pointing out the obvious

So.. a 1% reduction in GST instead of passing the money on to the cities.

I guess this means a savings of $15 per month for me - 3 more mocha fraps (liquid cheeseburgers) - which really won’t affect my life. However, the $400 million or whatever that the city would have received from the 1% seems like it would make a difference.

Maybe I’m taking the $15 for granted. Would $15 make a difference to someone who is closer to the poverty line? Maybe. But someone closer to the poverty line likely has a higher dependence on social services than I do. So then the question becomes - is the $15 better utilized in social services funding or personal consumption?

For me, the extra $15 dollars really goes towards funding the TTC fare hikes. If they channeled 1% to social services, the TTC likely wouldn’t have to increase fares. So it’s a wash for me. But, I have the privilege of living close to the subway.

If I was in a lower income bracket, I would likely be living in a less accessible area, thus would be more reliant on TTC buses. As a result of the TTC budget crunch, I’m sure buses are less frequent, or even cancelled. So it’s a double whammy - increased fares, and decreased service.

This is just one example, by way of the TTC, but funding for social programs is important to everyone. I don’t like increasing taxes, but accept them if I agree with what they are used for. I HATE decreasing taxes, when we have so many gaps in funding.

Though, I don’t think it’s the lower income people asking for tax cuts. It seems like the rich people - you know, the ones with all the bling and gadgets, who don’t require social services but would rather have more bling - that want tax cuts.

Think about it objectively - how does the tax cut affect EVERYONE, not just you.

This is another reason I love living in Toronto - you see both ends of the spectrum, the ultra rich and the ultra poor, every day. It’s a constant reminder of what our city, province and country is made of.

I got my first bullfrog bill a few weeks ago, and can now properly compare the charges. To compare apples with apples, I found a recent Toronto Hyrdo bill with EXACTLY the same kWh’s used. Here are the details…

Bullfrog Power: 873kWh’s used in the current bill, with the mystery adjustment (adjusted loss factor) the overall usage is 905.825kWh’s. The total bill is $152.96.

Toronto Hydro: 873kWh’s used, with the adjusted loss factor the overall usage is 905.825kWh’s. The total bill? $123.32.

Remember, much of your hyrdo bill is made up of delivery and administration charges, so let me identify these charges. The Bullfrog admin charges are $62.25. The Toronto Hydro admin charges are $66.21. I’m assuming bullfrog passes the admin charges back to Toronto Hydro to pay for poles and maintenance, so why would bullfrog’s be cheaper? Weird.

Anyways, this leaves us with $49.03 in actual electricity charges for Toronto Hydro, and $82.05 in electricity charges for Bullfrog Power. The power is clearly more expensive, but I don’t see it in my overall bill because the other charges make up half the bill.

So, the power costs 67% more with bullfrog. However, because almost half the bill is made up of infrastructure charges, the actual bill is only 24% more. Not bad eh? A 24% increase (~$29 dollars) in my electricity bill for green power. Awesome. Totally worth it, and completely affordable. Who would miss $29 dollars over a 2-3 month period?

What I love about my bill is that it details the pollutants I pumped into the atmosphere as a result of the power I used. It reminds me that although it’s green power, there is always a price. Cool.

Is electric heating better for the environment than gas heating? I’m thinking electricity is better, but I’m open to discussion. Here’s why I think it’s better…

• Gas is a non-renewable fossil fuel right now. Electricity is not, provided it’s generated by low-impact means.

• Both have a delivery infrastructure within the city, so they are relatively equal in that respect.

• Unless there is a pipe from here to Alberta, gas is shipped here by something that burns fossil fuels. Electricity is generated locally.

• I believe electricity is a more efficient method of heating water than natural gas is, so it makes sense to have an electric hot water heater, specifically a tankless hot water heater, which are more efficient than the tank type, and provide unlimited hot water.

• At the moment, gas is a more efficient (or at least cheaper) method of heating air than electricity is, according to this source (pdf).

So, if I wanted to heat water in my house using electricity, I can invest in a tankless hot water heater, which is becoming more reasonably priced each year. I looked into one a few years back when Home Depot first started carrying them, and it was a little pricey ($1500 or so), but it’s getting better. I will have to re-investigate.

If I wanted to heat my house with electricity, it would reduce CO2 emissions by 30% (compared to gas using conventional hydro), but cost me twice as much. Unfortunately, that money tree I planted in the backyard has yet to bloom, so this might not be an option (yet).

Awesome.

In an interesting turn of events (which totally makes sense now that I think about it), businesses are considering off-shoring within the country. So, for example, a company based in Toronto would offshore to Sioux Lookout, Ontario - where the cost of living is lower, thus salaries are cheaper. This keeps companies happy by exploiting cheap labour, and people employed in smaller cities.

I would seriously consider a pay cut to live in a remote area for a few years. If anyone is actually reading this, I would relocate to the Northwest Territories, the Yukon or Newfoundland, so long as they have a decent net connection and Apple delivers hardware out there.

Checkout Rob’s post, it’s interesting.