Canada's carbon tax

[TimG]

25 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

For all those opposed to the capitalist free-market plan to reduce carbon emissions, what's a better solution for the problem of human-caused global warming?

What is better way to ensure that people live until 200?
Just because a problem exists it does not automatically follow that it can be "solved" or that it should be "solved".

A straight carbon tax based on reasonable SCC estimates (~30-50 USD per tonne) plus R&D might produce a resolution or it might not. 

Plans with fanciful targets that will never be met are a waste of resources. Get rid of the fanciful reduction targets and we can talk about a carbon tax. 

Not before.

 

 

[Army Guy]

4 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

For all those opposed to the capitalist free-market plan to reduce carbon emissions, what's a better solution for the problem of human-caused global warming?

WOW...is that what your calling it.....the rest of us are calling it a scam...that does very little to find a solution to carbon emissions other than tax the shit out of it to lower the numbers, and get this the federal government has said every province , every person will be subjected to this taxes, make them as high or as low as you want, you get to do with the profits as you see fit....it's free money....Some provinces have decided to give some of it back to its citizens....to make them feel good....This tax is going to hit a lot more than just at the pumps.....almost everything will be effected, higher food costs, higher fuel costs, higher services costs anything that uses fuel in it's delivery, function, or service will have this tax dumped on top of it.....and if your lucky to get some of this back in a form of rebate....your lucky but you did not break even, for others such as NB, who has not finalized they're plan yet, but the premier has said they will not be returning anything back to the tax payers, it will be dumped back into the provincial coffers.....lucky us...if you live out in the rural areas, you don't have access to alt means of transportation, or walking, or riding a bike.....well you get the other ass cheek slap as well.....you dirty fossil fuel user.....

Here's a thought, how about the federal government pumping out bils into greener projects within the provinces, such as nuk plants, wind farms, or tidal power......i mean he is going to spend bils upon bils any ways might as well get some jobs and lower our emissions in the process...NB is looking at closing it's largest dam because it is old and the province can not afford to replace it, it will leave a deficit in NB power output, forcing them to purchase power some place else, just an idea.........or shit here is thought remove all the policies and red tape put into place about citizens generating their own power, some provinces will now pay for excess power, most provinces do not , or lowering the costs through rebates for solar, thermal, wind power sell that excess power the province collects to the US, at a higher rate....everyone wins.........put bils into R&D to develop Canadian solutions to clean energy......

tighten up existing laws for large carbon emitters , polluters, major corps that would rather pay fines everyday than find better solutions to the problems....Jack those fines up so they have to look at other solutions much like the liberals are doing to tax payers.....But the liberal plan is to push all of this upon the consumer.....let them pay for it, and let off big business with a smile and pat on the ass....

[Army Guy]

42 minutes ago, Smallc said:

That's why they have to do something.

I would hope they can walk and chew gum.

thats it, you hope they can walk and chew gum.....i get it the Cons did very little towards this problem.....but don't half ass it like this....provide some leadership, some direction, hoping they can walk and chew gum is pushing it for most politicians..... 

[Smallc]

They're spending money on green infrastructure and technology.  I don't understand your complaints.

[Army Guy]

9 minutes ago, Smallc said:

They're spending money on green infrastructure and technology.  I don't understand your complaints.

Well then problem is solved right, the liberals are spending on this areas,we can all relax right..... so why are they forcing the provinces to bring in this new tax ? Not all the provinces want this tax..... the only thing the liberals have come out and said was the objective is to lower the sale and usage of fossil fuels, which will decrease our carbon foot print.....in a country that its very economy relies so much on fossil fuel usage and sales.....

Do you know what is happening in NB, right now, people are going back to wood stoves, the sale of wood stoves is going through the roof, wood produces more carbon that oil or natural gas, the solution is not working, not everyone can afford it , it is not a one solution fits everyone........it may have worked in BC, but not in NB because most of it is rural and has no choice but to use fossil fuels. And our Liberal governmant everyone voted for is already said there would be no rebates, all taxes collected would be added back into the coffers.....

[PIK]

37 minutes ago, Smallc said:

They're spending money on green infrastructure and technology.  I don't understand your complaints.

Thats the problem.

[Smallc]

3 minutes ago, PIK said:

Thats the problem.

Why shouldn't we be investing in green technology and infrastructure? 

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma

[Army Guy]

1 minute ago, Smallc said:

Why shouldn't we be investing in green technology and infrastructure? 

Then why do we need a carbon tax....if we are meeting our goals....Or is it that we are behind the eight ball and need to catch up, but that has not been stated by the federal liberals. Instead they create a tax and state everyone will pay it....then pssst to the premieres you can use this tax any way you want, on anything you want....... they will pay if you make it.....they will learn to pay more once they get use to it.....it is free money ...good luck, stop bothering me for more funding. 

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma

[Army Guy]

1 minute ago, cybercoma said:

You want companies to pay higher fines for exceeding certain carbon limits and for contributing to pollution, right? Is that correct? Wouldn't taxing them be effectively the same thing? It's a fine with a sliding scale. The more they pollute, the greater the "tax." You're just using different words for the same thing.

It is not the same, a tax is quickly passed on to the consumer, with out effecting the total profit. It has always been that way....Much in the same way a constant fine works,or as you said it becomes as effective as a tax.... for alot of companies it is cheaper to pay the fine than it is to reduce carbon emissions....Change those laws and policies each fine increases until it convinces the company to comply. or shut them down...those are no pass onto the consumer, but rather cut into profit.

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma

[Argus]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

What is better way to ensure that people live until 200?
Just because a problem exists it does not automatically follow that it can be "solved" or that it should be "solved".

A straight carbon tax based on reasonable SCC estimates (~30-50 USD per tonne) plus R&D might produce a resolution or it might not.

To start with, any carbon tax has to be revenue neutral for the business involved so it doesn't impact their competitiveness with the Americans. Second, we really should acknowledge that nothing we do is going to have any noticeable impact on global warming, and that the only people who are actually doing much to cut their CO2 emissions at the Europeans and a couple of others. That's maybe two dozen out of 170 countries.  Sure countries like India, China, and even the Americans are introducing renewable energy, but very slowly, and it will be decades before it assumes any kind of significant part of their power generation. So there is simply no way of cutting CO2 emissions. It's not happening. Not unless people like Elon Musk can come up with improvements in technology which makes renewables more economical than carbon producing energy. That will probably happen eventually, but in the interim, all this carbon tax nonsense is fools gold.

[Army Guy]

7 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Because it's a free market solution to incentive carbon reductions.

So all those solutions i posted are what garbage, not free market....that increased taxation is the only solution then i say BS.....we just jumped into this pool with both feet without checking all the facts....like how is this going to effect Canada in the long run, we are now learning trump is signing dozens of new executive orders including one that will protect the coal industry.....how does that effect their carbon reduction program, how does it effect ours, we should have waited , hind site being twenty/ twenty.....you can't sit here and tell me our goods and services will be meet on an equal footing if we are paying more in carbon tax than our neighbors.....you also can't tell me this is the only solution, nor can you tell me this is the best for our nation, when it has to be forced upon some provinces, with one purpose tax the shit out of fossil fuels.....which will force someone to find an alternative source of energy.....perhaps someone will perfect cold fusion and give it to the people for free.....would that be a kick in the economy nuts 

[Argus]

24 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Why shouldn't we be investing in green technology and infrastructure? 

We should be. But when has government ever invested wisely in science and technology? The Europeans have been putting hundreds of billions into Co2 reductions for the past twenty years, and Elon Musk, all by himself, is probably going to have more impact than all of them put together.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Smallc said:

They're spending money on green infrastructure and technology.  I don't understand your complaints.

Who is spending money on green infrastructure and technology? Kathleen Wynne!?

I wouldn't trust Kathleen Wynne to research and develop the necessary technology to support a lemonade stand. She'd spend a billion dollars on it ($900M of which would go to friends of the Liberal party) and end up with a bad tasting cup of lemonade that cost $100.

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by Argus

[TimG]

26 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

So your solution is "do nothing," am I understanding you correctly?

We will need to adapt but that is something we have to do even if we wasted money trying to meet fanciful CO2 reduction targets. 

I don't see the point of spending money to do nothing other than massage the egos of people who think being seen to "do something" is more important than actually doing anything useful.

Edited January 25, 2017 by TimG

[Army Guy]

8 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

This is not true. This is something you learn in high school economics before you get to university and learn about elasticity amongst other things. A tax is not automatically passed onto consumers. And in any case, if the demand is so inflexible that they can pass it directly on to consumers, then a fine is going to result in the exact same hike to cover the fines.

when in the history of fossil fuels has a tax not been passed on to consumers, or do you think it is good business to let this tax eat into company profits....what is the goal of every company again.....i think this was covered in high school economics.....to make money....not to swallow taxes or other outside influences....so it may not automatically be passed on but it will be made up some how, normally it is passed on to the consumer....

If the state of the fines remains constant, but what if i double it the next time, or triple it.....those hikes can not be covered with price hikes and pass on to the consumer.....the goals of the fines is to force the company to comply....not to add the cost of the fines into the way they do business. As it is cheaper to pay the fines than to comply.....

[Army Guy]

8 minutes ago, TimG said:

We will need to adapt but that is something we have to do even if we wasted money trying to meet fanciful CO2 reduction targets. 

I don't see the point of spending money to do nothing other than massage the egos of people who think being seen to "do something" is more important than actually doing anything useful.

Like wanting a tempory seat at the table in the UN

[Smallc]

40 minutes ago, Argus said:

Who is spending money on green infrastructure and technology? Kathleen Wynne!?

I wouldn't trust Kathleen Wynne to research and develop the necessary technology to support a lemonade stand. She'd spend a billion dollars on it ($900M of which would go to friends of the Liberal party) and end up with a bad tasting cup of lemonade that cost $100.

 

Justin Trudeau 

[Rue]

31 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Because it's a free market solution to incentive carbon reductions.

No of course its not. Its an artificially defined anything but free market all predicated by governments. The actual tax like the ability to trade it and cap it is artificially defined by bureaucrats not the market place. Free market  mechanisms are based on supply and demand. The scheme this government is imposing is determined based on government imposed measures to deal with carbon emissions. Its a tax.

If it was in fact free market based it would necessarily have to be defined by defining what are property rights on the world’s atmosphere to then determine the value to then allow supply and demand to then re- determine that value. It is a tax.

Its just a tax on us. China, India and certain countries can avoid it through exemptions that are not based on free market value but an exemption of tax transfer mechanism which only favours China, India and other violators. Its the only supposed tax scheme in the world where people can violate and become exempt through the tax by engaging in an artificial liability transfer that in fact allows the pollution to continue unabated.

Uh hellom Canadian carbon emissions in the workd are about 1.6% of it.

The actual tax is $20 to $30 a ton. That's nice but $30 a ton? How the phack is that an incentive to stop anything/ Its a joke. Its that low by the way because the geniuses who thought up this tax did a study and anything higher would absolutely cause direct negative consequences to Canada. This $30 cash grab is the threshold guessed at before hard damage is caused and its wrong as already evidenced with its impact in Ontario.

Cap and trade is predicated on the premises that instead of setting a price on each unit of pollution, the government  unilaterally defines a total quantity of pollution (cap) to be allowed. This is an arbitrary and artificial definition by its very definition as no amount of pollution is acceptable. Countries and/pr companies in this scheme by and sell emission allowances via trade certificates just like stock. Only where it is less costly for a company to reduce emissions than buy allowances, is their incentive for the company or country to reduce emissions. Therefore given this the companies most likely to cause pollution (large ones) and India, China, the third and fourth world, Brazil, South Korea, Japan all will find it cheaper to buy allowances then actually change their pollution practices rendering the entire scheme a scam. This idea that there will be a scarcity of allowances and so those allowances will become valuable and lead to a price on them so high as to make it more financially feasible to reduce emissions is based on fantasy.

What is going to actually happen is the big offenders will use their monopolies to pressure the smaller offenders into giving over the allowances.

With all the  quadra-billions of dollars China is owed, its going to use the same predatory practices it has to control world economies and trade markets to monopolize allowance ownership.

If this was a real market based system a tax with a set price on each unit of pollution would have to be set. Then the entity or country producing the pollution couldn't buy its way out or transfer its way out, it would have to incur an additional co st based on the actual amount of pollution emitted. In this manner supposed incentive to avoid this tax could come about to change pollution behaviour by giving it tax deductions for lowering pollution and/or investing on new technologies to reduce pollution which will also serve to assist other companies do the same.

There is no straight direct tax on pollution. The only way they got the one they have now is to penalize Canada, the US and certain other nations and let the two biggest stinkers, India and China and South Korea, Japan and probably Germany able to bribe their way out.

Its time to stop phacking around with idiots who have no clue how the economy works brought up on idiot leftist socialist concepts that have nothing to do with the free market and pretending that they do.

If we were serious about regulating pollution we would:

1- create and impose what is called RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARDS for the electric power sector-and electric utilities in designated geographic zones would be required to obtain a pre-defined percentage of electricity from clean and rebewable energy sources, i.e., hydro, thermal from garbage, solar and only penalize them when they exceed that percentage with an extra tax and gradually increase that percentage. In this manner there's no incentive to pass on the penalty to the customer as is happening now with the idiot Wynne's scheme;

2-create and impose what is called Corporate Average FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS to do the same as the above only with car,auto, truck, aviation diesel fuels;

3-consumer rebates for people like you and me on our taxes for buying energy efficiency technology for use in our homes, cars/trucks and busineses;

4-lower taxes for businesses investigating in and working on clean air, energy efficient technologies and tax deductions for you and me investiong in such companies.

The above 4 methods are not complicated. I just believe they should not contain a scheme in them allowing people to abuse the incentives by selling them to others. It defeats the very purpose of the incentives and simply creates loopholes to allow some to continue polluting.

Regards, Rue, Man full of Natural Gas

 

 

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma