msj

Hence the need for carbon taxes to act as an incentive/disincentive to move the world towards renewables/hydro/NG/nuclear.

Fine, purposely misrepresent the discussion. I shall move on now.

Yes, efficiency is what I'm talking about. Thanks.

Do you think the ratios change when converted? Do you think they change when they cross the border?

But if you want to shut this project down for environmental reasons then all the power to you.

So what? On a net basis, all things considered from cradle to grave, or from exploration to emissions if you will, less GHG will be produced.

Nope, bigger than that: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11

I think people are not seeing the bigger picture here. We are moving to a world where hydro/nuclear/NG will provide the base load capacity. Renewables such as solar, which in UAE is produced at an unsubsidized price of 2.4 cents per kWh, for example, will provide lots of capacity during daylight (at least for the sunny parts of the world). Wind for the intermittent capacity. Technology to tie it all together. Taxes on oil and coal to provide the economic incentive, or disincentive, to force the switch. That's the plan, it benefits BC to some degree, so good on them for getting it done.

Your math is deplorable. Romney got 61 million votes and Trump will be lucky to get 60 million, so 50% of that is 30 million.

You mean politicians make deals to get things done?How novel.

Guys, guys as long as the NGP is dead I'm fine with this. Once again: renewables > hydro > natural gas > nuclear > oil > coal > corn. I doubt very much this will be as big of an issue unless you only listen to the environmental loons or the right wingers who can't stand the thought of the Liberals getting something done on their watch.

What smallc said.

Yes true. I know all about that with my investment in Western Forest Products common stock.

I wonder how many Russians voted in these polls.

I think most people understand that we have to balance the economy with the environment and we have little choice but to ensure First Nations are properly consulted whether we like that or not. I also think many Canadians believe, or will come around eventually to, something like this (from better to worse): Renewable > Hydro > Natural Gas > Nuclear > Oil > Coal > Corn. Maybe coal and corn could be swapped. I'm not sure which is worse. So, lets get on with putting a cost on carbon that favours that stream of renewables/hydro economically and all will be better in the world - some day. Maybe. Fossil fuels are going to be with us for at least the next several decades so lets work towards there demise over time.

Yes, of course, Operating deficits have been incurred in the past, in the present (even under Harper) and will be in the future. The key is to keep the balance between operating deficits, infrastructure deficits (which don't get reported on very often), tax revenues and tax mix, and spending (operating and capital). Which means understanding things like assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses, projected cash flows etc etc. I think very few on here, in this thread, are able to do a very good job of this for their personal finances never mind for a business or government operation. Yet, here people are talking about it and then conflating it with time periods that span decades and multiple generations of people as if there is not too many parts for anyone but some kind of autistic rain man like genius to fully understand. My point being: everyone talks about debt and deficits while completely ignoring the asset side. If one is unable to bring that side into focus then that person deserves to be ignored for not even attempting to glimpse a very small piece of a very complicated puzzle. Yes, you have caught me again with my sneering contempt but there it is.

Sure there is depreciation/amortization that needs to be considered. But look at a highway: you have the base level which is graded and allows the other layers to sit on top of it. That lasts what? 80 years? 100? Then it's just maintenance after that. Pure economic benefits flowing from that highway everyday that we take for granted. I'm sure 50 years ago people took for granted the infrastructure then. But a lot of it was built on the boomers watch and historically ignorant punks seem to forget that part too.

You clearly don't understand time value of money and the relationship between assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses. You forget that gen x and millennial get to use highways, schools, universities, hospitals, bridges etc etc that were built 1/10/50 years ago. If you can't factor into your analysis the benefits of existing assets as you blame someone else for getting a free lunch then you just are not getting it. Period. Oh, and no, the debt does not need to be paid off. It just needs to grow at a lower rate than economic growth (and even that depends on the stage of the economic cycle). Assets grow while debt grows. It's an important correlation to understand. And no, this does not mean we go out and borrow a ton of money. Of course there is a limit to effectively grow an asset base and get a decent IRR from that debt. No one is claiming we borrow to the sky. But right now with low interest rates, crumbling infrastructure and a private sector that is far too heavily indebted - well, the government better be thinking about picking up the slack when private demand falls off a cliff in Canada because too many people just had to own too much house and have racked up huge debt to get it. And that can benefit every generation.

Oh, what the hell, found some nice graphics for the US population: http://flowingdata.com/2016/09/26/the-spread-of-obesity/

This BS again. Ok folks, new rule: if you are gonna bitch about debt and interest payments then the least you should do is consider the other side - the assets that we would not otherwise have had we not invested in them on the government side and the inheritances that so many Gen X and Millenials are going to get on the private side. Simple accounting equation: Assets = Liabilities + Equity or Equity = Assets - Liabilities To only focus on one part of the equation is a failing grade no matter what school you come from (well, ok, they would probably still push you through to the next grade in today's schools but in my day .... ).

I treat them with contempt because one would think that with all that experience one would/should know better. Yet here were are, aren't we.....