader in modern times and I further acknowledge that you definitely cannot please all the people all the time - nor should one try, I say. The real key, I believe is to do your best for your populace; I believe that he learned to hate Alberta at his father's knee and, further, that he learned his lessons well.
I agree that the LPC has used this whole victimhood / activism industry shamelessly and have done so with neither regard to the consequences on the country nor the effect on individuals.
I could go on endlessly about my disdain for and my belief in the lack of integrity of JT and the entire LPC but that is an exercise that I will avoid for now. Having said that, I welcome your position, even as I dispute it. Democracy, you know; and I am not attempting to shame you or call you a Nazi or some such (as a certain PM does far too often) but I instead accept and celebrate that we can agree to disagree in a civil fashion.
Ken, I completely empathize with you as well.
The NEP (National Energy Program - You will know the letters all too well; but younger readers from outside the west may not.) completely altered the course of my life as I lived and had a business in Alberta during that unfortunate and unpleasant time. I love Alberta. I could never hate it.
I also love Canada to which my father and I came to with two suitcases and $50, from communist East Germany. The succession of totalitarian regimes in Germany also altered the course of my family’s lives; but I still love Germany and do not hate it. My wife’s grandfather disappeared into the Gulags and the family farm in Ukraine disappeared into collectivization. Her family loves the Russian people, they just can’t live there.
When my son was small, a logger high graded and stole the back five acres of my timber that I had culled by myself fifteen years before. The police said settle with him. I don’t hate him or the police. For the sake of my son I did my best to let it all go and very patiently waited for the bush to grow back as I knew it would. I didn’t get compensation as locals told me the logger couldn’t pay; so I made him pile the tops for me to make into firewood to imprint a lesson. He did the same thing to an elderly lady the very next year. I still didn’t hate him. I just didn’t like what he did.
I don’t hate either of the Trudeau Prime Ministers. It is ok to not like what they did. It is not ok to hate them.
People do a lot of things that we don’t like. Forgiving them is far better than hating them. Hate is destructive to societies and very destructive to personal health.
“Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”
Thanks Ken. You are sharp. I anguished over how to put "the emperor has no clothes" in the post and was too cowardly to do it directly. Now I can’t use the software autocorrect defense anymore if they come after me. :)
I would say every initiative.
Some valid stuff. Just one point though, while the percentage of Atlantic Canadian who use oil to heat is very high, in absolute numbers there are almost as many oil heated homes in Ontario, mainly rural, but of course these are in ridings that won't vote Liberal so the media is not flagging it as it doesn't suggest the same cynical vote getting.
To your point though, does the free heat pump program apply to these folks in Ontario also? Or does it apply only to Atlantic Canada?
Only to Atlantic Canada
Having a carbon tax on home heating never made sense in Canada. The theory behind the tax was to make fossil fuels more expensive causing the populace to use less. In most of Canada turning down the heat is not realistic and would mostly apply to the less well off. While the tax might have been advertised as equal the consequences of the tax are far from equal.
The idea behind carbon taxes is to make fuels *consistently* more expensive to encourage people to use less carbon emitting fuel. That could take the form of greater energy efficiency (heat pumps, more insulation, better windows), less energy use (smaller homes, turning down the thermostat), or switching to energy sources with less carbon input (electric heating, geothermal, and again heat pumps.).
The limitation is that all of these things tend to cost a lot to implement. Unless carbon taxes are very high, it doesn’t make economic sense to replace these things until they wear out. So, the pace of change is going to be slow compared to what activists hope to see. That’s also where the consistency of the carbon tax comes in: energy prices vary cyclically. We don’t see people rushing out to replace their pick-ups with smaller hybrid vehicles just because gas prices spike for a few months. On the other hand, when gas prices are low, people *do* seem more likely to buy that big gas-guzzler they like rather than thinking ahead to the next time gas prices spike.
You’ve identified another limitation to the carbon tax theory: not everybody is going to be affected equally, and not everybody has the same flexibility to alter their carbon emissions.
We are being punished for using fossil fuels rather than being incentivized to use other options. I had a heat pump and took it out because regular heat pumps are not efficient below 5 C. I saved $200 per hydro bill and paid for the conversion in quick order. In most of Canada even CCHPs need backup heat sources and all the government push to heat pumps is disingenuous. One of the reasons my hydro bill was so high is that heating put my hydro usage into 2nd and higher tier of charges. If governments want us to stitch to electricity why penalize us when we use more. Rather than penalizing us on fossil fuels and providing direct subsidization of heat pumps and EVs, governments might be better off by subsidizing the energy they want us to use.
The author may be finally figuring out that this government only cares about staying in power, regardless of principle. Actually, most governments at all levels have this issue.
I'm still waiting for Canadians to catch on to the fact that home heating is the tip of the iceberg.
Nearly every good made or modified in Canada takes energy to do so, and much (most) of that energy is subject to carbon tax, making it all more expensive, then GST is often charged on the carbon-tax inflated cost.
Nearly every good and service sold in Canada has to move from one place to another in a car, truck, boat, plane, or train. The carbon tax applies to not only the fuel to move those vehicles, and the oil to lubricate them, but quite literally the steel and plastic they are formed from, making them all more expensive, then GST is often charged on the carbon-tax inflated cost.
All of this, along with ridiculous government spending, contributes to inflation.
I differ with The Line's editors on the carbon tax. I see it as nothing but a political slush fund for whatever government institutes it, all to help assuage our guilt at our 'climate sins'.
The 'carbon market', cap & trade, carbon taxes / taxes on pollution - the whole thing smacks of the Catholic Church selling indulgences to atone for moral sins in the Middle Ages. To this day, the pope still grants indulgences, usually for prayer, but also for approved 'charitable donations'.
I digress.
All this while the US - with a Democratic president who chats about climate change all the time - has no national carbon tax.
History will ultimately judge what rubes we've all been for going along with this nonsense.
If we seriously wanted to solve the 'climate crisis' which has been talked about in one form or another since the 1970s (basically my entire life), we would have moved whole hog into nuclear power generation. If we had used that cheap, clean power to build our electrical grid, we might actually be able to have a conversation about all our homes and many of our vehicles to be affordably electrical.
The smartest country in the world reacting to the 1973 energy crisis was France, who initiated a policy of nuclear power generation that remains today at around 70% of their total grid.
Many other countries followed the wise lead of the French with nuclear power, including Canada.
But for hydro and coal and natural gas, we could have gone much further with nuclear power.
We still could. Time will tell.
CP, I have two points.
First, your comparison of " ... cap & trade, carbon taxes / taxes on pollution ..." to indulgences is a wonderful comment. And so very true.
Second, you note " ... the 'climate crisis' ... has been talked about in one form or another since the 1970s ..." I would point out that during that period, the "climate crisis" was defined as "global cooling" by many [so-called, but not really] experts, including Saint David Suzuki.
As for the nuclear power option I somewhat agree but I do note that we still need to deal with the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Now, if only all the angst about "climate change" had been expended on research into safe disposal ...
I too find carbon taxes a horrible kluge. Its a regressive tax no matter what the rebate. Instead of spending Billion$ on bullshit corporate subsidies to build battery plants, EV car subsidies, they could have spent the money building better transit or nuclear power plants that really make environmental changes. Some people reduced carbon because they can't afford to drive/heat their homes but most don't see viable alternatives to ICE cars or NG heating since changing is very expensive.
Our rural home was built in the early 1970s. We still have our original natural gas furnace, because it was built like a tank. Only things we have to occasionally do to it are clean the ducting and change out the gas valve and thermocouple - and that's only once a decade. I think we replaced the original electric fan motor over a decade ago.
That's FIFTY years of trouble-free and very affordable home heating. I bet we have under $1,000 into our home heating since the home was built in 1973.
As for efficiency, that's more complicated than most people think.
Our furnace maintenance man advised that we keep our old furnace until the heat exchanger finally fails. He has explained to me that while the newer 'energy efficient' natual gas furnaces accomplish that efficiency by having a smaller outlet pipe (the one that sends the heats to the house ducting in each room). The trade off is that the furnace has to run more often to maintain the heat in the home - meaning the electric fan operates much more frequently, which adds cost in electricty to run that fan. So there's no free ride.
Another thing we noticed when we installed all LED lighting in our home ten years ago is that our noticed that our old furnace kicks in a bit more frequently than it used to before . This is because the old 'inefficient' incandescent bulbs actually provided some heat in each room when they were on. With LED, no heat is emenated from the bulbs.
There's no free ride.
I won't be installing a heat pump. Subsidy or not.
I am aware that The Line has accepted the narrative of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming/climate change/extreme weather - so I’ll leave that debate for another time. It has been my observation, however – and the carbon tax is a shining example - that
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave when with “carbon pollution” we practice to deceive.”
There are rumors of the Feds offering exceptional funding to the City of Toronto. If that happens, the Liberal startegy to buy votes becomes even more obvious. This definitely screams end of regime.
After Freeland sent Chow THAT highly detailed letter on why they won't do it?
https://calgaryherald.com/business/local-business/calgary-likely-to-experience-slight-economic-downtown-in-2024-new-projections-show
The hallmark of this Liberal Government has been divisiveness. Divisiveness, confusion, having everyone mad at each other.
Giving a three year reprieve to a regional subset of Liberal voters plays the divisive cards in spades. I just haven’t figured out how deep sixing the carbon tax regime to create the chaos benefits the Liberals.
As a rural Ontario homeowner with another of Ruess's Frankenstein heating systems, the carbon tax exemption on heating oil, if it actually goes through, would come as a welcome respite. My issue (until this surprise headline) has been a desire to see an orderly accounting of how the rebate has been calculated and delivered to Canadians. My diesel bill runs over a thousand dollars per year for my tree farm; the heating bills, oil and propane, top $7K, though our gasoline bills are low because of a hybrid which does most of the driving.
I don't recall any deposit to our bank account except one un-named item last summer in the low $300 range. I resent having no method of tying this small handout to major expenditures on petroleum products, most particularly heating oil.
Last week's oil delivery produced the usual blurred invoice, but the amount was a bit lower than the previous bill last spring. A line-by-line analysis of the two documents still had the GST/HST charge of about $90. but we couldn't find the $86 charge with the incomprehensible code which was on the previous bill.
I sent a note of thanks to a Liberal MP in my contacts list. He cautioned that the fee holiday is only for three years to give us time to switch to a heat pump.
Three years is an eternity for the owners of an old house facing winter.
Don’t forget some provinces were cooperating before 2015 and before the Feds decided to takeover by forcing the carbon tax. As was clear during the SC hearings it was based on the Ottawa view toward the provinces that ‘we can’t trust you, but you can trust us’ (add in an Ottawa lawyer wink there for some good old middle finger attitude too). So if the carbon tax falls through, the opportunity cost of what the provinces could have achieved if they had been left to continue their work will need to be debated too.
Actuall one other point. The carbon tax can save you money. I have heat pump and my fossil fuel usage is way down compared to before I got it, which means I pay less carbon tax. Still get the same rebate though, so I'm ahead. That's how it's supposed to work.
Heat pump units are not effective in all parts of Canada.
Chris, what say you about Marc's point that heat pumps are not effective in all parts of Canada?
Heat pumps also don't make sense in power grids where the marginal MW is gas fired, i.e. AB, SK, ON, NB, NS, PE
Unless you needed to replace your furnace, the cost to replace a working furnace would pay for a fair chunk of carbon taxes.
It was political suicide, and must cost Justin his job.
Marginal MW are not usually needed at night, when it is coldest. In fact there is surplus electricity at night. Makes it very cheap to charge my car as a result. Best way to axe carbon taxes is to emit less carbon.
That mine works in conjunction with my furnace (gas) which comes on at -5C, so that I use very much less gas. Ground source heat pumps have no issues with very low temperatures. Mine is air source, and I understand even air source ones are much better than they were. HVAC companies have not been in favour of heat pumps, not sure why ($ probably), and have been spreading misinformation. Our older model keeps the house very comfortable summer and winter. We needed to replace our AC unit and this was about $1000 more. Had to insist with the HVAC dealer.