Korean Job Discussion Forums

[khyber]

In days when energy costs are sky rocketing what more sensible thing would there be than to get RID of incentives that encourage people to use energy smart programs!
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/05/energuide05052006.html

Thanks for the 1% less GST!

[thepeel]

Let me walk you through this.

When energy prices are low, and you want to limit consumption, the powers of the state can be used.

When energy prices are high, and going to stay high for a long, long while, then the powers of the state are not needed. People will naturally limit consumption.

It makes no sense to tax all people to give to a few people to conserve energy when they are already conserving.

As public policy, it makes very good sense. Harper is ending programs that are no longer needed.

High energy prices should be a lefty/environmentalists wet dream.

[khyber]

yes...that does make sense.
I am not certain that in Edmonton they will sit in their house through -35C winters and adjust the heat 30% cooler than it had been in previous years.

[Manner of Speaking]

[Moldy Rutabaga]

[thepeel]

I'm very much in support of using public policy to encourage people to limit their consumption of petroleum. But, right now the price of petroleum is acting as a sufficient disincentive in itself.

For evidence of this, pick up last weeks (or the week before, I can't remember) Economist. In it, you will find a story about how Americans are (slightly) starting to ween themselves from their absurd SUV addiction due to concerns regarding energy.

Also, see this:
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060503/BUSINESS/605030397/1003/BUSINESS

But, if energy prices are low, I am in favour of fixing the price of petrol -via taxes - to, say, 1.25$/liter. The revenue from this could go towards research in clean energy and would also send a signal to the automotive market that prices are going to remain high and thus private investment is likely prudent (I'm stealing this idea from Tom Friedman, who wrote about this in the IHT last Thursday).

What I think is a bit silly is our current habit of having the state build more roads - which encourages consumption - in lieu of a focus on mass transit etc. The current public policy situation is really irrational, and I like that Harper is changing it up at bit. I would like him to go much farther. But he won't.

[ursus_rex]

But the costs of energy do not necessarily cause less use. For instance, a program to assist low income families with the insulation of houses will save energy no matter the current cost of fuel. Some programs are benefitial no matter what energy costs are.

[thepeel]

I don't know if your first point and your second are necessarily related. You state that "the costs of energy do not necessarily cause less use" and then point to a government program designed to cause less use.

It is as if you said

High apple prices don't necessary cause people to eat less apples. For instance, sometimes the government gives apples to "low income" families.

Anyhow, high prices tend to drive down consumption. Government can also create incentives to lower consumption. But, I think that the current prices are disincentive enough that the government can, for now, step back.

But you are right, some programs are beneficial regardless of current energy costs. That doesn't mean that they are prudent or needed.

If oil drops to 10$/barrel then I totally agree with using tax incentives to help people better insulate their homes. Right now, they can turn the heat down and put on a sweater (or 2).

[khyber]