Alberta's climate change policy announced.

[Accountability Now]

They could always make it a little more palatable by legislating its removal. Say, after two budget surpluses.

Perhaps. I still think any government that puts in a sales tax will find themselves voted out at the next election as the opposition would use that as their platform. Hence the reason I think Notley has said there won't be a sales tax on her watch.

[Guest]

Perhaps. I still think any government that puts in a sales tax will find themselves voted out at the next election as the opposition would use that as their platform. Hence the reason I think Notley has said there won't be a sales tax on her watch.

I don't think the NDP will get a seat at the next election. If I was RN, I would make my mark now. Do it, I say, and let's see what happens.

[Accountability Now]

I don't think the NDP will get a seat at the next election. If I was RN, I would make my mark now. Do it, I say, and let's see what happens.

That's true. From all the so called insiders that I know, they say that the NDP knows this which is why they are implementing any measure that make the province run the way they want it (like higher minimum wages, carbon taxes, etc) because those things will be harder to reverse. Removing a sales tax will be popular and easily reversed by any incoming party so its probably just a waste of time implementing that.

[ReeferMadness]

BC has had a carbon tax for nealy a decade. The funds generated from it were to go towards establishing alternative energy options. Since day one the tax goes into general revenue and not one alternative option has been funded.

You're wrong. The BC carbon tax was designed to be revenue neutral so there were never to be any funds going towards alternative energy options.

Since your opening statement betrays your lack of knowledge (or even curiosity in discovery of this basic piece of information), nobody should pay any attention to the rest of your claptrap.

[On Guard for Thee]

Which is dumb. There is a net negative cost to the economy since other forms of taxation, such as consumption taxes, are more efficient.

I think when costs in the form of taxes are added to the price of things like gasoline, it is a consumption tax. When economic growth in the form of job creation and investment continue, then that is an indicator that the tax hasn't hurt the economy. Can't put it much simpler.

[-1=e^ipi]

I think when costs in the form of taxes are added to the price of things like gasoline, it is a consumption tax.

And it isn't as broad as a general consumption tax. Thus less efficient.

When economic growth in the form of job creation and investment continue, then that is an indicator that the tax hasn't hurt the economy.

No it isn't. There are other factors that affect economic growth. And given that the amount of technology we have increases over time, generally you are going to have economic growth.

[On Guard for Thee]

And it isn't as broad as a general consumption tax. Thus less efficient.

No it isn't. There are other factors that affect economic growth. And given that the amount of technology we have increases over time, generally you are going to have economic growth.

We're not talking general consumption, we are talking carbon, remember? The efficiency is measured in terms of reducing carbon emissions.

[socialist]

You're wrong. The BC carbon tax was designed to be revenue neutral so there were never to be any funds going towards alternative energy options.

Since your opening statement betrays your lack of knowledge (or even curiosity in discovery of this basic piece of information), nobody should pay any attention to the rest of your claptrap.

But the Alberta scheme hoses the tax payer. Gotcha.

[-1=e^ipi]

We're not talking general consumption, we are talking carbon, remember? The efficiency is measured in terms of reducing carbon emissions.

You are purposely conflating meaning here, aren't you.

Anything to deny the existence of trade-offs I guess.

[On Guard for Thee]

You are purposely conflating meaning here, aren't you.

Anything to deny the existence of trade-offs I guess.

No, I'm describing how this particular trade off works.

[Guest]

We're not talking general consumption, we are talking carbon, remember? The efficiency is measured in terms of reducing carbon emissions.

It does seem passing strange that RN gave the oil sands another 30%-40% before their limit is reached. That doesn't look like reducing emissions to me. Granted she wants to replace the coal fired plants with natural gas fired, which is a good idea from a pollution other than greenhouse gases point of view, but it does commit the province to using fossil fuels for power for a long time to come. Better fossil fuels, but fossil fuels nonetheless.

[On Guard for Thee]

It does seem passing strange that RN gave the oil sands another 30%-40% before their limit is reached. That doesn't look like reducing emissions to me. Granted she wants to replace the coal fired plants with natural gas fired, which is a good idea from a pollution other than greenhouse gases point of view, but it does commit the province to using fossil fuels for power for a long time to come. Better fossil fuels, but fossil fuels nonetheless.

Yeah I kinda got sidetracked on a BC issue. And I agree with your interpretation of what RN said in her interview, but I'd like to see what exactly rolls out on paper after Paris. I can see her difficult task with that 800lb gorilla in the room with regards to what has driven the economy or so long in Alta. At least she did step up to a realization that there is an issue. And the coal thing is a step in the right direction. Anyone who has strolled through some of the communities I have in Scotland in winter would wholeheartedly agree I think.

[Guest]

Yeah I kinda got sidetracked on a BC issue. And I agree with your interpretation of what RN said in her interview, but I'd like to see what exactly rolls out on paper after Paris. I can see her difficult task with that 800lb gorilla in the room with regards to what has driven the economy or so long in Alta. At least she did step up to a realization that there is an issue. And the coal thing is a step in the right direction. Anyone who has strolled through some of the communities I have in Scotland in winter would wholeheartedly agree I think.

Yeah, I grew up in Yorkshire. Back then, every home was heated with coal fires. Everything was black.

[overthere]

It does seem passing strange that RN gave the oil sands another 30%-40% before their limit is reached. That doesn't look like reducing emissions to me. Granted she wants to replace the coal fired plants with natural gas fired, which is a good idea from a pollution other than greenhouse gases point of view, but it does commit the province to using fossil fuels for power for a long time to come. Better fossil fuels, but fossil fuels nonetheless.

There are only two actual alternatives to provide BASE LOAD in Alberta. Nuclear. Natural gas. Thats it.

Hydro: nope, the rivers are not right. Wind? AB already has a lot of winf power, but BASE LOAD.

Notley gave industry room to expand because she has noticed, unlike many here, just how many projects have been cancelled or 'deferred' in Alberta.

And no it is not entirely the current price of oil. All these oil sands projects are very long term deals, 50 or more years are planned. They know the price of oil goes up and down, but what they cannot predict are the whims and caprices of government.

[Wilber]

Yeah, I grew up in Yorkshire. Back then, every home was heated with coal fires. Everything was black.

I've noticed a big difference in the severity of fogs in Vancouver over the years as gas replaced oil and coal for heating and vehicle emission controls became so effective

[Guest]

I've noticed a big difference in the severity of fogs in Vancouver over the years as gas replaced oil and coal for heating and vehicle emission controls became so effective

I imagine so, especially living in Abbotsford. I remember when I lived in the Lower Mainland, the pollution used to funnel towards Chilliwack.

[overthere]

Lot's of talk of compensation, but also talk of over 3 billion in revenues, so I guess everyone wins.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/anyone-who-pollutes-will-pay-alberta-says-as-it-releases-tough-climate-change-policies

Everybody wins? Everybody pays a big new tax. Corporations pass the cost to consumers, as they do in every case. The govt gets new revenue, none of which is earmarked to pay down the deficit or debt. If the tax is onerous enough, companies are not profitable any more, and simply leave taking jobs and taxes that are part of the $3billion and more. Note that many AB projects have been cancelled, and the new taxes from May 2015 are cited by some of them.

Oh, and the real 1000 pound gorilla waits for the second sucker punch to industry in Alberta: the ongoing royalty review. Even the existence of a review causes jobs to vanish.

Explain how everybody wins here. Take your time.

[Guest]

Everybody wins? Everybody pays a big new tax. Corporations pass the cost to consumers, as they do in every case. The govt gets new revenue, none of which is earmarked to pay down the deficit or debt. If the tax is onerous enough, companies are not profitable any more, and simply leave taking jobs and taxes that are part of the $3billion and more. Note that many AB projects have been cancelled, and the new taxes from May 2015 are cited by some of them.

Oh, and the real 1000 pound gorilla waits for the second sucker punch to industry in Alberta: the ongoing royalty review. Even the existence of a review causes jobs to vanish.

Explain how everybody wins here. Take your time.

Well, that was sarcasm. It spoke to the idea of compensating, as per BC, and so revenue neutral, but also coming up with billions of dollars in revenue.

I didn't believe it.

That said, (and as I stated in another post), I think the Alberta NDP is only going to get one shot so they should make it their best one and damn the torpedoes. I'll be interested to see what happens. I'm also in favour of a sales tax to make up for the disaster that follows, if one does.

There, 2.5 minutes, + edit

Edited November 25, 2015 by bcsapper

[overthere]

Well, that was sarcasm. It spoke to the idea of compensating, as per BC, and so revenue neutral, but also coming up with billions of dollars in revenue.

The program in Alberta is not revenue neutral . There are no tax reductions elsewhere, as was the -plan in BC.

It is a devious route, but basicvally the money goes out of my pocket and into Rachels. She has many debts to pay to civil service, teachers and nurse unions. They are all the best paid in Canada already , but.... you know.

The program is more like Ontario than BC. Our electricity costs will be skyrocketing soon. More money out of everybodys pockets, plus lets not forget the multiplier effect when business flees. Like ON.

I'm also in favour of a sales tax to make up for the disaster that follows, if one does.

I finally figured it out. Your name is Gil McGowan. Look, if you love taxes and trust the govt to invest wisely, nothing stops you from upping your own contribution right now, voluntarily.

[Guest]

The program in Alberta is not revenue neutral . There are no tax reductions elsewhere, as was the -plan in BC.

It is a devious route, but basicvally the money goes out of my pocket and into Rachels. She has many debts to pay to civil service, teachers and nurse unions. They are all the best paid in Canada already , but.... you know.

The program is more like Ontario than BC. Our electricity costs will be skyrocketing soon. More money out of everybodys pockets, plus lets not forget the multiplier effect when business flees. Like ON.

I finally figured it out. Your name is Gil McGowan. Look, if you love taxes and trust the govt to invest wisely, nothing stops you from upping your own contribution right now, voluntarily.

I don't want to just up my own contribution. I want yours too.

Edit> Seriously though, that was my point about revenue nuetral. They spoke of compensation such as they were passing out in BC but they also spoke of revenue.

I don't trust the government to invest my money wisely. But then, I never have. I still have to give them money though, or nobody will fix me when I get hurt, or clean my water, or build my roads so I can get to work, or, you know...

It would be nice to have a government that didn't waste my tax dollars, but I'm not going to hold my breath until I see one.

Edited November 26, 2015 by bcsapper

[Hal 9000]

The NDP has gotten in bed with the oil companies. The oil companies aren't paying a dime for this - the taxpayers are. She wants that $6B of tax revenue and as long as the oil companies are around, she'll be able to collect it. The oil companies own her now.

[TimG]

The NDP has gotten in bed with the oil companies. The oil companies aren't paying a dime for this - the taxpayers are. She wants that $6B of tax revenue and as long as the oil companies are around, she'll be able to collect it. The oil companies own her now.

What a bizarre spin. The ONLY carbon price model that has any chance of changing behavior is one that goes after the people responsible for the demand. I know there are lot of people that think CO2 can be reduced by targeting "evil" corporations but these people are, to put it politely, naive. No matter what games you play the CO2 bill has to be paid by the average person. Edited November 29, 2015 by TimG

[Hal 9000]

What a bizarre spin. The ONLY carbon price model that has any chance of changing behavior is one that goes after the people responsible for the demand. I know there are lot of people that think CO2 can be reduced by targeting "evil" corporations but these people are, to put it politely, naive. No matter what games you play the CO2 bill has to be paid by the average person.

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

[TimG]

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

"The NDP has gotten in bed with the oil companies" - the NDP, amazingly enough, adopted the only rational anti-CO2 possible. It has nothing to do with being "owned" by oil companies.

[Hal 9000]

"The NDP has gotten in bed with the oil companies" - the NDP, amazingly enough, adopted the only rational anti-CO2 possible. It has nothing to do with being "owned" by oil companies.

You don't think getting $6B in revenue is reason to keep the oil companies working? You don't think that RN and these oil companies worked out a deal that benefits both of them? They bump up the costs, she gets her money and the oil companies keep on keeping on, the taxpayer pays all the costs (mostly middle class - of course), and the NDPer's all applaud her shrewd moves to environmentalism. She'll likely give a lot of the money right back to the oil companies.

The oil companies are all applauding the move - what does that tell you?

Edited November 29, 2015 by Hal 9000