On Canada Day Lots of Flag Waving, But BC Got The Pole

Wednesday, July 02, 2008 03:45 AM

You may have received a cheque for 100 bucks, you might feel that it will more than pay for the carbon tax that came into effect yesterday , gas prices at the pump went up by 2.3 cents, your home heating bills increase, diesel fuel increases.

The pitch the government is giving you is "don’t worry be happy , you’ll get it all back because you're going to save the money in personal taxes which are going down".

Great move, except that the largest segment of the BC population are the baby boomers, those who are retired or just about to be. They don’t have any income other than pension, so how in the world will that tax reduction have any effect on them? Oh they will feel the tax, because they will be paying more to heat their homes, drive to the shops and on and on.

There is of course an added dimension in the central and northern part of the province, we are being told that just because people in the lower mainland live there they have to drive as far as we do. Great spin , but let’s see, can you take a bus out to Dunster to go to work in the bush come tomorrow? Can you take rapid transit to get to Finlay Point? Of course not.

So you folks will fall on the sword. I don’t want to be critical of the people on the lower mainland they will suffer the same fate.

What is the carbon tax all about? Well we are putting our best foot forward to stop global warming. Has anyone ever considered that we are virtually eating the center out of the planet? China, with a billion and half people, is just one example of what we, (I mean all of us collectively) are doing to this earth. Canada, to its credit, has a birth rate which is not like many of these other countries, without immigration, we would be barely holding our own.

So again, good old Canada, and in particular BC, will be asked to fall on the sword. I am being asked to fall into line with California to do my part about green house gas. Have a look at California, until they come to grips with the amount of energy they are using in homes that far outstrip the needs, a population spread out over a vast area, why in the world am I being asked to bite the bullet for their life style? They choose to live in a climate that is one of the best in the world. Huddled as they are in a climate paradise, while I am expected to pay for their overuse, and all I am trying to do is live in a climate that requires that I burn up more fuel so that we can pull out of the ground the resources that those people in that area of the world want and need.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: owl on July 2 2008 5:35 AM

I say get over it. Unlike those places like Venuzuela who have tons of oil and subsidize it to the hilt on top of that, we are in the middle of the two extremes of heavy taxation (70% is not unusual) to complete subsidization with respect to world market prices.

Here is a little known story.

Norway, that's the country with most of that North Sea oil, has virtually the highest price for gasoline in Europe because the governemnt there figures more than any other European government that people should get off the kick. Norway is, of course, a colder, northern country, just like Canada.

US$11 per US gallon or about C$2.90/litre...

people are protesting .... gee, who would have expected that!!

http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/norway-hikes-gasoline-prices-protest-is-raging

Posted by: EdH on July 2 2008 6:30 AM

Prince Georgians drive bigger vehicles than Californians and longer distances. I'd love to see the concentration of pickup trucks in PG vs San Francisco. Prince Georgians burn fuel in their homes like it's going out of style. And have you ever looked at Prince George's air quality? Enough disgusting particulate matter to asphyxiate even a wayward Angeleno.

California has had extremely stringent vehicle emission standards for over a decade and the state is trying to abolish greenhouse gas emissions altogether but is facing resistance from the federal government.

Like Californians don't HAVE to live in their "climate paradise", you don't HAVE to live in Prince George either-- you can move to a downtown Vancouver condo and significantly reduce your own individual energy demand and impact.

While Californians are huddled in their paradise they are at least fully aware of the global human impact on the environment and trying to do their share about it. Asking others to shoulder their own load is hardly asking you to take a bullet for them. This is exactly the sort of political swill that constantly inhibits the progression of real solutions to problems.

Posted by: beesknees on July 2 2008 7:18 AM

Ben, you've written this like we're the downtrodden, being taken advantage of. It's my opinion that's incorrect thinking. We're just doing our part, and not waiting for someone else to start the trend. I know that our effort will be negated by others who are still polluting up a storm, but any effort is better than none.

Posted by: red2b on July 2 2008 7:28 AM

Ed- where do you live? Tell me how I can live in downtown Van and do my job in PG? For your info, everyone does not work in Vancouver.
I drive a pick up because I need it for work.
There should be some kind of rebate set up for those who try to conserve-people who switch vehicles to propane, bio diesel etc.
How will this carbon tax improve the air quality in Prince George? Will the pulp mills and Husky pollute less now that we are paying more at the pump?

Posted by: EdH on July 2 2008 7:52 AM

Hi red2b-- I lived in PG for years, but have also lived all over California (and at the moment in San Diego) so I consider myself familiar with the cultural tenets of each. I love PG for so many reasons which is why I follow its goings on here on this site and elsewhere.

My point is that PG is not a victim just paying for California's extravagant lifestyle like Ben's article depicts. PG has always had a (usually admirable) attitude of being somewhat roguish and deliberately different from the mainstream. But this time, PG needs to realize it's a contributor the problem like everyone else.

People choose to live in PG because it makes sense for their work (like you do) and they drive trucks because it makes sense again (like you do)-- it also offers an incredible outdoor rugged lifestyle that is very appealing. However it's still all a choice because at the end of the day the option remains of changing your career and moving to Vancouver where you can survive with little energy demands and quite easily with no vehicle at all. I'm not saying this is a realistic option, but neither would be the option of a Californian moving inland for environmental reasons: they have their lives and jobs as well.

As a result, PG has no basis for complaint (as Ben suggests) in paying for California's damage to the environment. The state is very progressive in matters like this and is working overtime to clean its own trail. I remember the air in L.A. twenty years ago was totally unbearable, but today (while still hazy and unclean by most urban standards) it has improved significantly, all due to California's increased awareness of its own impact.

Californians also live where they do for work, and in rural California (like the wine country) there are a lot of pickups as well. How many Californians idle their vehicle in the morning when it's -25? Of course I would never deny that California does its share of damage to the environment. It is the most populous US state and the epitome of automobile culture. However, it is dangerous thinking to exempt yourself from culpability because you are a rural outland community. PG does its share of negative environmental impact.

Posted by: maxwell on July 2 2008 8:30 AM

Make it 4 bucks a litre and the pickup mindset will still be with us. Jump in the truck and go to Timmies and bitch about the gas prices (but gleefully brag the truck cost 55 thousand bucks).
If you need the truck for work you can probably write it off. For the other 90 percent of the time you use it for running about the countryside - sorry you gotta pay.
I quizzed a buddy who needs his pickup for work, during our talk he admitted that 'yes' a six banger with cloth seats, air etc. would do quite well as a work truck and would also be about 20-30 grand less the the big leather clad monster he was running... hmm 20 grand less that could by lots of fuel.

Posted by: diplomat on July 2 2008 8:38 AM

Ben, it takes some time and effort to read through the entire B.C. Government's website which explains the carbon tax and all its impacts.

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/scp/tp/climate/carbon_tax.htm

For instance:

"Government said it would return every dollar collected from the carbon tax to taxpayers through tax cuts. The tax cuts for the first two years consist of:

The bottom two personal income tax bracket rates are reduced by about 2 per cent for 2008 rising to 5 per cent in 2009;

A new Low Income Climate Action tax credit paid quarterly along with the federal GST credit with a maximum annual benefit of $100 per adult and $30 per child ($100 for the first child in a single parent family) with the maximum benefit increased by five per cent in 2009..."

The carbon tax is intended to motivate people to change their life styles by urging them to reduce their use of fossil fuels wherever possible. If they do that they will save money (carbon tax) and the environment at the same time.

Replace light bulbs with the ones that use 80% less energy, when you need a new vehicle choose one that is more fuel efficient...well, everybody knows by now what's up.

I have been doing all that for quite a few years already and getting the predictable savings.

By the way, California is not the only place where some people live in mega houses - have a look at Greater Vancouver! Those huge mansions there on tiny lots must take a lot to heat in the winter and cool in the summer!

EdH, how is Arnold doing these days? I see he has a hydrogen powered BMW!

Posted by: metalman on July 2 2008 9:30 AM

"Prince Georgians burn fuel in their houses like its' going out of style"
Isn't that a stupid comment, EdH? I don't understand what you are getting at. Should we try and NOT heat our homes? If you lived here, then you know that one must have heat in the winter. As far as I know, there are no hybrid houses for sale, so we have to burn something in order to stay warm, unless we go to electric heating.
Blaming the citizens of P.G. for "disgusting particulate matter" is somewhat asinine as well, it is the geography in the city that exacerbates the problem, but I agree that not enough is being done to improve the matter, other than banning backyard wienie roasts of course.
metalman.

Posted by: getajob on July 2 2008 9:53 AM

If you want to run big Jet boats,Tahoes,Yukons,pickups you gotta pay!we can'y be comparing or pointing at any other province or country!

Does complaining why other places do not comply make it right for us not to?

Look i don't much like paying more and more like Ben and the rest of the province, however, not taking action is just wrong!

Down size your vehicle size and fleet. If you do not need huge SUV'S and 4x4s don't get a new one next time around.

Some claim that they love wildlife and our water sheds ect, yet they still choose to run these huge poluters! Lets all look within and stop bitching and start leading! My free $100 is going into my SunFire and that will last us a month...How long will it last you?

Posted by: Bridge on July 2 2008 10:59 AM

If you want to run big Jet boats,Tahoes,Yukons,pickups you gotta pay!we can'y be comparing or pointing at any other province or country!

Getajob, you got it. It just does not make sence to drive these vehicles in our City. Sure we have snow and I have to give credit were credit is due and that is our streets are very well maintained for winter driving conditions.

Instead of using commonn sence when when it comes to our life style we go overboard and have to have it "ALL". Its not just the monster vehicles we drive its where we live is another problem. Can you imagine two people living in a 2500 sq ft home? Is this another reason for the tax?

What ever happened to the little 1000/1200 sq ft boxes that were built in the 80's? Three bed rooms, kitchen,living room on and on. Eight foot ceilings easy to heat and cool in summer. R 60 in the ceilings and 20 in the walls. The R2000 home was a great design but it wa s scrapped for the monsters that are now being built. Cost would probably run around 200 thousand.

I think that the tax is really stupid and then to give it all back does that make sence? Probably not but there are people in our society that need a jolt. Will that do it ?

Cheers

Posted by: Andyfreeze on July 2 2008 11:25 AM

I agree Bridge!
The houses that they are building now are WAY too big, and much more than we actually need!
And not only are they bigger than most people really need,they cost big bucks to put up.
Big heating bills,big taxes,big mortgage!
Throw in some big Visa bills and a few charge accounts and it's no wonder people end up in financial trouble!

Posted by: ras on July 2 2008 12:43 PM

Well i would really like to see what Cambell is doing now that the gas price has gone up what is he doing to help the so called Carbon Tax?
does he walk or ride transit to work everyday?

Posted by: owl on July 2 2008 1:35 PM

Metalman said: "Should we try and NOT heat our homes? If you lived here, then you know that one must have heat in the winter."

Do you have a heat recovery system in your house? In the late 70s and possibly into the early 80's many new houses in the 1,200 sf and up category had a heat recovery system built in. I doubt too many have that now.

I have noticed that we are reacting quite differntly this time around with the quick increase in oil prices than the last time. Countires in Eurioe reacted .. Brazil reacted .. and they stuck to their guns. As a result they have a good start at higher efficiency vehicles and alternative energy sources.

We just went back to our old ways ... vehicles are larger now than they ever were in my lifetime. So are houses .... for smaller families than we had then.

We have not learned. Tough love time is coming and expect more of it.

Posted by: owl on July 2 2008 1:41 PM

hey ... just noticed Wood Wheaton has a Hummer advertised on the top banner. I hear that lots of dealers are now throwing in a years supply of gasoline on those monsters for those who think they need to feeling of driving down a street in Baghdad. :-)

Posted by: heidi1555 on July 2 2008 2:29 PM

I'm just sitting here reading your comments minding my own business and want to say owl I love reading yours and at times dreamed of driving a tank up and down our winter roads/highways :) Would be nice to take back some of the power the roads have taken from me!!!!

My first little dodge colt I bought when I was 19 would never survive today's roads. At least it was light enough to slide into neutral and push through the unplowed street after getting stuck from halting to a stop because the neighbours let their kids slide out onto the roads!! Those kids were lucky I wasn't driving a tank... :)

Posted by: Howrd_B_Stern on July 2 2008 3:55 PM

I agree with getajob about these big monster trucks out there. Do you really need to drive and turbo diesel for work or are you just over compensating for short comings elsewhere?

That old "I need a pickup for work" line is sad. Buy yourself a V6 4X4 and you'll do just fine.

I have heard GM is dumping the whole Hummer line anyway.

The best way to stop people from driving Hummers is simple; when you buy one, you automatically get enlisted to serve one tour of duty in Afghanistan protecting our troops over there.

Posted by: EdH on July 2 2008 4:51 PM

Hi metalman-- I am hesitant to reply because you consider my comments stupid. Since you have that conclusion, I think you simply misunderstand my position. I never said PG's penchant for fuel burning in the home wasn't without good reason. I was just using that as evidence to support my claim that PG is not guilt free when it comes to environmental impact, so shouldn't complain when it's asked to do what it can to help in the solution. That's my entire point.

Posted by: NMG on July 2 2008 7:08 PM

I just love PG sometimes. It's like we've been isolated from the rest of the world and just realized that gas is now 1.42 a litre (and rising) instead of 58 cents per litre.

What's next, we're going to find out that a pest has been eating our forests and the immediate future of the forestry industry is not looking too great?

I agree with owl. It's time to get over it, accept what is occuring in the world and adapt where you can. It's the reality of what we're faced with. Ben, wasn't "reality dictates" one of your old sayings?

Posted by: astro on July 2 2008 8:11 PM

Gordo has imposed this "Carbon Tax" on us by using closure in the legislature. He did not want a full and open debate. And did he allow a free vote for Liberal MLA"s? No.
This should be called a gas tax, it is not a carbon tax. If it was then all products that use carbon, are petrochemicals or produce CO2 would be taxed - like plastics. Can you imagine if beer and pop were taxed? Of course Champagne would be taxed as well unless it is imported. So Gordo would not have to pay the carbon on his Dom Perrington(sp).

Here is a story about our premier.

Gordon Campbell was seated next to a little girl on the airplane when he turned to her and said, 'Let's talk. I've heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.' (She had rich parents so she could fly 1st class while we pay for Gordo's ticket.)

The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to Campbell, 'What would you like to talk about?'

'Oh, I don't know,' said Campbell. 'How about the environment?' and he smiles.

'OK, she said. 'That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?'

Campbell, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, 'Hmmmm, I have no idea.'

To which the little girl replies, 'Do you really feel qualified to discuss the environment when you don't know s**t?'

Posted by: owl on July 2 2008 11:07 PM

http://marginalien.blogspot.com/2006/10/joke-and-some-questions.html

http://blog.monsterindia.com/my/annucool/FLIGHT-CONVERSATION-WITH-A-KID-17875.html
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/002565.html
http://forums.locogringo.com/forums/tm.asp?m=847151
http://www.kensavage.com/index.php/archives/keep-bush-or-elect-kerry/
http://www.techsupportforum.com/relaxation-room/offline/17506-solved-rather-funny.html

Posted by: Andyfreeze on July 3 2008 7:56 AM

Heee haw!...good one astro!
:-)

Posted by: metalman on July 3 2008 9:29 AM

EdH, I only thought that one comment was stupid, nothing else. The way it comes across to me hey, I reacted. In general, I am becoming tired of hearing from all quarters that we are running this planet into the ground, so to speak. While I am not a rabid environmentalist, I strongly believe that we need to protect the environment we all depend upon.
Owl, do YOU have a heat recovery system in your house? Obviously you know that they have been available to the consumer for three decades or more, but did you know that for the most part they are not very effective when the outdoor temperature is low? Do you realize that for them to be (more) effective in cold climates that a re-heat system is required? This is typically an electric coil placed into the duct that delivers the outside air into the house, after it has passed through the recovery heat exchanger. Furthermore, a defrost system is required if you want the ventilator to operate effectively during very cold temperatures. In addition, these units, known as h.r.v.'s, each have two fans, electrically driven. So, an h.r.v. is a good thing, it helps keep the air in the home a little fresher, and a little cleaner (provided the outside air is clean and fresh) BUT, as an energy saving device? Not really, if you compare input costs (electricity) vs. energy saved in fewer cycles for the furnace. Don't get me wrong, I think every building should have one, many buildings need one, but the energy savings are minimal, when looking at the big picture.
metalman.

Posted by: diplomat on July 4 2008 1:37 PM

Regarding owl's post on July 2 2008 11:07 PM:

It's green with all the website addresses you decided to post, but what is your opinion about them?