Accountability Now Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 See "Canada" List_of_pipeline_accidents#Canada . 23 examples over a 50 year span, most of which are minor spills. As the discussion went....show me something on the level of the Kalamazoo spill. The statement that was made was in regards to having a clean up take over 5 years. The worst of these examples you've shown had similar volume spilled but it was cleaned up in a month and of course was not dilbit. On a related note, the company that had that spill (Plains Midstream) is now under serious review by the NEB, as they should be. Again...the Kalamazoo example was unique and should not be seen as the norm, especially considering the number of small spills your source cites versus the billions of gallons that flow annually through these pipelines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 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. Yes the stats are out there, although climate deniers tend to ignore anything that refutes their ideas. One need not be an economist to understand that having the lowest personal income tax in the country and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America is good for jobs and business. BC has had a slightly higher GDP than any other province since 2008 when the carbon tax was introduced. And a 16% reduction in fuel use. Pretty much a win win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) 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?Sask should do whatever it wants. We should also makes BDS a policy when it comes to dealing with jurisdictions that refuse to get with the program.In fact if we start applying this as a principle at home we'll look much more credible when we apply it internationally. Edited March 1, 2016 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted March 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) Sask should do whatever it wants. We should also makes BDS a policy when it comes to dealing with jurisdictions that refuse to get with the program. In fact if we start applying this as a principle at home we'll look much more credible when we apply it internationally. BDS? Is that short for BDSM? Edited March 1, 2016 by ReeferMadness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 I thought it was boycott divest and sanction or did I get it wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Yes the stats are out there, although climate deniers tend to ignore anything that refutes their ideas. One need not be an economist to understand that having the lowest personal income tax in the country and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America is good for jobs and business. BC has had a slightly higher GDP than any other province since 2008 when the carbon tax was introduced. And a 16% reduction in fuel use. Pretty much a win win. Could you please provide a source, thank you in advance. I'm sorry but I am not a climate denier, in fact I said so many times in the last couple of posts... But we are talking about Carbon taxes and what they are meant for. my understanding was the main purpose is to reduce green house gases, to improve our environment.....and yet you continue to bases your argument on economics.....showing the readers that BC has the lowest income tax and corporate taxes in the country....How does this translate into saving the environment.....now if you had said those taxes were used to improve BC environment id say you would have a case...... Reducing fuel usage by 16 % is an impressive figure, that does translate in helping the environment but your contributing that to an increase at the fuel pumps through another tax......Call it what ever you want but that's what it is just another tax, and the reaction to that in BC is people are using their cars less.....the fact is im sure the rest of the country could show reductions as well when fuel prices were at their highest....and most of us did reduce driving them when we did not have to....was that good for the environment yes it was.....but it was not because we all wanted to save the environment.....it was to save a few bucks..... which brings me back to the general consensus within Canada, are we willing to do anything about the current climate issues.....and im say sure we will talk a good game.....as long as we don't have to give up anything ....So if we are not willing to give up anything, why do we have to listen to all this environmental talk about pipelines , spills.....when the issue at hand is jobs....and using a Canadian product... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Could you please provide a source, thank you in advance. I'm sorry but I am not a climate denier, in fact I said so many times in the last couple of posts... But we are talking about Carbon taxes and what they are meant for. my understanding was the main purpose is to reduce green house gases, to improve our environment.....and yet you continue to bases your argument on economics.....showing the readers that BC has the lowest income tax and corporate taxes in the country....How does this translate into saving the environment.....now if you had said those taxes were used to improve BC environment id say you would have a case...... Reducing fuel usage by 16 % is an impressive figure, that does translate in helping the environment but your contributing that to an increase at the fuel pumps through another tax......Call it what ever you want but that's what it is just another tax, and the reaction to that in BC is people are using their cars less.....the fact is im sure the rest of the country could show reductions as well when fuel prices were at their highest....and most of us did reduce driving them when we did not have to....was that good for the environment yes it was.....but it was not because we all wanted to save the environment.....it was to save a few bucks..... which brings me back to the general consensus within Canada, are we willing to do anything about the current climate issues.....and im say sure we will talk a good game.....as long as we don't have to give up anything ....So if we are not willing to give up anything, why do we have to listen to all this environmental talk about pipelines , spills.....when the issue at hand is jobs....and using a Canadian product... I personally make my car trips based on the idea that with a little planning I can get a number of things done with one trip instead of running back and forth. I do that as much to not waste time, not burn a lot of fuel, and if I save a few bucks that's good too. If the only reason one does that is strictly for the bucks, the benefit to the environment is the same. And when the revenue from that tax goes back to the economy, good again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 So are you implying that we don't need the entire global warming /Carbon tax scheme , all we really need to do is increase existing taxes on all fuel products , pricing them to the point it forces users to reduce their usage. which translate into more money into government coffers, more services, that might have the side effect of lowering our green house gas emissions which would be good for the environment.....That would be easy to sell in Canada, I mean it has already been done, Canada has some of the highest fuel taxes in North America.....we should have the lowest emissions right.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted March 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 But we are talking about Carbon taxes and what they are meant for. my understanding was the main purpose is to reduce green house gases, to improve our environment.....and yet you continue to bases your argument on economics.....showing the readers that BC has the lowest income tax and corporate taxes in the country....How does this translate into saving the environment.....now if you had said those taxes were used to improve BC environment id say you would have a case...... Carbon taxes work but only in proportion to their size. In BC, there is a modest carbon tax and we've seen a modest decrease in gasoline consumption. A $15 carbon tax is not going to save the world from itself. And carbon taxes are a tool, not an on/off switch. They have to be used correctly and in conjunction with other tools. In BC, the carbon tax would have been more effective if the proceeds had been used to invest in lowering emissions further than simply lowering income taxes. Other tools include incentives for specific investments (e.g. making your home more energy efficient) and research funding into clean energy. Canada could easily have 100% clean electricity with existing technology and only modest price impacts. The four provinces with large hydroelectric resources (BC, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland & Labrador) are spread across the country and could provide baseload. Extra power could be provided by solar, wind and geothermal. Prices of solar and wind continue to drop and in fact some of the cheapest new power in the world right now is being supplied by solar and wind. The problem is inter-provincial squabbling. The best solar power power resources in Canada are in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan - provinces currently heavily dependent on the dirty fossil fuel industry. And the large provincial utilities that supply Canada's power need to be pushed to adapt to distributed power generation and cooperate with other provinces. But the biggest problem is lack of world governance. Everyone (aside from a small percentage of persistent deniers) knows that we need to deal with emissions. However, there is a "you go first" attitude across the world. Only Europe so far has shown leadership. It can be done. When trade deals are negotiated, the rules are firm, adoption is mandatory and sanctions are painful. We need to use the same model for environmental deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Carbon tax is an attempt to protect the environment, pipelines are meant to protect the bottom line. Two very different, although somewhat connected, issues. My entire point here has been that the Carbon tax is nothing more than protecting the bottom dollar, the governments bottom dollar, while it may have some benefit to the environment it is nothing more than a scheme...... The pipeline has environment groups and miss may in a tither, because they don't like fossil fuels, end of story.....Canadians don't give a rat ass about the environment, we have proven that over and over again.....here in the west it is about the almighty dollar.....the pipe line is about getting Canadian product, to a Canadian refinery , providing Canadian jobs.....Time we stopped pretending we care about mother nature, when our real concern is how much money can I make off this..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Some countries are jumping on the green energy bandwagon. Canada may find itself left far behind,http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/26/morocco-poised-to-become-a-solar-superpower-with-launch-of-desert-mega-project Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted March 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 My entire point here has been that the Carbon tax is nothing more than protecting the bottom dollar, the governments bottom dollar, while it may have some benefit to the environment it is nothing more than a scheme...... That's nonsense. In BC, the carbon tax was revenue neutral. They implemented the carbon tax and lowered income taxes to offset. It would have been better if they had taken the proceeds and invested them into green projects but they didn't. The endless complaints about tax grabs are just noise. Taxes have been going down in this country for a generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted March 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 I thought it was boycott divest and sanction or did I get it wrong? Yeah. My way was more interesting but I'm sure your way is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted March 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Some countries are jumping on the green energy bandwagon. Canada may find itself left far behind, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/26/morocco-poised-to-become-a-solar-superpower-with-launch-of-desert-mega-project Renewable energy is the next growth industry and Canada is gradually being left behind. Over all, private investment in green energy is growing dramatically, the report says. In 2013, $207-billion (U.S.) was invested in clean energy deployment, not far below the $270-billion invested in fossil fuel power generation. While China, the United States and Japan lead the way, Canada ranks seventh among G20 countries with $6.5-billion in clean energy investment in 2013. While carbon-based fuels will still be important for a long time, “for the first time in more than a century, multiple signs suggest that their dominance is beginning to wane,” the report said. Backward thinking politician like Premier Wall don't get that today's fossil fuel industry is like the horse buggy industry was 150 years ago. We need to look ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Renewable energy is the next growth industry ....ROTFL. Any industry that cannot grow without subsidies is not worth "investing" in. Let others waste their money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted March 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 ROTFL. Any industry that cannot grow without subsidies is not worth "investing" in. Let others waste their money. And yet the fossil fuel industry is almost undoubtedly the most heavily subsidized in history. Everyone - Tim thinks you should dump your oil stocks because they're not worth investing in. Go figure. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) And yet the fossil fuel industry is almost undoubtedly the most heavily subsidized in history.A complete fiction. Partially because the subsidies are largely non-existent in developed countries (places like Venezuela and Iran are different stories) and partially because the subsidies that do exists are directly connected to finding new reserves of oil that can be sold at a profit (including royalties and taxes paid to the government). Get back to me when governments can start charging windmill operators royalties for the power the produce from a limited public resource (i.e. good locations). I would be interested to know how many people would invest in renewables if selling them included a 20% excise just because the government wants money. Renewables are a waste of money that are a drain on the economy. Unlike fossil fuels, they are not a source of wealth, taxes or real jobs. Edited March 1, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 My entire point here has been that the Carbon tax is nothing more than protecting the bottom dollar, the governments bottom dollar, while it may have some benefit to the environment it is nothing more than a scheme...... The pipeline has environment groups and miss may in a tither, because they don't like fossil fuels, end of story.....Canadians don't give a rat ass about the environment, we have proven that over and over again.....here in the west it is about the almighty dollar.....the pipe line is about getting Canadian product, to a Canadian refinery , providing Canadian jobs.....Time we stopped pretending we care about mother nature, when our real concern is how much money can I make off this..... How is it protecting the governments "bottom dollar" when the dollars are returned to the taxpayer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Carbon taxes work but only in proportion to their size. In BC, there is a modest carbon tax and we've seen a modest decrease in gasoline consumption. A $15 carbon tax is not going to save the world from itself. And carbon taxes are a tool, not an on/off switch. They have to be used correctly and in conjunction with other tools. In BC, the carbon tax would have been more effective if the proceeds had been used to invest in lowering emissions further than simply lowering income taxes. Other tools include incentives for specific investments (e.g. making your home more energy efficient) and research funding into clean energy. Canada could easily have 100% clean electricity with existing technology and only modest price impacts. The four provinces with large hydroelectric resources (BC, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland & Labrador) are spread across the country and could provide baseload. Extra power could be provided by solar, wind and geothermal. Prices of solar and wind continue to drop and in fact some of the cheapest new power in the world right now is being supplied by solar and wind. The problem is inter-provincial squabbling. The best solar power power resources in Canada are in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan - provinces currently heavily dependent on the dirty fossil fuel industry. And the large provincial utilities that supply Canada's power need to be pushed to adapt to distributed power generation and cooperate with other provinces. But the biggest problem is lack of world governance. Everyone (aside from a small percentage of persistent deniers) knows that we need to deal with emissions. However, there is a "you go first" attitude across the world. Only Europe so far has shown leadership. It can be done. When trade deals are negotiated, the rules are firm, adoption is mandatory and sanctions are painful. We need to use the same model for environmental deals. Carbon Taxes could be a tool, but that is not how they are being used, you've said as much in your post. Currently they are just another tax which has the side effect of lowering consumption.....and disguised as an environmental policy....World leaders around the globe are preaching the same things, feigning concerns over our current environmental condition...And environmentalists are lapping it up because it has shown a spot light in their corner....adding their 2 cents to the issue, adding to the confusion...of the tax payers....who will be the driving force behind every action this nation takes....if it is not popular then it won't happen.....and right now we are concerned, but really if placed in priority in lifes daily struggle what position does it take..... The current condition of our environment did not happen this morning, it has been happening for decades, one could ask why now, why not yesterday, yesteryear.....that has got to be telling.... on how far down on the priority list our environment really is....We as a nation have seen this miles away, and have failed to jump on board any major project that would see us less reliant on fossil fuels.. Our economy is over 40 % based on fossil fuels, could that be why..... our laws on the environments protection are laughable really another telling story about how much we care about our environment..... The pipeline story is also laughable.....not only did the Montreal mayor and now one of Quebec's environmental ministers state the pipe line would not be in their best interests....for environmental reasons.....the same two people who pumped billions of liters of untreated Human waste sewage into a national waterway and told the public there is nothing to worry about.....which kind of points us to come to our own conclusion, this is not about the environment, it is about positioning Quebec to get a slice of the pie.....show me the money baby.....In the west it has always been show me the money.....never about save the whales....or our environment.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 That's nonsense. In BC, the carbon tax was revenue neutral. They implemented the carbon tax and lowered income taxes to offset. It would have been better if they had taken the proceeds and invested them into green projects but they didn't. The endless complaints about tax grabs are just noise. Taxes have been going down in this country for a generation. Is it nonsense.....Perhaps I am a little slow....When has the government ever introduced a tax that did not produce revenue.....And why would they introduce a Carbon tax, and disguise it as an environmental protect tax, when all it does is allows them to decrease income taxes.....it reminds me of the shell game....here is the ball watch it closely.....I am going to raise taxes at the pump all in the name of the environment , and at the same time I am going to lower your taxes .....win win for the government .....who has convinced you your getting a win as well.....it seems like they are protecting the environment, which is a concern for most BC ers , lower taxes every body likes lower taxes...... But in reality the only winner here is the guy that does not have a car, or home....the rest of you guys are paying out of one pocket and getting some thing back in the other....Why even have the tax if it is revenue neutral, because it is all a sham.....under disguise of protecting the environment.....come on even you can see that..... The endless complaints about tax grabs are just noise. Taxes have been going down in this country for a generation. I find that hard to believe, last year my taxes were based on 38 or 39 % of my reported income....and have been based at that percentage for a while atleast as long as I can remember....getting older now so my memory is not as good.....now I don't claim to be a math wizard....but as my wage climbs so does the amount paid in taxes.....but still based on 39 %...... My other taxes such as land taxes, etc etc have been on the rise.....most of that is based on what my home is worth, and in BC homes are not cheap or so the news says.....ca'nt imagine what land taxes are out that way....but here on average for a 350,000 home you can expect to pay 2 to 5000 dollars...depending on where your at....never has the the government said Holly shit it's your birthday we are lowering taxes.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted March 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Carbon Taxes could be a tool, but that is not how they are being used, you've said as much in your post. No. You've missed my point entirely. The carbon tax in BC was implemented as a tool to reduce emissions and it had exactly that effect. However, it was implemented without in isolation and it is only a small carbon tax. So, it has had some effect but not as much as it could have if it were more substantial and the revenue were directed towards other carbon cutting programs. I've clipped the rest of your post because it was clear that it was all based on your mistaken interpretation of my statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 How is it protecting the governments "bottom dollar" when the dollars are returned to the taxpayer? When has the government introduced a new tax without it generating revenue, or for it's own agenda.....You and reefer claim it is revenue neutral, But when I asked you to provide a source so I could take a look ....I heard nothing back.....and I can not find a source that lays it all out in black and white....so I am left to take your word at it.... The bottom line or agenda in this case is nothing more than a shell game.....you pay at the pumps, a tax that is claimed to be environmentally friendly.....but by definition any tax that raises the price of fuel enough will have the same side effect, give pause to users make them take extra efforts to conserve fuel....as mentioned here before by another poster, when crude was demanding top dollar and fuel prices where high could have skewed the results inflating the effect you claim was due to just Carbon taxes.....which would have the same effect..... The shell game comes in when the BC government raises what they call carbon taxes.....under the idea of doing their part in reducing emissions....when really high fuel prices were already doing that.....and it is a side effect of high prices ....they seen that .... so why not ride that wave to the beach....claim you are doing something for the environment scoring votes in BC, and then using that income generated by "you" paying more at the pumps.....to lower taxes.....so the government can say ....see what we did for you we lowered your taxes......they didn't have to do anything at all.....they did not lower your taxes just move the money around....you paid for those lower taxes by putting your own money into the pumps.....All you have to do is have to follow the money......now you claim it is revenue neutral but like I said before when has the government did anything without generating a profit to be used for something else....the next shell game.... Why even have the tax if it is revenue neutral, because it is all a sham.....under disguise of protecting the environment.....come on even you can see that..... back to my original question Why ? Have one tax that only gives you a rebate on another.....why not just leave it the way it was ?.....Because they would not be able to say we are doing something for the environment and wait for it..... lowering your taxes at the same time...and it did not cost them anything....they got you to pay for it all.....and now have you believing it is a good thing.....here you give me 20 dollars in tax and I will give you 20 dollars back off your taxes....cost me nothing, and you gained nothing.....but now you think I did you a favour, "and" you also believe i'm doing something for the environment.....YOU did all the work..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 http://blogs.ubc.ca/victorjin/files/2013/02/ScreenHunter_07-Jan.-30-10.36-563x434.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Thank you SmallC for the link..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) The carbon tax in BC was implemented as a tool to reduce emissions and it had exactly that effect.An effect that is likely a random coincidence due to factors unrelated to the carbon tax: http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2015/05/10/b-c-failing-to-meet-greenhouse-emission-targets-federal-government.html Instead of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), the 2014 Emissions Trend Report says B.C. is actually on pace to increase emissions 11 per cent by 2020 (from 2005 levels).If the "carbon tax" had an effect it was a one time step change after which emissions continued their inevitable march higher. Carbon taxes at levels the public will tolerate can only have a small effect on emissions. Edited March 2, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.