herples Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Yes we will get lower emissions, because it will give "some" but "not" all a pause in their decision process to use fossil fuels or take public transit etc.....because of it's price.... You are quoted saying there are incentives to invest more into cleaner tech for industries, that their are incentives to move towards renewable energy......where are they ?what provinces ? Most provinces only offer a tax rebate in the form of giving a small portion back to the tax payers.....To all tax payers, regardless of how much tax you have paid. Each province is free to do what ever it wishes with this tax money, The federal Government has set very little rules down on the subject asides from everyone will be subjected to the tax....Now if asll this tax was going towards clean energy, or reducing the prices of this clean energy....then we might have a tool to fight our carbon levels.....right now we just have another tax.....which can be used for anything, to increase provincial government spending, Health care, education, etc. The US is not stepping back from coal, President trump has already signed an executive order, bringing coal back in....and there is more to come in regards to their carbon reduction, but why does a nation bring back in coal if it is not ready to sacrifice other carbon pricing projects..... SO i'll ask again what will this tax accomplish in regards to our carbon foot print ? Cleaner tech reduces the impacts of production for instance in Quebec aluminum smelters have reduced their emissions and doubled their production. https://aluminium.ca/en/communications/press/185/after-reducing-ghg-emissions-by-30%25-quebecs-aluminium-smelters-are-ready-to-assist-the-transportation-sector-with-its-efforts Ontario bungled an attempt to foster green tech but that had more to do with the provincial government than green tech itself. 18 minutes ago, Army Guy said: The best part about it all is , they the government has twisted everything around so you , and the rest of Canadians think it is a good idea.....we pay these taxes, which will add up pretty quick....and if your good, they'll send you a little gift at the end of the year.....but it will not be anything worth what you have already paid into this tax scheme. And here is the good part.....they don't even have to send you a check if they don't want to.... and there is nothing in writting to say they even have to use the profits on clean energy, or tech, or reducing our carbon foot print.....there all catch words to make you feel good about paying more tax... Has the price of renewable energy gone done in your province....Has there been any significant investment in renewable energy in your province, Are there major tax breaks for renewable energy companies , offsets for R&D......Has anyone brought forward a replacement for fossil fuels that does not cost an arm and a leg......and yet we are expected to make the transfer in 2030, to what we don't know ? but we will continue to over price fossil fuels until no one uses them.....sounds like half a plan to me.... http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/renewable-electricity/7295 Canada is a world leader in the production and use of energy from renewable resources. Renewable energy sources currently provide about 18.9 per cent of Canada’s total primary energy supply. Moving water is the most important renewable energy source in Canada, providing 59.3 per cent of Canada’s electricity generation. In fact, Canada is the second largest producer of hydroelectricity in the world. Wind is the second most important renewable energy source in Canada. It accounts for 3.5 per cent of electricity generation in Canada. Biomass is the third largest renewable source of Canada’s electricity generation. Its share in Canada’s electricity generation is 1.4 per cent. Wind and solar photovoltaic energy are the fastest growing sources of electricity in Canada Edited January 22, 2017 by herples Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 So your saying this result was a direct result of Quebec's carbon Taxes, That Quebec assisted the company with grants to accomplish this, or was it the company that started this program with it's own funding ?. or because of existing laws already put in place.The reason i ask is quebec would be one of the few provinces that will use funding from its carbon tax program to invest in reduction measures. the rest are offering small checks, or putting the funding towards something else...... And yet was it not Quebec that dumped bils of liters of raw human waste into our waterways....sounds like an excellent carbon reduction plan, maybe they could use their share of the carbon taxes to fix that problem..... and save Ontario from swimming in Quebecs shit..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 So army guy, is bringing coal back a good thing in your book? And you answered your own question - people will watch their carbon use because of the price. That's how it's supposed to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 hour ago, herples said: The US is taking a step back with coal since it is being replaced by natural gas. On the global stage countries can out tariffs on American goods for not sticking to it's responsibilities to the environment. Oh like that's gonna happen. Do you think the Germans will complain? They're opening their own coal fired power plants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 hour ago, blueblood said: And then you have to eventually buy things... In Canadian dollars. I have no problem paying my mortgage with Canadian dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 hour ago, herples said: China is implementing an emissions trading scheme based on pilot emissions trading scheme based in Beijing, Chongqing, Guangdong, Hubei, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Tianjin this year. It is also the largest polluter. You realize all the Chinese companies involved are owned by the Chinese government, right? They're simply moving money around into different folders. China will continue to increase it's CO2 emissions for decades to come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herples Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 12 minutes ago, Army Guy said: So your saying this result was a direct result of Quebec's carbon Taxes, That Quebec assisted the company with grants to accomplish this, or was it the company that started this program with it's own funding ?. or because of existing laws already put in place.The reason i ask is quebec would be one of the few provinces that will use funding from its carbon tax program to invest in reduction measures. the rest are offering small checks, or putting the funding towards something else...... And yet was it not Quebec that dumped bils of liters of raw human waste into our waterways....sounds like an excellent carbon reduction plan, maybe they could use their share of the carbon taxes to fix that problem..... and save Ontario from swimming in Quebecs shit..... While not the result of carbon taxes it self carbon taxes are no different than any measure to deter pollution. Those measures push companies to adopt better technologies or practices so they don't get fined or taxed more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 32 minutes ago, Argus said: In Canadian dollars. I have no problem paying my mortgage with Canadian dollars. People buy other things than houses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, Army Guy said: Well lets start with the extra tax money your going to pay, on basically everything products, and services that fossil fuels have touched, or part of. This new tax does nothing in regards to lowering Carbon in our environment. It is not being used to pay for governmental projects to upgrade our public infra structure, in ways such as solar, thermal heat, any of the new environmental tech.....its not being used to subsidize this tech for the public to purchase, in fact it is not being used to do anything except perhaps give you back a small check back at the end of the year....not even close to what you invested into this new tax....What i does do is perhaps give you pause not to use your fossil fuels as much.... I live in the country, no buses, over 20 kms to work or anything in town....so i will be driving either way, i heat my home nothing changes for me.....except it is going to cost me more...for everything... The US has already announced it is going to be bringing back coal.....so much for carbon taxes....while we pay more for everything....US products will be that much more cheaper.....so Canadian products will lose out on the global stage, or at least trading in the US. No one knows what the new NAFTA is going to look like, but it is going to change, and i'm betting its not all going to be good. SO what are we going to gain with these taxes ?.... I think carbon taxes will trigger a recession and many bankruptcies and the moving of certain businesses to Mexico and Asia. That said, Army I think Mr. Trump is full of gas about coal. I mean that. Here's why. Even in Virginia where he told coal miners he was pro coal and would go back to coal he lied. He out and out lied. The thermal plants that once worked on coal have ben converted to natural gas. So they won't dismantle them. The continuing thermal plants using coal are acting being phased out because believe it or not coal miners don't want their children working he mines anymore. No one in their right mind wants to send their families into coal mines anymore and encourage their kids to get out. China is addicted to coal. So are parts of Europe. But Europe is moving over as well to natural has or Sweden's model of using garbage to generate thermal electricity. On the one hand I thought Canada selling virtually all its coal reserves to China was short-sighted but it was felt its a product no one wants any longer. I agree with you and Argus and others on China. China is going to remain exempt from clean air laws as will India. Those two major air polluters both dependent on coal have at this time no intention of changing and the system of caps and trades is a sham in that it allows them to buy their way out of finding other sources other than coal. The cap and trade system is a sham tax that allows the two largest offenders other than the US to buy their way out. That said Canada has no excuses. We have water (hydro), solar technology, garbage to thermal heat technology, clean fuels technology that mean we do n ot need coal and for that matter we could even phase out nuclear energy if we really wanted to. Ms. Wynne Miss Save The World Green Woman has in fact turned Ontario completely dependent on nuclear energy which some say is safe and others say is not safe. I believe the future is hydro and solar technology and the use of garbage as thermal heat as well as the complete redesign of homes and buildings and the use of alternative fuels like ethanol and hydrogen. Edited January 23, 2017 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 17 hours ago, herples said: While not the result of carbon taxes it self carbon taxes are no different than any measure to deter pollution. Those measures push companies to adopt better technologies or practices so they don't get fined or taxed more. Naïve response. To avoid fines and taxes they move to jurisdictions with no such taxes. They do NOT stay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 17 hours ago, Argus said: Oh like that's gonna happen. Do you think the Germans will complain? They're opening their own coal fired power plants. It won't happen but the US has already heavily involved itself in converting coal to natural gas thermal plants so where it has, they won't be converted back Where coal thermal plants still exist in the US some will continue to convert base don contracts they are already locked into so the estimates of how many plants will remain on coal is hard to say at this point even in Virginia. Germany is also as you say opening coal fired plants yes, but that makes no sense as he Swedish model of burning garbage ot make thermal electricity and heat is cheaper and cleaner. That I must say is a strange development. We know in the former East bloc nations like Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, its still used. Interestingly and this is why am surprised about Germany, its always been heavily committed to nuclear energy. So that is interesting too. Coal just causes too many problems air wise. Most governments agree on that in terms of air pollution whether you agree with green house warming or not. Asthma rates in Toronto for example, which were the highest in the world are down now. There was direct correlation to our proximity to Ohio and Penn states and our own coal burning in the air plus Lake Ontario which trapped the pollution. Also one only need look at air quality in Hamilton and its rates of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases since its stopped making as much steel (from coal burning) to see the correlation. Coal just aint the way unless you make steel which is probably why in Gernany they want coal (coke)-I believe its for their steel industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 The topic is the Canadian dollar folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 16 hours ago, Smallc said: So army guy, is bringing coal back a good thing in your book? And you answered your own question - people will watch their carbon use because of the price. That's how it's supposed to work. That's not what i said....reducing our nations reliance on coal is a good thing. provided it is done the right way. and not on the backs of just consumers...That being said do you honestly think that Canada's reductions is going to make a difference in the global carbon foot print....when countries such as the USA reverse there stance on Coal, and perhaps the entire carbon pricing project ? I mean trump has just gotten started, give a week or two to get rolling... or when other nations who can not afford to get rid of coal power continue to use and even expand it's usage. And now our government has decided that every province will have a carbon tax in place by 2018....that is the end of the federal governments involvement, Why do we need a carbon tax ? A tax that the federal government has said , each province can do with this tax what ever it wants......give MP's a raise, pay for new projects like new roads, or infra structure that depends on fossil fuels....NO WHERE does it say it has to go to R&D of clean energy sources, reducing costs of clean energy , such as solar , heat pumps,electrical cars, buses, or transport trucks....Nor does it include any tough new laws on environmental polluters. NO the liberals have put forth their own direction to meet carbon levels set within the UN, we will make fuel expensive to limit usage....Much like tobacco, we will tax the shit out of it, hoping one day everyone will quit....How did that work out, Yes a huge reduction in the amount , but there is still millions that still smoke and will forever.... If the liberals were serious about climate change, they would have come out with a plan that has more than "everyone will pay this tax", after that we don't care what you do......Maybe one that has participation at all levels of the nation. not just one that will be passed on to the consumer....and not just on fossil fuels, everything that fossil fuels touches or assists with, our food, cloths, shelter, services all of it.....will be taxed. But then again that would require leadership, some thought, some actual work put into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 Just now, Army Guy said: NO the liberals have put forth their own direction to meet carbon levels set within the UN, we will make fuel expensive to limit usage....Much like tobacco, we will tax the shit out of it, hoping one day everyone will quit....How did that work out, Yes a huge reduction in the amount , but there is still millions that still smoke and will forever.... And since we're trying to reduce the usage, that seems like a good plan, I'd say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 15 minutes ago, Smallc said: And since we're trying to reduce the usage, that seems like a good plan, I'd say. It's a terrible plan, but because it is the liberals plan, it has to be celebrated, and cheered on like it was some source of magic.....Come on kids in high school could do better.....How much imagination did it take to say "everyone will pay this tax" the rest is up to the provinces to figure out......we are trying to meet our target goal of carbon emissions that we agreed to at the UN right.....by what year again ? But it is just a tax, one that is collected under the carbon reduction project.....but it can be used for anything the provinces want....return a little to the tax payers, or spend it like a mad man on anything.....Has any province invested taxes collected under carbon tax theme, into R&D into clean energy, further reductions into carbon areas.....anything....any one.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 36 minutes ago, Army Guy said: NO the liberals have put forth their own direction to meet carbon levels set within the UN, we will make fuel expensive to limit usage....Much like tobacco, we will tax the shit out of it, hoping one day everyone will quit....How did that work out, Yes a huge reduction in the amount , but there is still millions that still smoke and will forever.... Here is BC we have gone from ~50% of adults smoking 40+ years ago to something like 13% today. That's very good results thanks to education and taxation. With fossil fuels it will be education, renewables, technology, and taxation. BFD. Adapt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 Could you please provide a source for your smoking numbers, thank you. Is there an education portion of this tax ? i must have missed that class, perhaps you can point to where all that info is....once again what renewables are you talking about, which ones will be ready shortly to take over from fossil fuels ? shit we are just getting off coal....how long is that going to take...... What is the government doing about education, renewables, technology, ....DO they use any of these taxes that are collected under carbon taxes to pay or subsidize any of the topics you mention....and if so can you provide a source. maybe you can start with BC as it has had a carbon tax for years, perhaps give us an incite to what is in store for the rest of us....Or is it just a tax being collected because it can be ? One last question is this carbon taxes going to benifit Canada some how and if so How? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 For 2014 it was 14.3% for BC'ers 12 and up. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/health74b-eng.htm As for the past you can start here: http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/publications/healthy-living-vie-saine/tobacco-monitoring-survey-2011-enquete-surveillance-tabac/index-eng.php For example, in 1985 it looks like about 42% or so of 20-24 year olds smoked. Compared to the 21% for that same age group in 2011. I am sure other stats can be found somewhere like here: https://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Smoking_Rates_e.htm As for carbon taxes - there primary use is to make fossil fuels more expensive which, in turn, effects how people use them (i.e. people tend to reduce their consumption of something that rises in price). I expect over time we will see all kinds of government investments/partnerships for various projects that will reduce carbon emissions. Also will see tax rebates related to energy conservation and for changing over to renewables (eg. rebates on solar conversion, rebates on Tesla power wall, etc). As to education: as more people accept global climate change then change can occur more easily even without the stick portion (carbon tax) or the carrot (rebates). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, msj said: As for the past you can start here: http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/publications/healthy-living-vie-saine/tobacco-monitoring-survey-2011-enquete-surveillance-tabac/index-eng.php For example, in 1985 it looks like about 42% or so of 20-24 year olds smoked. Compared to the 21% for that same age group in 2011. I used one of the graphs from your source, which states in 1999 there was 6,121,992 smokers, and in 2010 some 10 years later, and massive amounts of tax added there are 4,910,510 a reduction of only 1.2 million . Cigerettes went from being 5.25 dollars a pack in 1998 to 10.10 a pack in 2010, to 15.20 a pack today ( NB pricing) most of that is taxes, avg cost to manufacture 25 cigs in NB today is 3.25....leaving 11.95 in taxes.....So yes there was a reduction in the total numbers of people who quit smoking, but today that represents only 15 % of the over all smokers from 10 years ago....but to get that result taxes went up 500 times more than the actual product costs. Yes we did see a reduction in smokers....but overall not the numbers we expected....even when we charged 500 times in taxes than the product was worth is this what we are facing with fossil fuels..... I ask because in most rural areas of the country there are no public transit, distances to work are to far to walk or take a bike, so they rely on fossil fuels to get back and forth to work , or just plain live....Do you think these guys will support carbon taxes.....sure we may get a small check in the mail if our province goes that route, but in reality we are going to be paying more at the pumps, at the food stores, for most services, for our electrical power, the list effects almost everything.....How are canadians who are just making it by today going to pay for this Carbon reduction plan. they won't be, and for all this pain and suffering is it going to really solve Canada's carbon reduction plans.....it might if all this tax was going to be used for R&D of renewable energy, or offset the cost of solar, thermal heating to the public the list goes on forever.......But has that happened in BC....have these programs been bought and paid for by Carbon taxes in BC...yes or no, if yes please provide a source.... 1999 2010 Current Smokers 6,121,992 25 4,910,520 17 All this is going to do is drive people to cheaper alt, such as fire wood, which produces more carbon than fossil fuels do..... SO how is all of this going to benefit Canada in today's economy again.... Edited January 23, 2017 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: I used one of the graphs from your source, which states in 1999 there was 6,121,992 smokers, and in 2010 some 10 years later, and massive amounts of tax added there are 4,910,510 a reduction of only 1.2 million . In 1999, Canada's population was 30.5 million. In 2010, it was 34 million. Therefore, using your numbers, the per capita smoking rate in 1999 was 201 people per 1000 and by 2010 it had dropped to 144 people per 1000, a 28.4% reduction, which is quite significant. I imagine that most CO2 reduction advocates would be pretty happy with a ~28% reduction in 11 years, and most plans I see out there advocate/anticipate a smaller reduction than that. Whether that reduction is worth the cost is of course a different question (and one worth debating) but the smoking example clearly illustrates that taxing things can certainly reduce their prevalence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 33 minutes ago, Bonam said: In 1999, Canada's population was 30.5 million. In 2010, it was 34 million. Therefore, using your numbers, the per capita smoking rate in 1999 was 201 people per 1000 and by 2010 it had dropped to 144 people per 1000, a 28.4% reduction, which is quite significant. I imagine that most CO2 reduction advocates would be pretty happy with a ~28% reduction in 11 years, and most plans I see out there advocate/anticipate a smaller reduction than that. Whether that reduction is worth the cost is of course a different question (and one worth debating) but the smoking example clearly illustrates that taxing things can certainly reduce their prevalence. You can't really compare smoking and CO2 emissions in this scenario as smoking cigarettes is a vice and not necessary for an economy to function whereas if we don't want to live like the pioneers then we need to use fossil fuels. There's taxing a vice which makes sense as smoking cigarettes has a bad cost benefit to society vs using fossil fuels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 1 minute ago, blueblood said: You can't really compare smoking and CO2 emissions in this scenario as smoking cigarettes is a vice and not necessary for an economy to function whereas if we don't want to live like the pioneers then we need to use fossil fuels. There's taxing a vice which makes sense as smoking cigarettes has a bad cost benefit to society vs using fossil fuels. All true, and I agree, I was merely commenting on the existing discussion here which already involved the comparison to smoking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 5 hours ago, msj said: Here is BC we have gone from ~50% of adults smoking 40+ years ago to something like 13% today. That's very good results thanks to education and taxation. With fossil fuels it will be education, renewables, technology, and taxation. BFD. Adapt. Adapt our way into the poorhouse. Not everyone lives in a rainforest climate in a Downtown centre... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 Manitoba creates very little carbon with our hydro and natural gas heating. Much of the country needs to catch up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 19 minutes ago, Smallc said: Manitoba creates very little carbon with our hydro and natural gas heating. Much of the country needs to catch up. And has went into the poorhouse as a result of it. Pallister has a big mountain to climb! The ndp found out the hard way how much hydro costs. 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.