Brainless environmental policy damaging the economy

[Argus]

Canadian governments are embarked on an ambitious scheme to waste tens of billions, even hundreds of billions on worthless environmental schemes that sap Canada's economy while doing nothing to improve the environment.

Scientific studies suggest that voluntary compliance with the COP21 international climate agreement would have no meaningful impact on global temperatures. Therefore, Canada’s 1.6 per cent contribution would be infinitesimal. Nevertheless, Ontario’s cap-and-trade plan will impose an annual cost of $1.9 billion on consumers and businesses. This when the province is struggling to reform a broken health-care system and address the largest sub-national debt in the world. Alberta’s cap on GHG emissions could cost hundreds of billions in lost production by 2040. This as the province still reels from a dramatic decline in oil and gas prices. Federal and provincial policies combined may cost Canadians up to $1 trillion by the end of the century. This when the federal government is running large deficits.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/joe-oliver-when-will-canadians-finally-say-no-to-all-these-expensive-dysfunctional-fiscal-and-climate-policies

[eyeball]

Yes, its far better to have brainless economic policies that damage the environment instead.

[taxme]

That is all our Canadian politically correct no mind politicians are good at? Wasting taxpayer's tax dollars on stupid programs and agendas like this. And yet Canadians cannot seem to get it never mind say anything about it. I guess shopping and partying are more important.

Canadians favorite words are "tax me, I am Canadian".

[The_Squid]

Joe Oliver... ... Joe who?

I like his nice round figure of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!

Sure glad he was finance minister... I'm sure he put as much thought and research into this article as he did with Canada's finances, which were a disaster by the time he was voted out.

[Bonam]

Federal and provincial policies combined may cost Canadians up to $1 trillion by the end of the century.

$1 trillion by the end of the century? That seems like pocket change. Canada's GDP is currently $1.6 trillion. Assuming a modest growth rate of 2% for the rest of the century, GDP in 2100 will be ~$8.5 trillion, and the total economic product over the rest of the century (summing up 2016, 2017,... through 2100) will be ~$350 trillion. So a $1 trillion cost by then is merely 0.3% of the economic output over that period. Hardly catastrophic.

[The_Squid]

$1 trillion by the end of the century? That seems like pocket change. Canada's GDP is currently $1.6 trillion. Assuming a modest growth rate of 2% for the rest of the century, GDP in 2100 will be ~$8.5 trillion, and the total economic product over the rest of the century (summing up 2016, 2017,... through 2100) will be ~$350 trillion. So a $1 trillion cost by then is merely 0.3% of the economic output over that period. Hardly catastrophic.

Joe will go back and revise his article...

ONE hundred TRILLION dollars.... whatever sounds scary, he will pull out of his arse.

Edited September 13, 2016 by The_Squid

[Argus]

Joe Oliver... ... Joe who?

I like his nice round figure of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!

Sure glad he was finance minister... I'm sure he put as much thought and research into this article as he did with Canada's finances, which were a disaster by the time he was voted out.

They were? The books were balanced then. Now your hero is planning an endless string of enormous deficits and you're jumping up and down in joy and cheering him on.

[Argus]

$1 trillion by the end of the century? That seems like pocket change. Canada's GDP is currently $1.6 trillion. Assuming a modest growth rate of 2% for the rest of the century, GDP in 2100 will be ~$8.5 trillion, and the total economic product over the rest of the century (summing up 2016, 2017,... through 2100) will be ~$350 trillion. So a $1 trillion cost by then is merely 0.3% of the economic output over that period. Hardly catastrophic.

So sacrificing a trillion dollars for no actual benefit is okay?

[Bonam]

So sacrificing a trillion dollars for no actual benefit is okay?

Nope but if you look over a 100 year timescale, any number of relatively useless programs will add up to a trillion dollars or more. More pertinently, absolutely no one can say with confidence what things will cost or what their consequences will be by 2100, it is simply not possible to forecast that far in the face of historical uncertainty not to mention technological change. The nearer term costs are more relevant rather than throwing out random numbers which can have no possible basis.

[?Impact]

They were? The books were balanced then.

Yes, he held his fire sale of GM and others to get some quick cash and put off his childcare tax benefit for several months so he could pretend there were no expenses. Joe Oliver is the worst finance minister ever, even worse than Jim Flaherty, and that says a lot.

[Argus]

Nope but if you look over a 100 year timescale, any number of relatively useless programs will add up to a trillion dollars or more. More pertinently, absolutely no one can say with confidence what things will cost or what their consequences will be by 2100, it is simply not possible to forecast that far in the face of historical uncertainty not to mention technological change. The nearer term costs are more relevant rather than throwing out random numbers which can have no possible basis.

It's still going to cost us billions a year, not in terms of the economy but in terms of the budgets, and for nothing.

Yes, he held his fire sale of GM and others to get some quick cash and put off his childcare tax benefit for several months so he could pretend there were no expenses. Joe Oliver is the worst finance minister ever, even worse than Jim Flaherty, and that says a lot.

Yeah, okay bud. And go and faint as your hero Justine walks by tossing fistfuls of hundred dollar bills into the air and dancing his way to bankruptcy.

[poochy]

Yes, he held his fire sale of GM and others to get some quick cash and put off his childcare tax benefit for several months so he could pretend there were no expenses. Joe Oliver is the worst finance minister ever, even worse than Jim Flaherty, and that says a lot.

So nothing to say on the subject of the op, color me all surprised.

[?Impact]

So nothing to say on the subject of the op, color me all surprised.

I thought it was clear, Joe Oliver is not worth listening to.

[Argus]

I thought it was clear, Joe Oliver is not worth listening to.

So Ontario and the other provinces aren't going to spend tens of billions desperately trying to reduce CO2 emissions to no purpose?

[The_Squid]

So Ontario and the other provinces aren't going to spend tens of billions desperately trying to reduce CO2 emissions to no purpose?

That's your claim... Repeating your claim and finding an opinion piece by a defeated Conservative MP, and known climate change denier, does not make it so.

[Argus]

That's your claim... Repeating your claim and finding an opinion piece by a defeated Conservative MP, and known climate change denier, does not make it so.

I'm not a climate scientist, but I don't need to be. Even if I acknowledge that the world is warming (I do) and acknowledge that almost all scientists agree that CO2 emissions have something to do with that (I do) then you've still gotta present me with an option that will successfully deal with that. Reducing CO2 emissions through a variety of taxation programs is not that option. It has not worked. It will not work. And even if it worked, at enormous cost, India alone is going to contribute 20 Canada's worth of additional CO2 emissions in the next twenty years. Hundreds more coal fired generating plants are going up, the majority in Asia, in part financed by - Canada, through its participation in the Chinese Infrastructure bank. They will add massively more CO2 emissions.

So even if we, at enormous economic cost, reduced our emissions to zero the impact on world emissions and thus global warming would be insignificant.

[TimG]

known climate change denier

Anyone who uses the term 'climate change denier' is uninformed zealot that is incapable of having a rational discussion on the topic. Edited September 15, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

Anyone who uses the term 'climate change denier' is uninformed zealot that is incapable of having a rational discussion on the topic.

Not at all. You have it completely backwards. Those who deny science (evolution, climate science, a round earth) are clearly the irrational ones. Having a rational conversation with these people is impossible since they claim to not even believe the experts in these fields.

What can you say to someone who denies science because that's how they feel, or that's their ideology? It's a completely irrational position that isn't based on actual evidence.

[PIK]

I hate when people use that 98% of scientists agree, that was a sham. Now I know things are heating up, but I am still not sure we can blame man for it all.

[Smallc]

I hate when people use that 98% of scientists agree, that was a sham.

I'm sure you can provide evidence of that.

[The_Squid]

I'm sure you can provide evidence of that.

I can!

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I hate when people use that 98% of scientists agree, that was a sham. Now I know things are heating up, but I am still not sure we can blame man for it all.

Me too.... It's only 97%.

[eyeball]

Are we supposed to believe 98% is the standard before something is deemed scientifically accurate enough to be incorporated into public policies?

How about economists, where do they set the believeability bar in the scheme of the things they prescribe?

[TimG]

Not at all. You have it completely backwards. Those who deny science

What makes you ignorant is the fact that you claim that people who are skeptical of your pet climate *policies* do not understand and accept the science. Most skeptics of climate policy have no issue with the science. By attempting to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a 'science denier' you are simply demonstrating that you are ideological partisan who has nothing useful to contribute to the discussion.

If you actually want to act like a rational person you need to understand the arguments being made and distinguish between differences of opinion on *policy* vs people claiming that true things are false.

Edited September 15, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

scientific-consensus

Again, you are creating a strawman to avoid actually having to debate policy. For starters, climate science is a broad field that makes many different claims that have different level of support in the literature. It is simply dishonest to reduce that complexity to a single number and then claim you don't have to debate climate policy because people who have no expertise in engineering or economics make claims about CO2.

[The_Squid]

Joe Oliver doesn't just disagree on policies... he is on the record as stating scientists don't really think it's a problem.... of course, his office sent out a "correction" of baffle-gab...

So anything Joe Oliver says on this topic (it will cost us a TRILLION dollars) is immediately suspect.