Canada's carbon tax

[Army Guy]

  The federal government is forcing this Carbon tax plan on all provinces and territories. According to the liberals here, the objective of the tax is simple reducing the use of fossil fuels. To some how meet our carbon emissions levels as laid out by our PM in UN. 

And while the tax is going to decrease the use of fossil fuels, by pricing it out of use .....it is also going to effect every thing else in out lives, anything that fossil fuel touches or assists will have extra taxes place upon it. such as food, products, and services almost of every thing but nobody is talking about that...

One would think that our federal government would have come up with program, with some direction on how or what this tax will effect, what is excluded, ....but i guess that was to much, as they are leaving everything to the provinces to figure out.  some provinces are returning these taxes back to taxpayers, which serves what purpose i don't know, while here in NB liberals here have said there will be no returning any taxes, but rather used to continue to balance the budget, spent on what ever it wants. None of it will be used to reduce costs of clean energy, or it's tech something we all wished carbon taxes would be spent on.....

What is the message here, well one the federal government really is not putting to much thought into this Carbon reduction plan.....It leaves everything up to cash starved provinces to develop, to spend on what ever they want....One would think that taxes collected under carbon reduction , would actually be used to reduce carbon foot prints, or atleast reduce costs to tax payers to install more clean energy in their homes. let keep in mind a lot of provinces did not want this tax....why was that ?

So i have a few questions,  How does this carbon tax benefit Canada as a whole ?..... does it put us in a better economical situation ?, will it give us an edge on global market ?.... 

Will it significantly reduce Canada's carbon emissions, enough to make a difference globally, because not every nation is taking part of this reduction of carbon, in fact a lot of countries are increasing coal usage, or doing nothing to reducing carbon foot prints.

Or is all this part of the liberals plan to gain a seat on the UN, by playing nice on the carbon reduction projects laid out by the UN. 

Since our economy depends on fossil fuels , has the liberal government put any thought into what is going to replace fossil fuels.

 

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by Army Guy

[TimG]

All CO2 reduction schemes are a fraud at their core because there is no real way to eliminate CO2 use while maintaining a modern economy. They are designed to allow preening progressives to pat themselves on the while allowing well connected corporations to fleece consumers with government's blessing. 

A real plan would start out with the admission that we don't have the tech to significantly reduce CO2 emissions therefore any targets are a joke. The government would invest heavily in R&D in the hopes of finding some breakthrough tech and tell the UN to go pound salt. Of course such a plan does not massage the egos of progressives so it would never be acceptable. Progressives prefer to pretend to do something (preferably by forcing someone else to pay). 

Leaving the tax to provinces is one good thing about the liberal plan because the original scheme pushed by Dion with his Green Shift would have resulted in a massive wealth transfer from provinces without hydropower to provinces with hydropower. At least this way the revenue stays in the province where it is collected (unless you have a idiot for a premier who thinks that transferring billions to wealthy california corporations selling fraudulent carbon credits is a good thing). 

Edited January 25, 2017 by TimG

[Rue]

8 minutes ago, TimG said:

All CO2 reduction schemes are a fraud at their core because there is no real way to eliminate CO2 use while maintaining a modern economy. They are designed to allow preening progressives to pat themselves on the while allowing well connected corporations to fleece consumers with government's blessing. 

A real plan would start out with the admission that we don't have the tech to significantly reduce CO2 emissions therefore any targets are a joke. The government would invest heavily in R&D in the hopes of finding some breakthrough tech and tell the UN to go pound salt. Of course such a plan does not massage the egos of progressives so it would never be acceptable. Progressives prefer to pretend to do something (preferably by forcing someone else to pay). 

Leaving the tax to provinces is one good thing about the liberal plan because the original scheme pushed by Dion with his Green Shift would have resulted in a massive wealth transfer from provinces without hydropower to provinces with hydropower. At least this way the revenue stays in the province where it is collected (unless you have a idiot for a premier who thinks that transferring billions to wealthy california corporations selling fraudulent carbon credits is a good thing). 

I have to agree with TimG and I am someone who believes we need to work on reducing carbon emissions and dependency on fossil fuel. I just do  not tink cap and trade will ever do it. Its a scam. If you read it through you will see its a scam and it allows the biggest offenders to avoid doing anything.

The worst offenders are China and India by far. To get them to stop using coal I s not going to happen with this scheme. The department in the UN implementing this is already protecting them. Its a scheme to shelter third and fourth world countries because the belief is they can't afford to change their technology. The fact though is China is not third world and neither is India in the sense of what has to be done in both nations.

We have technology but it won't work when the biggest offenders world-wide are exempt from any impetus to change.

If you wanted to genuinely eliminate or seriously curtail C02 emissions it takes place slowly through implementation of  thermal electricity through burning of garbage, use of solar energy, use of more hydro power,  and mass implementation of hydrogen cell technology which is not ready yet.

Right now the only true clean energy is nuclear and the same people concerned about C02 emissions don't want this either.

So what we need to do is work on giving tax incentive to technology working on technologies that offer alternative energy sources while deciding, in the iterim do we use nuclear or not. Do we create more hydro or not. Dow e spend more on so lar or not. Do we encourage more use of ethanol alcohol or not. Do we encourage more use of natural gas or not.

We also have zero excuses on taking garbage and instead of putting it in landfills  burning it as they do in Sweden to make thermal energy. That is possible and could work in large cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary.

I have to side with TimG on this not because I am not sympathetic to environmental concerns, I genuinely am, I just do not think trading away responsibility for C02 emissions and passing a user tax to you and me is the way to do it. Providing impetus to innovative technologists is.

The carbon tax and that is what it is will trigger businesses leaving Ontario, foreclosures on residential homes and a recession-depression not to mention devaluing the dollar.

Trump is completely doing away with any government involvement in the US from its federal government in environmental regulation fo air quality and C02 emissions and this is going to have a huge impact on the rest of the world. The US right now pays a 1/4 of the cost of the UN Comission on C02 emissions and Trump has said no more this is ending.

With due respect to Stephane Dion who was idealistic and consistent on the topic and never hid his views on it, his end result purpose was admirable but the method of achieving it was steeped in this socialist gibberish where  China, India and the third and fourth world are exempted from any environmental management and the EU, Canada and the US pay for it and make themselves uncompetitive to Chinese, Mexican and Indian industry.

Its not the way to do it. Until China, India, Nigeria, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, Japan, the EU are absolutely committed to C02 strategy which does not allow them to buy and bribe their way out of doing it, we aint going anywhere on the issue.

[cannuck]

To screw around with idiotic crap when we are in deep financial doo-doo with debt is typical of what we should expect from people who clearly have no grasp on reality at all.  This is nothing but liberal/Liberal shifting of chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

[?Impact]

39 minutes ago, TimG said:

All CO2 reduction schemes are a fraud at their core because there is no real way to eliminate CO2 use while maintaining a modern economy.

Reduction and elimination are not the same thing. There is plenty that can be done to reduce.

Carbon taxes do not make Canada a single cent less competitive, that is a complete fabrication. Increased overall taxation may, but moving the tax burden onto those that create the most GHG has nothing to do with overall taxation. Keep crying wolf, but nobody is listening. 

[TimG]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Reduction and elimination are not the same thing. There is plenty that can be done to reduce.

Carbon taxes do not make Canada a single cent less competitive, that is a complete fabrication. Increased overall taxation may, but moving the tax burden onto those that create the most GHG has nothing to do with overall taxation. Keep crying wolf, but nobody is listening. 

There are two things we could do to reduce CO2:

1) Build more nuclear power (next gen uranium and/or thorium);
2) Limit immigration to levels that keep Canada's population stable;

Those two options are off the table because the same people who lecture us about CO2 emissions think that the stuff that they care about is too important to sacrifice in the name of reducing emissions. So the question becomes: why should anyone else want to sacrifice anything when the people lecturing us have no interest in doing so?

Edited January 25, 2017 by TimG

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, TimG said:

1) Build more nuclear power (next gen uranium and/or thorium);
2) Limit immigration to levels that keep Canada's population stable;

Absolutely we should be trying to solve the problems around nuclear power, but the climate change deniers are the same people that don't want to look at it. The climate change deniers are also the people that support immigration to "grow our economy". You are blaming the wrong folks.

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Reduction and elimination are not the same thing. There is plenty that can be done to reduce.

All of ti completely ineffective. We're building up our supply of coal plants all over the planet. Your reliance on reassuring words from the likes of China and India is patently naive. The third world is not going to pay extra for more expensive power, and immediate money is more important to them than future warming.

 

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Carbon taxes do not make Canada a single cent less competitive, that is a complete fabrication.

No, that's basic arithmetic. When you're in a free trading arrangement with two other countries, and neither of their industries are hampered by carbon taxes it definitely hampers your own competitiveness. Add in higher wages,  higher taxes while theirs are going lower, and higher regulation while theirs are being cut, and you get a recipe for having companies shift production south of the border.

 

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

No, that's basic arithmetic. When you're in a free trading arrangement with two other countries, and neither of their industries are hampered by carbon taxes it definitely hampers your own competitiveness.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Total taxation contributes to competitiveness. The percentage of that taxation that is collected through carbon taxation is completely, 100% irrelevant.

[TimG]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Absolutely we should be trying to solve the problems around nuclear power, but the climate change deniers are the same people that don't want to look at it. The climate change deniers are also the people that support immigration to "grow our economy". You are blaming the wrong folks.

Nope. Most skeptics are fine with nuclear. It is Elizabeth Mays of the world that oppose it. Same with immigration - it is the progressives obsessed with diversity that call people racists if they even suggest reducing immigration. If we could get rid of the people screaming racism we could likely come up with a much saner immigrant policy.

Edited January 25, 2017 by TimG

[?Impact]

Just now, TimG said:

Nope. Most skeptics are fine with nuclear.

Most self-identified skeptics are nothing of the sort - they are climate change deniers. 

There are issues with nuclear, like long term management of the waste products. The self identified skeptics are completely clueless about that, because they are also deniers there as well. They don't want to deal with reality, they just want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend everything is rosy. They are clueless about the issues around nuclear safety as well, spouting tired old lines about it is only those dang Soviet systems that fail, and then well that is old technology in Japan. They don't have a clue about the real issues, they just want to pretend them away.

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Absolutely we should be trying to solve the problems around nuclear power, but the climate change deniers are the same people that don't want to look at it. The climate change deniers are also the people that support immigration to "grow our economy". You are blaming the wrong folks.

I wonder if there is a correlation between deniers and people who hold shares in Exxon Mobil?

[Smallc]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

All of ti completely ineffective. We're building up our supply of coal plants all over the planet.

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/11/11/chinas-coal-bubble-155-new-overcapacity/

No one is going to be using the plants - it's a make work project.  China is shifting more and more of its capacity to renewable sources.

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/11/10/renewables-to-become-worlds-largest-source-of-power-within-20-years-report/

Edited January 25, 2017 by Smallc

[TimG]

39 minutes ago, Smallc said:

No one is going to be using the plants - it's a make work project.  China is shifting more and more of its capacity to renewable sources.

China has built entire cities that sit empty. It has been dumping steel and solar panels on the world market because of that same kind of overcapacity. It should come as no surprise that their inefficient system produced more coal plants that they needed. China is big so even a tiny percentage of renewables will add up to big numbers but you should not fool yourself: renewables are bit players in China and will continue to be so.

Edited January 25, 2017 by TimG

[TimG]

47 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Most self-identified skeptics are nothing of the sort - they are climate change deniers. 

You need to actually try listening to what people say instead of inventing BS that supports what you want to believe.

The opposition to nuclear comes from one and only one source: Greens and their fellow travelers in the NDP and LIberals.

Edited January 25, 2017 by TimG

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, TimG said:

You need to actually try listening to what people say instead of inventing BS that supports what you want to believe.

Good advice Tim. Time to listen to what the opposition is, and actually address it instead of sticking you head in the sand.

[TimG]

16 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Good advice Tim. Time to listen to what the opposition is, and actually address it instead of sticking you head in the sand.

I do: https://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/vision-green/economy/energy

Greens not only oppose nuclear they want to shutdown existing plants which will make meeting any CO2 targets even less plausible.

So please explain why I should care about CO2 when the most strident activists don't think it is important enough to revisit their knee jerk hatred of nuclear?

Edited January 25, 2017 by TimG

[Omni]

10 minutes ago, TimG said:

I do: https://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/vision-green/economy/energy

Greens not only oppose nuclear they want to shutdown existing plants which will make meeting any CO2 targets less plausible.

So please explain why I should care about CO2 when the most strident activists don't think it is import enough to revisit their knee jerk hatred of nuclear?

You may be a little behind the times there.

https://cna.ca/news/scientists-and-environmentalists-come-out-in-favour-of-nuclear-power/

[?Impact]

7 minutes ago, TimG said:

Greens not only oppose nuclear they want to shutdown existing plants which will make meeting any CO2 targets less plausible.

I don't necessarily agree with GPC policy here, but your interpretation is wrong. A phase out is not the same thing as a shutdown, it is replacing plants that end of life with alternatives. They also make some good suggestions as to were we should be investing. They identify the issues about nuclear, but instead of addressing the issues you stick your head in the sand and say nothing can be done. How about addressing the issues. I took this up directly with the Ontario PC government when they were in power, and brought to their attention the real issues that need to be dealt with. Instead of addressing the issues they embarked on their pass the buck privatization campaign. 

[TimG]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

You may be a little behind the times there.

https://cna.ca/news/scientists-and-environmentalists-come-out-in-favour-of-nuclear-power/

And  Stephen Tindale  has been ostracized by his fellow greens for his heresy. Here is what happens to people who failed to keep the faith.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pro-nuclear-green-candidate-faces-axe-1630314.html

Quote

A Green Party parliamentary candidate is facing disciplinary action after calling for the reintroduction of nuclear power, which is strictly against party policy

.Gawd, I can't believe how uninformed you people are. How can you NOT know that the primary opposition to nuclear has always been the left. Exceptions are few and far between and are invariably disowned by their former colleagues.

 

[TimG]

9 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

A phase out is not the same thing as a shutdown, it is replacing plants that end of life with alternatives.

ROTFL.

If CO2 is a concern there can only be an expansion of nuclear because it is the only zero-CO2 baseload source other than hydro. Any call for a "phase out" is pure hypocrisy from people who claim to care about CO2. 

As I said: why should I care about CO2 when the most strident activists don't care enough about it to rethink their opposition to nuclear power?

Edited January 25, 2017 by TimG

[Ash74]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I took this up directly with the Ontario PC government when they were in power, and brought to their attention the real issues that need to be dealt with. Instead of addressing the issues they embarked on their pass the buck privatization campaign. 

So basically the entire global warming plague is the fault of Mike Harris. Niiiiiiiiice. Keep the blame going strong. 

I thought the best thing Brad Wall could do is let the Federal government bring in their carbon tax and than plaster all that tax money back the the public with Saskatchewan government check. Trudeau gets the blame and Brad Wall looks like a hero. Since the politicians are playing politics with carbons taxes why not give the public back the money that is being fleeced from them. 

[?Impact]

Just now, TimG said:

ROTFL. If CO2 is a concern there can only be an expansion of nuclear any call for a "phase out" is pure hypocrisy from people who claim to care about CO2. 

Let's see: hydro, tidal, solar, wind, etc. Lots of lower C02 alternatives. The fallacy that nuclear is C02 free is just that. Yes, there is little C02 involved in generation, but in the complete life cycle of the plant, fuel, and disposal there is considerable C02.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, ?Impact said:

Let's see: hydro, tidal, solar, wind, etc. Lots of lower C02 alternatives. The fallacy that nuclear is C02 free is just that. Yes, there is little C02 involved in generation, but in the complete life cycle of the plant, fuel, and disposal there is considerable C02.

 

Hydro, tidal, and wind are environmentally destructive.

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, Ash74 said:

So basically the entire global warming plague is the fault of Mike Harris. Niiiiiiiiice. Keep the blame going strong. 

Why can't you rely on something people say, and not have to say something completely different in order to make a counter point? Is that because you have nothing?