The Climate Change Budget. It is nice to see the government beginning to understand that one of the strongest public policy tools that is has is taxation. Tax shifting has been around as an idea for years now, but very few governments are willing to move forward with it. BC is starting to break this mold.
The budget has introduced a modest carbon tax and balanced it with tax cuts in other areas. The goal is no change in net revenues.
The amount the price so fuel is going to rise is still not enough that it is going to make a dramatic difference, but another few cents a litre is going to make people think and will make people move forward with different choices.
Not very long ago a litre of gasoline was in the 50 cent range. Now it is around $1.10 a litre. at 25 000 km per year and 15 l/100 km, this means fuel has gone from $1875 per year to $4125 - that is an extra $2250 a year. Trading in this heavy gas user for one that comes in at 7.5l/100 km - quite reasonable for a lot of sedans now - your current gas bill will come in at about $2065 a year, not much more than what was spent a few years earlier.
Moving from an Xtera to an Optra would achieve this savings. $2000 a year is nothing to sneeze at- this is $40 a week.
It also makes sense to try and improve your gas mileage - saving 10% in fuel a year is now worth hundreds of dollars. It also becomes worthwhile to look at reducing the amount of travelling - say you drop that by 10% as well. You could go from $4125 the Xtera would cost you with current driving numbers to something in the range of $1700 a year - $2400 less in spending. This is the same as a before tax pay increase of $500 a month.
The amounts the government is proposing is still small, but they have started the process of taxing a bad to change behaviour.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Impact of Rising Gas Prices
We are now seeing a sustained period of gas prices of over $1 per litre. I wonder how much of an impact this is having on consumption in the Canada? I wonder what the impact is in the US?
It is hard to tell if people are driving less or just absorbing the costs. How big has the impact been?
A few years back we were paying about 50 cents per litre. An average car drives about 20 000 km in a year and gets about 10l/100km. This works out to a fuel cost of about $1000 per year for an average car in Canada. At $1.10 per litre, this has now risen to $2200.
$2200 is in the range of what we pay for fuel for the car. We spend much more on other things. Our annual food bill is about $10 000. We pay more for one month of our mortgage than all the gas for the car for a year. Gas for the car is not a big thing in our budget.
If you drive 10% less, you save about $220 - this means driving about 40 km less per week. But is it really worth doing? Does it make much difference? Would I even notice this money? This about the same amount of money as 2 Americanos at Starbucks a week or one beer a week out at a cheap bar.
The other way to save is to get better gas mileage - if one can improve by 10% the gas mileage on the car, this again saves about $220. This can be achieved by more frequent car care and driving with fuel economy in mind. From what I see out there very few people are doing this.
Another option is to buy a car that uses less fuel. If one can improve the mileage by 5l/100km, one saves about $1100 per year. Not a very big bonus to encourage buying a car that can get better mileage. Just over $20 per week.
As far as I can tell, the price of gas is still much too low to make any significant dent in driving habits. The marginal cost of owning a car will have to rise a lot more before large masses of people will choose to get out of their cars. Realistically we need to be looking at gas prices of more than $4 per litre before we will see the price make any change to driving habits. At this price, a 10% reduction in fuel costs would save $800 per year and a 5l/100km upgrade in vehicle would save you $4000 in a year. But even at $4 a litre, my gas expenses would still be smaller than what I spend on food.
It is hard to tell if people are driving less or just absorbing the costs. How big has the impact been?
A few years back we were paying about 50 cents per litre. An average car drives about 20 000 km in a year and gets about 10l/100km. This works out to a fuel cost of about $1000 per year for an average car in Canada. At $1.10 per litre, this has now risen to $2200.
$2200 is in the range of what we pay for fuel for the car. We spend much more on other things. Our annual food bill is about $10 000. We pay more for one month of our mortgage than all the gas for the car for a year. Gas for the car is not a big thing in our budget.
If you drive 10% less, you save about $220 - this means driving about 40 km less per week. But is it really worth doing? Does it make much difference? Would I even notice this money? This about the same amount of money as 2 Americanos at Starbucks a week or one beer a week out at a cheap bar.
The other way to save is to get better gas mileage - if one can improve by 10% the gas mileage on the car, this again saves about $220. This can be achieved by more frequent car care and driving with fuel economy in mind. From what I see out there very few people are doing this.
Another option is to buy a car that uses less fuel. If one can improve the mileage by 5l/100km, one saves about $1100 per year. Not a very big bonus to encourage buying a car that can get better mileage. Just over $20 per week.
As far as I can tell, the price of gas is still much too low to make any significant dent in driving habits. The marginal cost of owning a car will have to rise a lot more before large masses of people will choose to get out of their cars. Realistically we need to be looking at gas prices of more than $4 per litre before we will see the price make any change to driving habits. At this price, a 10% reduction in fuel costs would save $800 per year and a 5l/100km upgrade in vehicle would save you $4000 in a year. But even at $4 a litre, my gas expenses would still be smaller than what I spend on food.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Behaviour Modification
Given that almost everyone seems to think cars a problem, how about doing with cars what was done with cigarettes - ban any advertising of cars........
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Rail Transit and Busways
We need to get the public away from the irrational love affair with rail transit and recognize that we can not afford to build any sort of track based transit expect for in the dense areas of the lower mainland.
Somehow there is a large segment of the public that dislikes buses. Every city that has a subway moves huge numbers of people via buses as well. The bus is the core to transit is the mechanism that will get people out of their cars.
Right now there is a campaign in Greater Victoria for a light rail system of some sort from downtown to the western communities. The people seem to want to use the old E and N line and think that there will be the traffic to make it work. Not a chance.
The cost of building a light rail line out to Langford from downtown Victoria would cost in the order of $200 000 000 to $500 000 000. The amount of money that this entails is enough to do some amazing things in Greater Victoria to deal with climate change issues. The potential savings from the rail transit will be minimal.
Make it faster for me to get to work on a bus and I will do it. Make it cheaper as well - say sell me an annual pass for $30 a month - and I will have one and use the buses more often.
At the moment the incremental cost to me to drive downtown is about $0.75 plus parking - say a buck. The bus will cost me $2.25. Using my car is cheaper. But I can hear you say that I am not counting all the other costs of car ownership, payments and insurance. Well, I have to pay that if I use the car or bus.
Building rail and operating it will mean a huge reduction in bus service in Greater Victoria and higher fares. So more people will start to drive because the bus will no longer be an option or the price premium for transit is too high.
Most of the people taking transit in Greater Victoria do not live along any proposed rail transit route. The population of the western communities is not slated to rise that dramatically that there will ever be a large portion of BC Transit's customers on that line.
A rail transit system is likely to lead to more green house gases in Greater Victoria, not less.
Somehow there is a large segment of the public that dislikes buses. Every city that has a subway moves huge numbers of people via buses as well. The bus is the core to transit is the mechanism that will get people out of their cars.
Right now there is a campaign in Greater Victoria for a light rail system of some sort from downtown to the western communities. The people seem to want to use the old E and N line and think that there will be the traffic to make it work. Not a chance.
The cost of building a light rail line out to Langford from downtown Victoria would cost in the order of $200 000 000 to $500 000 000. The amount of money that this entails is enough to do some amazing things in Greater Victoria to deal with climate change issues. The potential savings from the rail transit will be minimal.
Make it faster for me to get to work on a bus and I will do it. Make it cheaper as well - say sell me an annual pass for $30 a month - and I will have one and use the buses more often.
At the moment the incremental cost to me to drive downtown is about $0.75 plus parking - say a buck. The bus will cost me $2.25. Using my car is cheaper. But I can hear you say that I am not counting all the other costs of car ownership, payments and insurance. Well, I have to pay that if I use the car or bus.
Building rail and operating it will mean a huge reduction in bus service in Greater Victoria and higher fares. So more people will start to drive because the bus will no longer be an option or the price premium for transit is too high.
Most of the people taking transit in Greater Victoria do not live along any proposed rail transit route. The population of the western communities is not slated to rise that dramatically that there will ever be a large portion of BC Transit's customers on that line.
A rail transit system is likely to lead to more green house gases in Greater Victoria, not less.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Uranium Exploration
The hysteria about global warming and greenhouse gases has produced a huge boost to mining junior companies exploring for uranium. Not only are companies looking in Saskatchewan, but also in Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland. We are at the start of a new uranium rush and I am not happy about this.
COMMANDER RESOURCES LTD. : http://www.commanderresources.com/ : News Releases
For more information, send questions and comments to info@commanderresources.com
This page was created on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:40:51 AM Pacific Time.
COMMANDER RESOURCES LTD. : http://www.commanderresources.com/ : News Releases
 | January 18, 2008 Commander Outlines Drill Targets at Troy's Pond |
| Commander Resources Ltd. (CMD-TSX Venture) reports that a geophysical survey has defined a significant drill target coincident with uranium mineralization at Troy's Pond. The Induced Polarization (I.P.) survey was completed late in 2007 on the Troy's Pond, ST-129 and Quinlan uranium prospects on the wholly-owned Strickland Property, part of the Hermitage uranium project, Newfoundland. Results from back-hoe trenching and alpha-track survey work completed in the fall on other areas of the large Hermitage project are awaited. At Troy's Pond, six I.P. lines were completed to follow-up significant uranium mineralization intersected in drill holes completed in early in 2007 (previously reported in the Company's news release dated February 2nd, 2007), including a 10 metre wide uranium bearing zone assaying 0.02% U3O8, with a 4.3 m interval assaying 0.045% U3O8 (about 1 lb / t). A weak I.P. chargeability response, detected close to this uranium-bearing drill intersection, strengthens 100 metres to the west, then continues for a further 200 metres along strike of the host rock sequence to the end of the survey grid, beyond which the anomaly is open (refer to map on the Company's website). Several drill holes will be required to test this anomaly once a follow up I.P. survey has been done. The I.P. survey identified a new target in an overburden-covered area in the northwest portion of the Troy's Pond grid where no uranium prospects are known. The new target is 300 metres long and is open beyond the survey limit. An alpha-track survey, scintillometer survey, and soil sampling are required to determine if there is uranium associated with the anomaly. If the presence of uranium is indicated on this anomaly, it will be ready for drill testing. At the ST-129 uranium prospect, one kilometre east of Troy's Pond, three lines of I.P. surveying gave inconclusive results due to technical problems. Further I.P. surveying and sampling are required to develop drill targets. At the Quinlan Uranium Prospect, 10 km to the east of Troy's Pond, only three short lines of I.P. surveying were completed due to weather constraints. An anomaly on the westernmost line surveyed is clearly associated with uranium in bedrock. The I.P. anomaly is open in the direction of the uranium bearing trend which continues for several 100 metres. Uranium mineralization has been traced over a strike length of more than 800 metres in this area. If a suitable I.P. anomaly is developed, it will be drill ready. Logistically, the Strickland property is ideally located. Troy's Pond is situated only 8 kilometres from the old Hope Brook gold mine, which is 2 kilometres from tidewater where there is a useable pier. Also, an active, 150,000 volt powerline terminates at the old mine site. ABOUT COMMANDER RESOURCES LTD. Commander Resources Ltd. is a junior exploration company focused on gold and base metal exploration in Canada. The strength of Commander comes from a combination of aggressive land acquisition and strategic partnerships to increase exposure to discovery while mitigating risk to the shareholders. Diversification is the cornerstone of Commander's strategy and is reflected in its extensive property portfolio including the main projects, Baffin Island Gold, Hermitage Uranium and the South Voisey's Bay Nickel properties. On behalf of the Board of Directors, Kenneth E. Leigh President & CEO For further information, please call: Investor Relations: BMK Communications Toll Free: 1-877-489-4440 www.commanderresources.com Email: info@commanderresources.com The TSX Venture Exchange has not reviewed and does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release. | |
| Copyright © 2008 by Commander Resources Ltd. All rights reserved worldwide. |
This page was created on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:40:51 AM Pacific Time.
Tata Motors New Car
Recently the Indian based transnational announced the one lahk car. This car will retail for about $2500 in India and make car ownership a reasonable option for a much larger portion of the Indian population.
The response in the west has been interesting. One set of people are arguing that this is a horror as the world can not sustain the Indians massively expanding car ownership. The other set are saying the developed world is sinning because it has been on top too long and is producing so much more green house gases per person. Both are small minded and backward thinking approaches to the issues.
The people of Indian want to be able drive as we do and who are we to tell them no? Frankly, the predicted problems from global warming seem to be worse for India than most of the developed world and it is the Indians that could suffer, not Canadians.
The thinking has to evolve when it comes to GHGs. Realistically the answer lies in new technologies that cause less green house gases, carbon capture and a transition time till to allow for society to shift over.
India and China, a total of 40% of the global population, are going to be very quickly shifting to a much higher standard of living and this will mean a dramatic increase in cars, air travel and meat consumption in these nations. China is now the biggest producer of green house gases and the reality is that neither nation is going to slow down or stop.
If governments were to start some sort of program carbon taxes, it would make sense for government to use the money raised to buy back carbon. Making a large market for the purchase of carbon will create a market for the technology to strip carbon from the air.
The way forward will have to be one that allows people to consume more, drive more, and lead a higher standard of living or change will not occur. People are not ready to stop eating meat or live without air conditioning. Most new cars in Canada have air conditioning and reduce the gas mileage by about 5% when in use - pure CO2 production to keep people cool in a cold nation.
The public in the developed world will not willing trade down their standard of living and people in the developing world want our standard of living. Working against these trends is at best moronic and at worst psychopathic.
The response in the west has been interesting. One set of people are arguing that this is a horror as the world can not sustain the Indians massively expanding car ownership. The other set are saying the developed world is sinning because it has been on top too long and is producing so much more green house gases per person. Both are small minded and backward thinking approaches to the issues.
The people of Indian want to be able drive as we do and who are we to tell them no? Frankly, the predicted problems from global warming seem to be worse for India than most of the developed world and it is the Indians that could suffer, not Canadians.
The thinking has to evolve when it comes to GHGs. Realistically the answer lies in new technologies that cause less green house gases, carbon capture and a transition time till to allow for society to shift over.
India and China, a total of 40% of the global population, are going to be very quickly shifting to a much higher standard of living and this will mean a dramatic increase in cars, air travel and meat consumption in these nations. China is now the biggest producer of green house gases and the reality is that neither nation is going to slow down or stop.
If governments were to start some sort of program carbon taxes, it would make sense for government to use the money raised to buy back carbon. Making a large market for the purchase of carbon will create a market for the technology to strip carbon from the air.
The way forward will have to be one that allows people to consume more, drive more, and lead a higher standard of living or change will not occur. People are not ready to stop eating meat or live without air conditioning. Most new cars in Canada have air conditioning and reduce the gas mileage by about 5% when in use - pure CO2 production to keep people cool in a cold nation.
The public in the developed world will not willing trade down their standard of living and people in the developing world want our standard of living. Working against these trends is at best moronic and at worst psychopathic.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Carbon Offsets
There is a lot of interest in buying carbon offsets. I can not shake the feeling that they are sort of like buying indulgences. Somehow the concept just does not sit well with me.
The idea is the you can buy carbon offsets from companies to offset the CO2 equivalent that you produce. You can buy this from companies that have made efforts to reduce their output but have a right to produce more CO2 or from projects that capture carbon.
There is no reason to buy these offsets at the moment other than guilt. The cost seems to be running in the range of $5 to $15 per tonne of CO2. Not very expensive given that I produce about 13 tonnes of CO2 equivalents per year. It would have cost me an extra $17 to $50 to have offset all my air travel and only about $130 to offset all my greenhouse gas emissions.
But what would I get for this $130? A piece of paper that I could claim less GHGs had been produced and I was allowed to claim part of that reduction by paying something to the company that made the reductions. How do I verify this? Who can be sure that there really was a GHG savings?
I know I produce less GHGs than the average Canadian, but even for the average person one should be able to buy offsets to cover 100% of their GHGs for less than $1000. Are there enough offsets for a nation of 33 000 000 to buy them?
If there is a real take off for offsets and the price rises with demand, what happens when people can no longer afford them?
I can buy offsets, but no will pay me to produce less GHGs. I already produce less than the Canadian average but I get no reward for this. Should I not be granted offsets I could sell? Say each Canadian is allowed to produce 20 tonnes and you can sell the rest. Between all of my family, we would have 30 tonnes we could sell. we should be able to get $300 for that.
I understand the concept of cap and trade and the whole idea behind offsets, I am still simply not convinced this is a route that will produce anything truly world changing.
I found this survey of late that goes someway towards measuring different carbon offset programs, but none of them are in Canada.
The idea is the you can buy carbon offsets from companies to offset the CO2 equivalent that you produce. You can buy this from companies that have made efforts to reduce their output but have a right to produce more CO2 or from projects that capture carbon.
There is no reason to buy these offsets at the moment other than guilt. The cost seems to be running in the range of $5 to $15 per tonne of CO2. Not very expensive given that I produce about 13 tonnes of CO2 equivalents per year. It would have cost me an extra $17 to $50 to have offset all my air travel and only about $130 to offset all my greenhouse gas emissions.
But what would I get for this $130? A piece of paper that I could claim less GHGs had been produced and I was allowed to claim part of that reduction by paying something to the company that made the reductions. How do I verify this? Who can be sure that there really was a GHG savings?
I know I produce less GHGs than the average Canadian, but even for the average person one should be able to buy offsets to cover 100% of their GHGs for less than $1000. Are there enough offsets for a nation of 33 000 000 to buy them?
If there is a real take off for offsets and the price rises with demand, what happens when people can no longer afford them?
I can buy offsets, but no will pay me to produce less GHGs. I already produce less than the Canadian average but I get no reward for this. Should I not be granted offsets I could sell? Say each Canadian is allowed to produce 20 tonnes and you can sell the rest. Between all of my family, we would have 30 tonnes we could sell. we should be able to get $300 for that.
I understand the concept of cap and trade and the whole idea behind offsets, I am still simply not convinced this is a route that will produce anything truly world changing.
I found this survey of late that goes someway towards measuring different carbon offset programs, but none of them are in Canada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
