Aristides

It doesn't matter, almost everything you use comes by something powered by diesel. BTW, that bulldozer burns diesel as well. How are you going to get fossil fuel use by trucks to decline? Where are all the electric trucks that are supposed to replace them? Most trucks are owner operated but you think their owners should have to write off the loans they have on those trucks, junk them and borrow another 300 grand to buy an electric truck that doesn't exist. Where are they going to charge them and where is the massive increase in power generation going to come from? That's the problem with tax fanatics, they are lazy. We'll just tax it, the hard stuff is not our problem. If it was barely noticeable, why the hell do you think it would work?

It is added to the cost of everything you buy whether you drive or not. It increases the fuel cost of that semi hauling something from Toronto to Hamilton by $8 and by 2030 it will be $16. Multiply that by every transport truck on the road in the country hauling goods and you are looking a billions of added costs that you can't avoid if all you do is walk or ride a bike.

I believe actual data compiled by people whose job it is to collect data, not what comes out of someone's ass on a blog. NASA and other agencies are not main stream media. You are so far down your conspiracy rabbit hole no one can talk sense to you.

So why are atmospheric carbon levels continually rising? Obviously the plants can't handle all that extra carbon. It isn't about being able to breath, it's about not cooking our planet and turning into another Venus.

So what, increasing CO2 levels are increasing the earths temperature. These are two separate issues.

So what? CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps the sun's heat and atmospheric CO2 levels are continuing to rise. Obviously, the earth's vegetation is not capable of handling the amount of CO2 being generated.

Really, how are they going to do it? https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/power-grid-demand-electric-vehicles-1.6440595 Damn right I criticize them, they can't think of anything more original than another tax. If they were actually serious about this, they would be using the tax revenues to enlarge the generating capacity and the grid.

Trump selling bibles. Frikin hilarious, even more hilarious are the rubes who will buy them.

Still waiting for governments to tell us where all this electricity is going to come from.

Only 27 countries have a price on carbon and most of them are cap and trade, so how are we screwing the pooch?

So what, greenhouses are a closed environment, CO2 levels are going to be lower than normal because there is nothing producing it other than the few people who work in them.

You still haven't said where this massive amount of electricity required to electrify everything is going to come from, or even if it is possible. Do governments know or have a plan? If they do they are keeping it very quiet. Or do they just think it is someone else's problem?

It is not in common with our main trading partners and competitors which puts us at a dissadvantage.

My other problem is that government wants to bludgeon people into electrification with no plan to produce the massive amount of power that will be required or even knowing how to do it. It’s lazy, ingenuous and isn’t serious.

What do you think the tax does if not increase costs and reduce disposable income? Or approach is unilateral if it is not in common with other approaches. That is the definition of unilateral. The cost of administering this tax isn’t nothing. It is paid for by the revenues it generates or debt.

Because every country has different policies to deal with it. Our biggest trading partner and competitor has no carbon tax. That is an extra cost our industry and citizens bare and theirs do not.

It makes sense to me. Unilateral actions that increase costs make you uncompetitive in a global economy. Global problems require global solutions, not ad hoc policies based on ideology.

Credible evidence or motive is not required for conspiracy theories.

Nature can't balance out what we imbalance. If existing plants could handle the excess carbon, the atmosphere's carbon levels wouldn't be going up. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

Except we are pumping far more carbon into the atmosphere than existing plants can handle. To produce more oxygen you need more plants, not more carbon.

They took flight training and some had pilots licenses. At least a couple of them had B727 simulator time. Most of what they did could have been done with the autopilot if they knew how to operate it. Hand flying these aircraft at lower altitudes in good weather is not that difficult with some practice. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2007-10-08/hijackers-trained-us-flight-schools https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/flight-school-owner-recalls-training-9-11-hijackers-1.951384

Canada needs a productivity commission like Australia and a government that listens.

Well then, that would be rather stupid but it is not the crime Trump is accused of.

So what. Property owners don’t do evaluations or set tax rates. Maybe look at the assessments and selling prices for comparable properties in that area before you accuse people of being criminals.

I don't know what NY does but in BC, the province does the assessments and cities set the mil rate according to the tax revenues they need to generate to meet their budget. All the city cares about is how much tax it needs from a property, not its market value. If my place was taxed purely on its market value, my property taxes would have tripled in the 12 years I have owned it. They have gone up but nowhere near that much.