Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: Most Canadian's oppose carbon tax

  1. #1

    Default Most Canadian's oppose carbon tax

    Canadians aren't stupid - they know a failed policy when they see it. Watching the US economy boom while our unemployment remains stubbornly high, watching jobs going south to where carbon isn't taxed and energy is now much cheaper, most Canadians want to see a stop to carbon tax, and oppose any federal imposition of it:

    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john...5-9f09f6bc5cc5

  2. #2

    Default

    Well with all levels of governments having huge spending problems a carbon tax is just another way to get money off the taxpaying public. They can disguise it in a way that it's helping the planet but I should imagine it is going straight into general revenue so they can spend more and buy votes. Unfortunately too many people believe the government(s) word on a host of things so we will continue to be fleeced in the most imaginative ways.
    I have conversed with the worst kind of hectoring, bully pulpit smart-a**e*; dripping with virtuous self-aggrandizing sanctimony.................. and that's just on this forum.

  3. #3
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    Watching the US economy boom while our unemployment remains stubbornly high
    Over here in reality, the Canadian economy was the fastest growing in the G7 over the past year: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/apri...nada-1.4185542

    April's figure means that Canada's economy has expanded by 3.3 per cent in the past year, "far and away the fastest growth rate among the major industrialized economies over that stretch," Porter noted.

  4. #4

    Default

    The problem is our country is borrowing a ridiculous amount of money and irresponsibly increasing national debt for this short-term economic gain.

  5. #5
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,126

    Default

    No, we aren't. Our GDP growth rate is higher than our deficit. By definition, our overall debt load measured against the size of the economy, the only rational and logical way to look at it, is going down. This is basic arithmetic.

  6. #6
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    The problem is our country is borrowing a ridiculous amount of money and irresponsibly increasing national debt for this short-term economic gain.
    What federal debt is irresponsible? Infrastructure debt?
    The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
    It's heaven and hell!

  7. #7
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Canadians aren't stupid - they know a failed policy when they see it. Watching the US economy boom while our unemployment remains stubbornly high, watching jobs going south to where carbon isn't taxed and energy is now much cheaper, most Canadians want to see a stop to carbon tax, and oppose any federal imposition of it:

    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john...5-9f09f6bc5cc5
    Of course, people oppose taxes. So do I. What's so new about that?
    The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
    It's heaven and hell!

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Canadians aren't stupid - they know a failed policy when they see it. Watching the US economy boom while our unemployment remains stubbornly high, watching jobs going south to where carbon isn't taxed and energy is now much cheaper, most Canadians want to see a stop to carbon tax, and oppose any federal imposition of it:

    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john...5-9f09f6bc5cc5
    Of course, people oppose taxes. So do I. What's so new about that?
    Yeah, most people opposed the GST but the Conservatives created it anyway and the Liberals that promised to scrap it, broke their promise once in power. So people generally oppose any tax but then demand services, changed behaviour, etc driven by taxes.


    As for the economy, isn't Canada's doing quite well now and the US is only mediocre based on actual numbers, despite a Trump generated perception of increased growth?
    Last edited by KC; 05-07-2017 at 10:56 PM.

  9. #9
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    ^ agreed
    The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
    It's heaven and hell!

  10. #10

    Default

    Hey moa, if you're gonna editorialize, at least learn grammar. Or is that too elitist for you anti-intellectuals? Plural for Canadian is Canadians.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Our GDP growth rate is higher than our deficit.
    It is? Thank god. Our country doesn't need higher taxes or inflation.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    No, we aren't. Our GDP growth rate is higher than our deficit. By definition, our overall debt load measured against the size of the economy, the only rational and logical way to look at it, is going down. This is basic arithmetic.
    Theres something wrong with that arithmetic, and metric. By comparison it would be right for a consumer to spend like crazy because their income, in the exact moment, tends to be high. The clear fault in that is that the "size of the economy" and GDP, and growth is subject to change, which won't always be paying for the debt incurred through spending ways. Basic pragmatic math.

    Albeit I understand that the new math temporarily supports the economy and rationalizes out of control spending.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Our GDP growth rate is higher than our deficit.
    It is? Thank god. Our country doesn't need higher taxes or inflation.
    My view it that sometimes it does need higher taxes and higher inflation, and other times lower taxes and lower inflation and maybe even deflation. Relying on GDP numbers to gage the appropriateness of debt assumption is scary, because so much of GDP can be composed of activity that will not compound growth in the future and may even drag down future 'economic' growth and the ability to pay off that debt.

    Higher inflation (which tends to eventually raise interest rates) is beneficial after debt has been assumed and until rolling of that debt drives up the borrowing cost. Anyone that bought a house using debt prior to the 1970s run up in inflation saw the benefits of inflation reducing their burden, until their debt became due at a higher interest rate.

    Liberal borrowers like countries and US home buyers however can borrow long and lock in low interest rates and then just sit back and watch inflation reduce their fixed obligation, and screw over the conservative lenders.

    Tax load can thus be altered in both the short and long term, often reduced in the short term and an ever shirking relative real, not nominal, debt load passed on to future generations via assuming debt.

    Unfortunately, dogmatic beliefs get in the way and options like defeasance are ignored when they would be wisely employed to avoid future risk.

    Also, the issuance of foreign currency debt can introduce other unforeseen risks.

    So the problem comes down to policy makers with simplistic understandings setting the debt policies and countries later being blindsided due to policy setter ignorance of double-edged swords (of debt, taxes, GDP composition, etc)


    Interesting article but doesn't address my concerns about tying borrowings to economic development that essentially builds national "net worth".

    What does GDP really tell us about economic growth? - Telegraph

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...ic-growth.html


    A must read:

    America’s GDP fetishism is a rare luxury in an age of vulnerability | Business | The Guardian


    https://www.theguardian.com/business...res?CMP=twt_gu
    Last edited by KC; 06-07-2017 at 08:36 AM.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Hey moa, if you're gonna editorialize, at least learn grammar. Or is that too elitist for you anti-intellectuals? Plural for Canadian is Canadians.
    Boo hoo - most Canadians agree with moa that carbon taxes are harming our economy - but heck, lets attack the one thing that's bad - the grammar. Its all turning sour for the Liberals and the NDP, at the end of the day, people don't like seeing government rack up countless billions in debt for minimal growth at a time when there is no global recession, while at the same time ramping up taxes that actually hit the pocket book. When the next rounds of carbon tax (which is an ever increasing tax forever on energy which impacts not only consumers but also the companies they want to get jobs from but can't because they are heading south) ramp up, the anger is only going to increase. I am just amazed at how stupid Trudeau was - he intentionally tried to take the "credit" for carbon taxes through the federal backstop / blackmail plan. If he had half a brain, he would have realized once people see impacts of it, it won't be popular, and would have left the "pain" to the provinces stupid enough to implement one (which unfortunately includes Alberta under Notley).
    Last edited by moahunter; 06-07-2017 at 08:38 AM.

  15. #15
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    No, we aren't. Our GDP growth rate is higher than our deficit. By definition, our overall debt load measured against the size of the economy, the only rational and logical way to look at it, is going down. This is basic arithmetic.
    Theres something wrong with that arithmetic, and metric. By comparison it would be right for a consumer to spend like crazy because their income, in the exact moment, tends to be high. The clear fault in that is that the "size of the economy" and GDP, and growth is subject to change, which won't always be paying for the debt incurred through spending ways. Basic pragmatic math.

    Albeit I understand that the new math temporarily supports the economy and rationalizes out of control spending.
    Comparing government spending to personal spending is a faulty argument and false analogy. Try it with any economist and they'll laugh you out of the room: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debat...dit-card-debt/

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug...nding-20110824

    The reason it falls apart, is that for a family or individual, them spending a bunch of money on a new car or whatever isn't going to impact their future income. Government spending on infrastructure or other productive investment DOES increase long run growth and therefore government revenues.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 06-07-2017 at 08:55 AM.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    The reason it falls apart, is that for a family or individual, them spending a bunch of money on a new car or whatever isn't going to impact their future income. Government spending on infrastructure or other productive investment DOES increase long run growth and therefore government revenues.
    If you think all government spending is infrastructure that will generate growth, you will be laughed out of the room, government spending is about the least efficient for growth you can find (and for very good reason - its politically motivated not financially). Much of the spending ramp of Trudeau is going on such brilliant things as increased UN spending, bombardier bail outs, paying multi million dollar amounts to terrorists, a pointless infrastructure bank (that will reward his Bay street pals with big commissions to manage it), etc. There is no global recession, there is no excuse for the Federal government having an endless cheque book for Ontario, Quebec, and the UN, which it does right now.
    Last edited by moahunter; 06-07-2017 at 09:40 AM.

  17. #17

    Default

    most of the most productive investments are completed, replacing a water main or adding a shoulder to a highway may have value but it won't result in economic growth. Even our big ticket 'investments" like the Henday will mostly reallocate growth rather than create it, and the best we can hope for with things like LRT is that it will cost less than the additional roads that we would need without it.

    It's true, though, that since our economy is growing faster than our debt so we are no worse off than last year. Just not as much better off as we could be.
    There can only be one.

  18. #18
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    If you think all government spending is infrastructure that will generate growth, you will be laughed out of the room


    I don't, and never said as much. Why do you constantly put words in other's mouths? Is that the only way you can win an argument?

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    Much of the spending ramp of Trudeau is going on such brilliant things as increased UN spending, bombardier bail outs, paying multi million dollar amounts to terrorists, a pointless infrastructure bank (that will reward his Bay street pals with big commissions to manage it), etc.


    Citation please. Demonstrate your claim and add up the numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    There is no global recession, there is no excuse for the Federal government having an endless cheque book for Ontario, Quebec, and the UN, which it does right now.


    No there is no global recession, but Canada's economy had been running well under capacity. Hence why the IMF and others have been pleased with Canada's investments in infrastructure and so on:
    https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2017/05/31/mcs5312017-canada-staff-concluding-statement-of-the-2017-article-iv-mission

    9. Maintaining fiscal discipline will be important to keep funding costs low and to rebuild buffers.
    The government’s commitment to set debt-to-GDP on a declining path is welcome. Once the economy stabilizes around its potential, reinstating a fiscal rule to anchor the medium-term fiscal framework would help ensure the sustainability of public finances.

    10. Infrastructure investment is a cornerstone of the government’s growth strategy and the proposed Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) will be an effective instrument in achieving this goal.
    The CIB is expected to invest in large, complex, and revenue-generating projects, which would not otherwise be feasible, given the risks involved are too large, and returns too small, to attract private investors while the cost is prohibitive for the federal government to go it alone. By taking a subordinate equity stake and leveraging private capital, the CIB would limit government borrowing and reduce pressure on budget financing, and free up fiscal resources for other high priorities. In addition to capital, private investors will be expected to bring their technical competence, discipline, and creativity, that could help reduce risk and lower the overall project cost. The success of the CIB will depend on ensuring that the project selection process is transparent and balances public and private interests. Given the potential of the CIB to advance long-term growth, the government and the CIB must address public resistance to user fees as well as skepticism over involving private investors in public infrastructure projects, with education and a clear statement of the CIB’s benefit.
    And here's the real doozy:

    12. If downside risks were to materialize, additional fiscal stimulus should be the first line of defense, as Canada has some fiscal space.
    Fiscal policy is more potent when there is slack in the economy and monetary policy is constrained by the effective lower bound. To this end, the government should have on stand-by fiscal measures that could be easily brought forward. While further easing of monetary policy could be a useful complement, there is a risk that such action could exacerbate household balance sheet vulnerabilities and housing imbalances. A further cut in the policy rate or recourse to unconventional measures may, however, become necessary if there is a significant contraction in economic activity.
    Wait, we have "fiscal space"? So MrOilers and moahunter are wrong when they claim that our government is awash in debt and deficits? You don't say!
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 06-07-2017 at 11:16 AM.

  19. #19

    Default Trudeau government close to breaking all-time record for per-capita federal spending

    ^It speaks for itself, its ridiculous at a time when the world is not in global recession (which was the situation with Harpers minority government budget where it spikes) to be spending like a drunken sailor. No wonder interest rates are about to rise, the free lunch won't last forever:

    http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...4-d5a75ff1142d

    Last edited by moahunter; 06-07-2017 at 11:25 AM.

  20. #20
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,126

    Default

    Keep moving those goal posts, you intellectual coward.

  21. #21

    Default

    ^you claimed Trudeau's spending is reasonable, I have correctly pointed out it is bordering at record all time high's. Don't worry though Marcel, perhaps you agree with him that the budget will balance itself as well? Its just a shame there won't be much left to tax to fix that budget one day as anyone with half a brain in the heavy industries right now are putting their money south of the border where the cost of energy is not hamstrung by carbon taxes.
    Last edited by moahunter; 06-07-2017 at 11:54 AM.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Keep moving those goal posts, you intellectual coward.
    Hahahahahahahaha. My favourite post on here in years!
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Keep moving those goal posts, you intellectual coward.
    Hahahahahahahaha. My favourite post on here in years!
    Keep it up, name throwing is the only way for those of slow wit to win arguments.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Keep moving those goal posts, you intellectual coward.
    Hahahahahahahaha. My favourite post on here in years!
    Keep it up, name throwing is the only way for those of slow wit to win arguments.
    There's no winning with you, as you'll just move the goalposts. Hence you being an intellectual coward. It's not name calling when it's an accurate assessment of your lack of integrity & critical thinking.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  25. #25

    Default

    ^it distracts from the harsh politically reality you can't handle, that most Canadians agree with me, and not you, re the carbon tax, so keep at it if it makes you happy, because the next Alberta provincial and federal government won't (I'm happy to say).

  26. #26

    Default

    Where on Earth does all that smugness from the political left come from?

  27. #27
    I have conversed with the worst kind of hectoring, bully pulpit smart-a**e*; dripping with virtuous self-aggrandizing sanctimony.................. and that's just on this forum.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    No, we aren't. Our GDP growth rate is higher than our deficit. By definition, our overall debt load measured against the size of the economy, the only rational and logical way to look at it, is going down. This is basic arithmetic.
    Theres something wrong with that arithmetic, and metric. By comparison it would be right for a consumer to spend like crazy because their income, in the exact moment, tends to be high. The clear fault in that is that the "size of the economy" and GDP, and growth is subject to change, which won't always be paying for the debt incurred through spending ways. Basic pragmatic math.

    Albeit I understand that the new math temporarily supports the economy and rationalizes out of control spending.
    Comparing government spending to personal spending is a faulty argument and false analogy. Try it with any economist and they'll laugh you out of the room: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debat...dit-card-debt/

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug...nding-20110824

    The reason it falls apart, is that for a family or individual, them spending a bunch of money on a new car or whatever isn't going to impact their future income. Government spending on infrastructure or other productive investment DOES increase long run growth and therefore government revenues.
    The last part is completely laughable. Federal spending as job creation and or temporary impetus is the worst reason possible to increase federal debt. That's trying to replace free market impetus with subsidized investment and while servicing debt where every spending dollar isn't a dollar to begin with because the budget is already servicing accrued debt with only more to be added to it.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  29. #29
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Where on Earth does all that smugness from the political left come from?
    Same place as the right wingers get it from
    The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
    It's heaven and hell!

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    No, we aren't. Our GDP growth rate is higher than our deficit. By definition, our overall debt load measured against the size of the economy, the only rational and logical way to look at it, is going down. This is basic arithmetic.
    Theres something wrong with that arithmetic, and metric. By comparison it would be right for a consumer to spend like crazy because their income, in the exact moment, tends to be high. The clear fault in that is that the "size of the economy" and GDP, and growth is subject to change, which won't always be paying for the debt incurred through spending ways. Basic pragmatic math.

    Albeit I understand that the new math temporarily supports the economy and rationalizes out of control spending.
    Comparing government spending to personal spending is a faulty argument and false analogy. Try it with any economist and they'll laugh you out of the room: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debat...dit-card-debt/

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug...nding-20110824

    The reason it falls apart, is that for a family or individual, them spending a bunch of money on a new car or whatever isn't going to impact their future income. Government spending on infrastructure or other productive investment DOES increase long run growth and therefore government revenues.
    The last part is completely laughable. Federal spending as job creation and or temporary impetus is the worst reason possible to increase federal debt. That's trying to replace free market impetus with subsidized investment and while servicing debt where every spending dollar isn't a dollar to begin with because the budget is already servicing accrued debt with only more to be added to it.
    I didn't read the whole article but it should be noted that credit card debt can create substantial gains (aka economic growth) for the individual as well. Repair a vehicle, get to work or an interview, get a new career opportunity..., repair a roof, avoid future costs, free up cash flow... not all consumer debt is for "non-productive" consumption. In fact much of it could be highly productive from one perspective or the other.

    Anyway, in such comparisons one has to be aware of the "fallacy of composition" in econ-speak.
    Last edited by KC; 06-07-2017 at 01:22 PM.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Where on Earth does all that smugness from the political left come from?
    Same place as the right wingers get it from
    Ah, post-secondary educational institutions.

  32. #32
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,855

    Default

    But...but, don't budgets balance themselves?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  33. #33

    Default

    The province just announced funding support for the Green Line in Calgary, to be paid for by the carbon tax. It will be very interesting to see how this affects people's views of the carbon tax over time. A similar arrangement will likely be announced for the West extension of the Valley Line here. Very smart move by the NDP, imo. If Kenney & Co plan to axe the carbon tax while also balancing the budget, they will have an extremely difficult time coming up with a feasible plan to still fund public transportation projects like this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Einstein

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GizmoForMayor View Post
    The province just announced funding support for the Green Line in Calgary, to be paid for by the carbon tax. It will be very interesting to see how this affects people's views of the carbon tax over time. A similar arrangement will likely be announced for the West extension of the Valley Line here. Very smart move by the NDP, imo. If Kenney & Co plan to axe the carbon tax while also balancing the budget, they will have an extremely difficult time coming up with a feasible plan to still fund public transportation projects like this.
    With oil at $45/bbl, gas at whatever (<$3 ?) and other export based revenues likely being rather mediocre or un-extraordinary, just the province's 'core' expenditures are likely using up most or all of the available traditional tax revenue. So the carbon tax or whatever the next party calls their different-but-the-same tax increase (say the: "Covert tax") the problem stays the same, less money is coming into the province.

  35. #35
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,398

    Default

    Using the money the carbon tax has brought in to build LRT in Alberta while at the same time incentivizing people to have a smaller carbon footprint is smart. I don't see how any political party could take away the carbon tax, still put money into infrastructure, and balance the budget. Anybody who believes that the Wildrose or PCs, if / when they claim they, can accomplish this is having the wool pulled over their eyes.

    I think only one of three things can happen. We stick with a carbon tax, it gets repealed and replaced with another tax (I like KC's "covert tax"), or it gets repealed and Alberta doesn't put anything into infrastructure spending until oil goes up again... if it ever does.

  36. #36

    Default

    For what LRT costs we could buy everyone an electric vehicle. Manufacture them, be pioneers . Be the electric hub of Canada .

    In stead we get these sardine cans on tracks

  37. #37

    Default

    We'll have to burn a LOT more coal to electrically power that many green-energy cars.

    There's always a catch - there is no type of energy we can use that is environmentally neutral.

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    We'll have to burn a LOT more coal to electrically power that many green-energy cars.

    There's always a catch - there is no type of energy we can use that is environmentally neutral.
    Coal is clean if process right , clean coal technology . The byproducts are used in steel making , carbon filters and materials , heavy metals etc.
    Personally ...I build gasifiers ( similar to clean coal) that convert wood, shells , garbage ( anything carbon base ) and convert them into fuel. .
    The trees suck up the carbon . I convert the wood in to usable fuels ( syngas ) to run my generators, heating, run the truck and the byproducts a sequestered carbon. The carbon is used in soaps , water filtering , put back in to garden .
    Last edited by champking; 09-07-2017 at 12:00 PM.

  39. #39
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers
    We'll have to burn a LOT more coal to electrically power that many green-energy cars.


    Well no, because renewables are now cost competitive with fossil fuels, whether that be natural gas or coal. And that aside, ground to tailpipe electric cars have lower emissions than fossil fuel powered ones, because they're far, far more efficient. As are large power plants. A typical internal combustion powered car is only 15% thermally efficient (and that's ignoring inefficiency, pollution and GHG emissions from refining the gasoline or diesel in the first place). Meanwhile, even a modern coal plant is something like 50% thermally efficient, and the electric car itself will be 60-70% efficient. That means an electric car would be nearly twice as efficient as a gasoline or diesel powered one, per unit of energy put in to the system.

    Not to mention that air pollution from gas or diesel powered cars significantly impact the air quality in urban areas. If instead most cars are electric but still powered by fossil fuel fired power plants, those plants are in rural areas where the pollution won't impact nearly as many people. And it's far easier to install scrubbers to reduce and the like on large power plants, than it is on vehicles. See VW's problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers
    There's always a catch - there is no type of energy we can use that is environmentally neutral.


    No, but some are far worse for the environment than others. Coal being the primary culprit, both in terms of GHG as well as smog inducing pollutants.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 09-07-2017 at 02:44 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •