Elizabeth May Destroys Pipeline Arguments

[On Guard for Thee]

Please explain why Wall should support a national carbon tax given the fact that he does not believe it is an useful tool to deal with climate change? Why should he care about solidarity with other Canadians when such arguments mean nothing to people in BC and Quebec?

Carbon tax is an attempt to protect the environment, pipelines are meant to protect the bottom line. Two very different, although somewhat connected, issues.

[TimG]

Carbon tax is an attempt to protect the environment, pipelines are meant to protect the bottom line. Two very different, although somewhat connected, issues.

Sorry, that is a myth you choose to believe. Why should anyone else buy into your myth?

[On Guard for Thee]

Sorry, that is a myth you choose to believe. Why should anyone else buy into your myth?

Well, so far 75% of Canada has bought into the "myth" as you call it, and I don't hear a lot of complaints, other than from those who lack scientific knowledge of the subject.

[TimG]

Well, so far 75% of Canada has bought into the "myth"

The myth that you choose to believe is that carbon tax will have any meaningful impact on the stated problem and that developing natural resources is 'all about the bottom line'. Other people view things differently.

[Smallc]

The myth that you choose to believe is that carbon tax will have any meaningful impact on the stated problem

The law of supply and demand says that it will.

[On Guard for Thee]

The myth that you choose to believe is that carbon tax will have any meaningful impact on the stated problem and that developing natural resources is 'all about the bottom line'. Other people view things differently.

Already had a meaningful impact in BC.

[ReeferMadness]

Well, so far 75% of Canada has bought into the "myth" as you call it, and I don't hear a lot of complaints, other than from those who lack scientific knowledge of the subject.

The law of supply and demand says that it will.

Tim only recognizes science when it's convenient for his beliefs.

[On Guard for Thee]

Tim only recognizes science when it's convenient for his beliefs.

The evidence of that seems clear by now. A bit of a case of shoot the messenger I suppose.

[jacee]

Jacee....looking at the incidents it's clear that the VAST majority occurred in the US where I have shown that even the NTSB has cited the weak standards for pipeline welding and repairs. You will see the claim in the report here http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20120710.aspx

One of the few Canadian examples shown was in Alberta where it says the Alberta Flood caused the rupture.

See "Canada"

List_of_pipeline_accidents#Canada

.

[Rue]

Small C the law of supply and demand when it comes to purchasing oll does not exist and you know that.

Supply and demand, bull sheeyit. The market price was never dictated by supply and demand. Oil cartels controlled the price.

There is no competitive market for gasoline. The prices are fixed.

Talk about myths.

As for the carbon tax what do you think the money from that tax will be used for.? How naïve can you get. Its not going to go to investing in mass transit, it will continue to be wasted on wasteful projects that have nothing to do with mass transit.

Carbon tax? Can we get real for a second? China produces the most air pollution in the world from coal burning plants. The carbon tax scheme is designed to enable them and India, the second largest producer of air pollution in the world, to remain exempt. It also will fund corrupt third world governments with no safeguards to assure it would be reinvested into climate projects.

There is a ridiculous naivite with the current federal government and certain environmentalists like May and Suzuki. They start with ideas most of us should embrace. In theory we need to change destructive methods of industry yes. Putting that into practice though is where all these people fail.

Its easy to play critic and say what is wrong and create a tax to make one feel they are doing something but it takes more then a feel good tax. There needs to be substantial planning and implementation of alternative methods of energy with that tax that generates jobs to offset the ones lost from change.

Well? We say no to nuclear. We say no to fossil fuels. I get that, Now what? The windmill fiasco was an out and out failure. More hydro electricity?Solar? Hydrogen cell?

See its easy to tax but the tax will not be spent on the environment or alternative energy development-that is the problem.

As for what Tim G said and I agree with him to a certain degree I sometimes thin tis no not pipelines people concerned about-its propping the myth they don't need fossil fuel. while driving in their suv's, . Its easy to tell someone you don't need what they do for a living any more, then what? You feel good about the environment with your tax, you'' bring in Syrians to feel good about your lifestyle and now what? Oh hell all the people out West what? Will you fund and finance them as you do Syrians when they become homeless and destitute? Hell no.

We don't have that vision in Canada. What he was getting at is each province looks after itself and doesn't consider the implications of its policies on other provinces.

Quebec and Ontario have done that for years, dominating federal politics. Harper was a reaction to that alienation and Harper lost his power base when Atlantic Canada returned to the Liberal welfare state promised by Trudeau.

Atlantic Canada won't be helped long term by Trudeau anymore than the West will. Welfare states don't build, they prevent building replacing it with dependence on the state to initiate. Infrasctrure changes to work and be sustaining can't be funded solely by government. Trudeau has no Canadian vision other than a welfare state that can hand out money today by creating a financial disaster ten, twenty years from now.

.He has one vision, the reflection that comes back to him from the mirror and selfies. He's a leader obsessed with being liked. His narcissism has paralyzed him from any role but a poser who smiles and looks sensitive. He thinks the state is a bottomless pit of money eh can rely on just like his family trust fund. He's got no long term vision to build Canada-he's a feel good about himself at the moment pretty rich boy.

Sure he's going to march in the gay pride day in Toronto this year. He made a point to announce that and his addressing past gays criminalized for being gay in the 50's and 60's. Feel good issues and posing are his domain. Such a sensitive young man.

Energy? Uh uh uh uh uh uh. You think he has a clue what energy is? Yah, sure, like he's take one of his soft manicured hands and shake the paw of some rubber necker and risk blistering it, or even worse, yegads, get oil on his tailor made, silk suit.

Right. The only energy source Trudeau is an expert on manufacturing is methane gas.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Rue

[TimG]

Tim only recognizes science when it's convenient for his beliefs.

That is a pot calling the kettle black.

It does not my change point: why should Wall co-operate on a carbon tax when BC and Quebec refuse to co-operate on pipelines?

If Quebec wants a veto on national energy projects which are clearly in federal jurisdiction then why shouldn't Saskatchewan get a veto on national tax plans?

Edited March 1, 2016 by TimG

[Smallc]

Small C the law of supply and demand when it comes to purchasing oll does not exist and you know that.

If you charge more for something, people buy less of it. That never changes.

[cybercoma]

If you charge more for something, people buy less of it. That never changes.

Depends on elasticity. There needs to be an affordable alternative for people to buy less oil. As of right now, there's myriad uses for oil that have little or no alternative.

Look at CFL and LED light bulbs for an example. People didn't switch away from incandescent bulbs immediately because the alternatives were far too costly. However, when they began to realize that these new bulbs would last far longer and you would spend far less money on bulbs in the long run, as well as save money on your hydro bills, people began to switch because it saved them money. There was a reason to do so.

People will eventually switch away from oil, but not until the alternatives make economic sense. One way to do that is with a carbon tax, as you said. However, a carbon tax that does not make the carbon-neutral or lower-carbon alternatives more affordable, well, that kind of carbon tax is a useless cash grab by the government. Perhaps $15 is the "magic number," I have no idea. But what I do know is that it's not as simple as any increase will cause people to use less. That's not true without other contextual conditions being present.

Edited March 1, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

People will eventually switch away from oil, but not until the alternatives make economic sense.

Exactly.

Perhaps $15 is the "magic number," I have no idea. But what I do know is that it's not as simple as any increase will cause people to use less.

There are 2 aspects to the 'economic' argument: price and convenience. People will pay a premium for convenience so it is not enough to match the price - the alternatives have to match the convenience offered by fossil fuels and, for the most part, are unable to do that today. For that reason carbon taxes at rates which are politically plausible will have only a slight effect on emissions.

Bill Gates is right when he says is there needs to be a miracle before emissions can be reduced. Governments can and should fund R&D in the hope of finding this miracle but until that miracle is found any CO2 emission reduction policy based on targets plucked out of the air for political purposes will fail.

Edited March 1, 2016 by TimG

[Smallc]

Look at what happened when gas prices were higher. People bought more fuel efficient vehicles, and studies showed they changed their driving habits. Full disclosure - I don't think the current tax will have much of an impact (though there's always some impact, even at small price changes) but it's designed to stay at this level in the long term. The idea is to price carbon out of the market in most areas. As you say, in some areas though, there is no alternative.

[cybercoma]

Also, I don't see OPEC slowing down any time soon. They want to push Canada entirely out of the market by making it unaffordable for us to produce oil. Our best bet for our economic survival is to push hard into alternative energies and find any way we can to make them affordable. This is the only way to fight back against the oil cartel that can crush us on a whim. If we can develop an alternative that moves people away from oil, we hit them where it hurts and position ourselves to be energy leaders of the future. As long as there's petrolphiles who drag their heels on alternatives at every turn, our economy will continue to be beholden to the oil cartel in the Middle East.

Edited March 1, 2016 by cybercoma

[poochy]

Look at what happened when gas prices were higher. People bought more fuel efficient vehicles, and studies showed they changed their driving habits. Full disclosure - I don't think the current tax will have much of an impact (though there's always some impact, even at small price changes) but it's designed to stay at this level in the long term. The idea is to price carbon out of the market in most areas. As you say, in some areas though, there is no alternative.

Yes, there was a small, irrelevant to the environment, reduction in fuel usage in response to a HUGE increase in prices over a short time. These taxes won't have that effect, no one believes they will, they are just taxes. That of course isn't even to mention our nearly irrelevant contribution to the global problem, irrelevancies piled on irrelevancies, fractions of fractions, but hey it allows us to pat ourselves on the back, that's what matters most to (some) Canadians.

[Smallc]

Yes, there was a small, irrelevant to the environment, reduction in fuel usage in response to a HUGE increase in prices over a short time. These taxes won't have that effect, no one believes they will, they are just taxes.

For the most part, I agree.

[Army Guy]

Carbon tax is an attempt to protect the environment, pipelines are meant to protect the bottom line. Two very different, although somewhat connected, issues.

Is Carbon tax an attempt to protect the environment, or is it cleverly disguised that way to bring environmentalists on board. I mean if we as a nation were going to get serious about protecting our environment , why we not just legislate changes into law.....with fines and charges that fit the crime...Today fines are nothing more than a small tax paid by companies that destroy our environment wholesale.....the City of Montreal dumped billions of liters of raw sewage into the a national water way and it was in the media for 2 weeks and faded into nothing.....Canadians said or did nothing.....Then the mayor has the balls to decline the pipeline because it is not environmentally friendly......but pumping billions of liters of human waste into a national water way is.....we had no choice was the excuse....

Carbon tax is nothing more than a new commodity, it can be sold if you have a surplus or purchased if you need more....How does this protect the environment, when all I have to do is purchase more credits if I have exceeded the goals laided out in some agreement...As I understand the agreement carbon tax credits can be sold or traded between companies, or provinces or nations....When you boil it all down it is nothing more than the existing small fine companies pay WHEN or IF they are caught.....Why even bother....if we as a nation wanted to get serious about climate change then legislate tough new laws with tough new fines or penalties.

And yet everyone is pointing towards how much danger pipelines are to the environment....do we really care, if we did why do we put up with the current laws and level of fines imposed on faulty equipment or spills.....The bottom line is what built this country.....it is who we are, in the west Money makes the world go round.....we have never put any real value on protecting our environment....we use it and throw it out....

The pipeline represents growth , jobs, it represents taking a Canadian product, oil for the tar sands project, Processing it in Canada, for Canadians and exports....today that same product is shipped state side and then resold back to us for a profit.....that profit could be staying in Canada, those jobs could be Canadian jobs.....Jobs in a region that really needs them.....

But we are just as happy bringing in Saudi oil, trucking , training it all over the country being held hostage by their prices , by a nation that we don't even like....But when a Canadian company decides to do it....now we need a debate....With provinces like Quebec wanting to know what is in it for them.....that is not about the environment.....it is about the bottom dollar......like it always was been about.....

[On Guard for Thee]

Is Carbon tax an attempt to protect the environment, or is it cleverly disguised that way to bring environmentalists on board. I mean if we as a nation were going to get serious about protecting our environment , why we not just legislate changes into law.....with fines and charges that fit the crime...Today fines are nothing more than a small tax paid by companies that destroy our environment wholesale.....the City of Montreal dumped billions of liters of raw sewage into the a national water way and it was in the media for 2 weeks and faded into nothing.....Canadians said or did nothing.....Then the mayor has the balls to decline the pipeline because it is not environmentally friendly......but pumping billions of liters of human waste into a national water way is.....we had no choice was the excuse....

Carbon tax is nothing more than a new commodity, it can be sold if you have a surplus or purchased if you need more....How does this protect the environment, when all I have to do is purchase more credits if I have exceeded the goals laided out in some agreement...As I understand the agreement carbon tax credits can be sold or traded between companies, or provinces or nations....When you boil it all down it is nothing more than the existing small fine companies pay WHEN or IF they are caught.....Why even bother....if we as a nation wanted to get serious about climate change then legislate tough new laws with tough new fines or penalties.

And yet everyone is pointing towards how much danger pipelines are to the environment....do we really care, if we did why do we put up with the current laws and level of fines imposed on faulty equipment or spills.....The bottom line is what built this country.....it is who we are, in the west Money makes the world go round.....we have never put any real value on protecting our environment....we use it and throw it out....

The pipeline represents growth , jobs, it represents taking a Canadian product, oil for the tar sands project, Processing it in Canada, for Canadians and exports....today that same product is shipped state side and then resold back to us for a profit.....that profit could be staying in Canada, those jobs could be Canadian jobs.....Jobs in a region that really needs them.....

But we are just as happy bringing in Saudi oil, trucking , training it all over the country being held hostage by their prices , by a nation that we don't even like....But when a Canadian company decides to do it....now we need a debate....With provinces like Quebec wanting to know what is in it for them.....that is not about the environment.....it is about the bottom dollar......like it always was been about.....

Carbon tax in BC has been quite effective. It has reduced our use of fossil fuels and the tax collected at the pumps returned to us through reduced corporate as well as personal income taxes, without hurting business. Quite simply in part, it seems that people think a little bit before just jumping in their cars and work to combine trips so they can get things done in one trip they used to take 3 or 5 to do. The fact is there is somewhere a last barrel of oil. So one way or another we have to wean ourselves off of using it and there are numerous options by way of renewable's. The arguments are over how much more damage we will do to the environment as we head toward that last barrel, and if we can afford not to do something sooner rather than later. Obviously we won't achieve that weaning by tomorrow or the next day, but we shouldn't try and deny the inevitable. In the meantime, if we need to produce/transport oil then we need to do it in a responsible and as safe as possible way. For instance I think energy east makes the most sense, not because I live in the west, but because I think heading across the prairies to an existing refinery makes much more sense than heading across a mountain range/earthquake prone area to where the is no refinery. But bottom line is while we do these things we should be also planning to work toward curbing the flow of CO2 and all the pollutants that go with it into the air we breath.

[TimG]

Carbon tax in BC has been quite effective.

The BC carbon tax coincided with a huge run up in oil and gas prices so it is statistically impossible to separate the carbon tax from the effect of high commodity prices. Claims that the BC tax "worked" are ideologically driven nonsense.

Moreover, the BC economy has been largely driven by offshore money buying real estate at inflated prices so the lack of observable effect on the economy is not a surprise give the lack of price sensitivity of the main drivers. That also means the BC experience is not going to translate to other jurisdictions.

[On Guard for Thee]

The BC carbon tax coincided with a huge run up in oil and gas prices so it is statistically impossible to separate the carbon tax from the effect of high commodity prices. Claims that the BC tax "worked" are ideologically driven nonsense.

Moreover, the BC economy has been largely driven by offshore money buying real estate at inflated prices so the lack of observable effect on the economy is not a surprise give the lack of price sensitivity of the main drivers. That also means the BC experience is not going to translate to other jurisdictions.

People using less fuel and having the tax which caused them to curb their use given back to them is a success. But of course the narrow mindedness of the deniers will find a way to try and derail that reality. The rest of us are used to that.

[TimG]

People using less fuel and having the tax which caused them to curb their use given back to them is a success.

Except you have no evidence that the reason for the reduction was the carbon tax as opposed to the much larger increase in oil prices at the time. In fact, it is completely irrational to attribute any declines to the carbon tax given what was happening to oil prices.

Also, BC carbon tax resulted in outsourcing of emissions intensive activities such as cement production and greenhouse farming which is hidden by the false economy created by foreign investment in real estate.

[On Guard for Thee]

Except you have no evidence that the reason for the reduction was the carbon tax as opposed to the much larger increase in oil prices at the time. In fact, it is completely irrational to attribute any declines to the carbon tax given what was happening to oil prices.

Also, BC carbon tax resulted in outsourcing of emissions intensive activities such as cement production and greenhouse farming which is hidden by the false economy created by foreign investment in real estate.

BC now has the lowest personal income tax in the country and has reduced fossil fuel use by 16%. The numbers speak for themselves.

[Army Guy]

You say it has been Quite effective, so if I may ask how effective is it. has it reduced emissions by 10 %, 20 %, 30 % is there any stats out there that give a reduction of any emissions.

Why I ask is what you have explained to me is a increased in fuel prices, or added taxes , something this country, not just BC has done for years, in some provinces gas or fuel prices have as much 40 % taxes added on to them, by either provincial or federal governments......and yet we are to believe that the Carbon taxes will reduce usage.....reduce emissions How has this worked for us so far.....what it has shown is the consumers will pay what ever it takes to use fuel driven machinery, be it your car, furnace, lawn mower etc etc....Sure the whole country is sharing rides, thinking before driving, but when they need a liter of milk they go and get it.....If this is what you call getting serious about the environment then hey what ever floats your boat.....to me it is just another government scheme to enrich itself.....and to pay for the many services we enjoy today....and very little to do with saving the environment...it may look like that, because it was disguised to do that......

How much of those taxes are being used to improve environment conditions, going into a fossil fuel alternatives, that is the goal right , not putting money back into tax payers pockets or corporate pockets.....how is that saving the environment may I ask.......like I said here in the west money talks , we don't give a rats ass about the environment.....yes we are concerned when the right people ask.....but what have we really done to improve the environment.... besides dump trillions of liters of waste into our water ways each year.....not just human waste , but toxic chemicals as well.....sure we fine the companies that do it, but according to them it is the price of doing business.. and we are ok with it.....and we wonder why there is no salmon, in our rivers, or you can't eat them due to toxic chemicals levels are to high..... our oceans are over fished, the climate has changed..... and Carbon taxes are going to change all that......

Don't get me wrong I am no tree hugger, but I am an outdoorsmen, and the change has been slapping us in the face for decades now.....and it is not going to change without some major programs......carbon taxes is a sham.....Until then we should not pretend we are on the bus of good stewardship of our environment .....But do what is best for the economy.....getting Canadian product to Canadian markets , creating Canadian jobs.....