Canada's carbon tax

[Omni]

7 minutes ago, TimG said:

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

.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.

 

You keep quoting the same source. Times are a changin'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalists_for_Nuclear

[TimG]

4 minutes ago, ?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.

Nuclear provides base load.
Hydro is the only source in your list that can actually replace nuclear and there is simply not enough of it around to supply our needs. 

So if someone cares about CO2 they should get over their opposition to nuclear.

If they insist on living in a renewable fantasy world then why should I care about CO2?

Edited January 25, 2017 by TimG

[?Impact]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

Hydro, tidal, and wind are environmentally destructive.

Agreed. Everything is relative. Give some true empirical numbers to support your point.

[TimG]

Just now, Omni said:

You keep quoting the same source. Times are a changin'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalists_for_Nuclear

Means nothing as long as their political proxies continue to oppose it.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, TimG said:

So if someone cares about CO2 they should get over their opposition to nuclear.

Who has an opposition to nuclear? I have expressed here, and much more completely in other places a detailed description of the issues that nuclear has to deal with. If you want to support nuclear, then get you head out of the sand and address those issues. 

[Ash74]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

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?

You are the one that brought up the PC government private campaign. Not I. 

I happen to agree with a revenue neutral carbon tax but that is not happening.  

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Ash74 said:

You are the one that brought up the PC government private campaign. Not I. 

I happen to agree with a revenue neutral carbon tax but that is not happening.  

It is in BC.

[TimG]

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Who has an opposition to nuclear? I have expressed here, and much more completely in other places a detailed description of the issues that nuclear has to deal with. If you want to support nuclear, then get you head out of the sand and address those issues. 

I gave you a link but instead of reading the words in the policy you try to invent some fiction about a "phase out" not being an "opposition".

Support for nuclear power means expansion. Building new plants. Upgrading old ones. et. al.
Calling for a "phase out" is opposition.

When Greens and other lefties start calling for an expansion of nuclear power I will take their claims about CO2 seriously.

Until then they are just a bunch of limousine liberals that are using CO2 as means to achieve political ends that have nothing to do with GHGs.

Edited January 25, 2017 by TimG

[herples]

6 minutes ago, Ash74 said:

You are the one that brought up the PC government private campaign. Not I. 

I happen to agree with a revenue neutral carbon tax but that is not happening.  

I believe provinces are given leeway to how that tax is implemented.

[?Impact]

4 minutes ago, TimG said:

I gave you a link but instead of reading the words in the policy you try to invent some fiction about a "phase out" not being an "opposition".

It would help if you read what I said: A phase out is not the same thing as a shutdown.

 

 

[TimG]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

It would help if you read what I said: A phase out is not the same thing as a shutdown.

So? It is still opposition to nuclear which is what I was talking about. I frankly don't care about the minor distinction between phase out and shutdown because it is the opposition, in whatever form it appears, is the problem. 

[Omni]

21 minutes ago, Omni said:

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.

 

Here's somebody that opposes nuclear and I don't think he's from the left.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalists_for_Nuclear

[?Impact]

25 minutes ago, TimG said:

So? It is still opposition to nuclear which is what I was talking about. I frankly don't care about the minor distinction between phase out and shutdown because it is the opposition, in whatever form it appears, is the problem. 

Opposition can be constructive or destructive, you decide. Pretending there are not issues with nuclear power is not an answer. Address the issues.

[PIK]

11 hours ago, ?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.

So why is ONT shutting down our dams ?? So we can buy more expensive power from thier failed experiments.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, PIK said:

So why is ONT shutting down our dams ?? So we can buy more expensive power from thier failed experiments.

What specific dams are you talking about? Some are shutdown because the infrastructure is old and no longer stable, other are shut down for economic reasons. Not a single dam is shut down so we can buy more expensive power.

[Argus]

14 hours ago, ?Impact said:

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

I agree it's total taxation on a business, yes. But given taxation on business is already lower in Mexico and is about to go lower in the US, the rise in taxes on Canadian business which the carbon tax schemes represent will damage their competitiveness.

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Smallc said:

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.

That's nonsense. No one builds power plants as a make work project. The only reason they're not currently needed is because of China's slowed economy, but as their economy picks up the plants will be used, as will most of the other things they've built in the interim.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Argus

[Smallc]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

That's nonsense. No one builds power plants as a make work project. 

China builds entire cities as make work projects.  

8 minutes ago, Argus said:

The only reason they're not currently needed is because of China's slowed economy, but as their economy picks up the plants will be used, as will most of the other things they've built in the interim.

That's if, not when.  They've also shifted much of their production to renewables.  We're actually in danger of being left behind.

[Army Guy]

15 hours ago, ?Impact said:

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

I'm sorry i can't understand how taxation contributes to competitiveness, can you walk me through it....How does a tax which will effect most items we purchase, or use as a service going to add to our competitiveness, when our trading partners do not have the same level of tax....Keep in mind that each province will have a different plan, different levels of tax, and different ideas on how to use it once collected.

[Army Guy]

14 hours ago, ?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.

Everything has a carbon foot print when you include everything involved in its life cycle. With everything being said, nuclear power plants carbon foot print does not even come close to a coal or oil powered plant. 

How many province are going to use their carbon taxes to fund R&D in these areas or even subsidized these types of construction projects...

[DogOnPorch]

Shanghai's metro population is about that of all of Canada. Air so think you can eat it.

Tax them.

[Army Guy]

39 minutes ago, Smallc said:

China builds entire cities as make work projects.  

That's if, not when.  They've also shifted much of their production to renewables.  We're actually in danger of being left behind.

China may be getting involved in these types of projects, but have you seen the quality of there air, you can cut it with a knife, and eat it.....

This is one of the problems with the liberals new carbon tax, it does not address any of the problems such as R&D, or production of renewables, in fact previous government have brushed most of these ideas onto the side lines....Using this carbon tax to address some of this issues would be a push in the right direction, Not to mention our economy is heavily influenced by fossil fuels....What is going to drive our economy when fossil fuels prices drop due to very little usage.

[Smallc]

8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

China may be getting involved in these types of projects, but have you seen the quality of there air, you can cut it with a knife, and eat it.....

That's why they have to do something.

8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

This is one of the problems with the liberals new carbon tax, it does not address any of the problems such as R&D, or production of renewables, in fact previous government have brushed most of these ideas onto the side lines....Using this carbon tax to address some of this issues would be a push in the right direction, Not to mention our economy is heavily influenced by fossil fuels....What is going to drive our economy when fossil fuels prices drop due to very little usage.

I would hope they can walk and chew gum.

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma

[Army Guy]

Quote

Yes it is a tax, but it is not the total tax burden. Only the total tax burden has anything to do with all the hellfire and brimstone you preach, how much of it is allocated to any specific tax is completely, 100% irrelevant. If taxes are focused on the right areas then those who are less wasteful of our planets resources and future will benefit (bigly

Not sure what you mean by a total tax burden, is GST a total tax burden ? and if it is explain why this carbon tax is not going to be a total tax burden ?