Jump to content

Advice to Poilievre: Canada is a good country, Appeal to higher angels


Recommended Posts

On 1/22/2023 at 9:24 PM, TreeBeard said:

I think anyone whose doesn’t want to do anything about climate change is in league with Satan.  He wants to see people suffer from famine, and rising sea levels.  Those extreme fires in California?  Satan loves it. 
 

Me?  I’m on the side of the angels.  

Explain how carbon taxes will end forest fires in California.  Please entertain us.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That's what you took of that post?  ?

I’m saying that it’s ridiculous to think that raising the cost of necessities does much else but make life more expensive.  Canada’s carbon taxes won’t reverse climate change.  I don’t think worldwide carbon taxes would do it either.  They would add to poverty, hunger, and reduced health and education outcomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that simple.  You can do things that make huge differences for relatively minor costs, while influencing and improving behavior and minimizing waste.  

Canada's overall impact is not large, but our per-capita impact is among the worst in the world along with petro states like Qatar or Saudi Arabia.

Poorer nations than Canada are transitioning faster than we are, so the argument that there's no point in us doing anything is silly.  While more pro-active countries than us expand their economies and substantially reduce CO2 levels at the same time, we're left on the wrong side of progress.

I don't agree with a lot of climate policies around the world, and ranted for years against the Liberals' disastrous green energy grift in Ontario, but that doesn't mean that everything they did was bad.  Phasing out coal is the sort of low hanging fruit that everyone in Canada should be able to achieve, especially when we're one of the world's biggest exporters of cleaner-burning natural gas.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It's not that simple.  You can do things that make huge differences for relatively minor costs, while influencing and improving behavior and minimizing waste.  

Canada's overall impact is not large, but our per-capita impact is among the worst in the world along with petro states like Qatar or Saudi Arabia.

Poorer nations than Canada are transitioning faster than we are, so the argument that there's no point in us doing anything is silly.  While more pro-active countries than us expand their economies and substantially reduce CO2 levels at the same time, we're left on the wrong side of progress.

I don't agree with a lot of climate policies around the world, and ranted for years against the Liberals' disastrous green energy grift in Ontario, but that doesn't mean that everything they did was bad.  Phasing out coal is the sort of low hanging fruit that everyone in Canada should be able to achieve, especially when we're one of the world's biggest exporters of cleaner-burning natural gas.  

I never said not to do anything.  I already mentioned many high-impact low cost solutions. Raising the cost of living is making life harder and our emissions keep rising.  Any climate action policies we take are also totally trounced by our high immigration policies.

I fought to end coal generation in Ontario.  I have the letters and newspaper articles to prove it.  Our green subsidies of solar and wind haven’t worked, and I have a solar system. Anyway solutions are plentiful in old posts.

Carbon taxes are existence taxes.  Making people poorer makes it much harder to develop the tech and will to fight climate change.  Less educated people also tend to have larger families.  Poverty sustains higher emissions.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Carbon taxes are existence taxes.  Making people poorer makes it much harder to develop the tech and will to fight climate change.  Less educated people also tend to have larger families.  Poverty sustains higher emissions.  

One of the things about carbon taxes is that they are experienced more by wealthier people with higher carbon footprints.  They may hurt poor people more on a relative basis, but that's a problem of poor tax policy design rather than the basic idea being bad. 

If you're worried about poor people, then we should also be talking about how the Conservatives elected to cut HST during the Harper years instead of income taxes, which Paul Martin campaigned on. 

That's why this argument is one I don't really buy.  Why do people worry about the poor when it comes to climate change, but generally flip the bird at them on other issues?  I don't think it's sincere.  That's not to say you're bullshitting here, but that this idiom about carbon taxes hurting the poor the most is smoke and mirrors.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Neutral(ish).  The reality is that most consumption taxes are unfriendly to the poor, but I doubt that this one is actually hurting them very much with all of the tax credits and rebates they get overall. 

The same groups that complain about the Carbon Tax hurting the poor want to abolish income taxes for consumption taxes.

(HCT:In reality they get these ideas from fringe videos paid for by people who benefit from no carbon taxes and no income taxes either, ie. energy company owners.  They're always the ones suspiciously absent from the "scary billionaires" videos, the ones that say Gate is going to vaccine a silicon chip into you.  My suspicion anyway...)

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

One of the things about carbon taxes is that they are experienced more by wealthier people with higher carbon footprints.  They may hurt poor people more on a relative basis, but that's a problem of poor tax policy design rather than the basic idea being bad. 

If you're worried about poor people, then we should also be talking about how the Conservatives elected to cut HST during the Harper years instead of income taxes, which Paul Martin campaigned on. 

That's why this argument is one I don't really buy.  Why do people worry about the poor when it comes to climate change, but generally flip the bird at them on other issues?  I don't think it's sincere.  That's not to say you're bullshitting here, but that this idiom about carbon taxes hurting the poor the most is smoke and mirrors.  

You don’t seem to see the flow through supply chain impacts of carbon taxes on all goods.  It’s not as simple as redistributing back in the form of a deduction (and the poorest don’t file), it’s the fact that all these added point of purchas fuel charges feed into the delivery and production costs of all goods.  Inflation made carbon pricing redundant and more brutal.  It’s an extremely damaging policy because it raises the cost of living and stalls human development.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You don’t seem to see the flow through supply chain impacts of carbon taxes on all goods.  It’s not as simple as redistributing back in the form of a deduction (and the poorest don’t file), it’s the fact that all these added point of purchas fuel charges feed into the delivery and production costs of all goods.  Inflation made carbon pricing redundant and more brutal.  It’s an extremely damaging policy because it raises the cost of living and stalls human development.  

The effects on the supply chain aren't multiplicative, and they are not 1:1 costs.  Fuel costs are only one among COG factors.  If you're seeing a carbon tax on fuel (pretend 5%), that's not being amplified up the supply chain.  When you buy something, that 5% is watered down with a multitude of other unrelated costs to get you to the bottom line, so the price impact ends up being maybe 1-2% instead.  That's why the 35-40% fuel price spike we experienced this last year didn't drive inflation up nearly that high.  

In the case of the carbon tax, if rebates etc are handled properly, this would have little/no impact on the poor.  I don't usually like consumption taxes in general, but like alcohol or gambling this is more of a usage/vice tax, where the people "abusing" it are the ones who end up paying the lion's share (and not the poor, who often can't even afford to drive). 

Outside of heavily carbon-intense businesses, the economic impacts are grossly exaggerated.  Where it may hurt the most is in Alberta, but considering Alberta still generates something like 50% of its electricity through coal, when they're producing and exporting a much cleaner (and cost-efficient) alternative, I have a lot less sympathy than I would otherwise.  

Edited by Moonbox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The effects on the supply chain aren't multiplicative, and they are not 1:1 costs.  Fuel costs are only one among COG factors.  If you're seeing a carbon tax on fuel (pretend 5%), that's not being amplified up the supply chain.  When you buy something, that 5% is watered down with a multitude of other unrelated costs to get you to the bottom line, so the price impact ends up being maybe 1-2% instead.  That's why the 35-40% fuel price spike we experienced this last year didn't drive inflation up nearly that high.  

In the case of the carbon tax, if rebates etc are handled properly, this would have little/no impact on the poor.  I don't usually like consumption taxes in general, but like alcohol or gambling this is more of a usage/vice tax, where the people "abusing" it are the ones who end up paying the lion's share (and not the poor, who often can't even afford to drive). 

Outside of heavily carbon-intense businesses, the economic impacts are grossly exaggerated.  Where it may hurt the most is in Alberta, but considering Alberta still generates something like 50% of its electricity through coal, when they're producing and exporting a much cleaner (and cost-efficient) alternative, I have a lot less sympathy than I would otherwise.  

Totally  wrong.  Each segment of the chain gets dinged and all of those input costs land on the final retail price.  What, you think companies, drivers, etc. don’t pass these along to the consumers?

You really don’t seem to have a grasp of how little choice most people have but to commute long distances because of housing costs, family connections, etc. Carbon taxes factor into the costs of goods before they’re even put on a diesel truck or train.

You’re one step away from saying people can go without heat to cut costs and save the planet.  Humans are carbon-based.  We rely on a variety of fuels for much of what we need.  What’s more, our electricity sources for the EVs still rely heavily on natural gas and other fuels.  Solar and wind are minor players even when heavily subsidized because they can’t handle much load consistently.

I really see how uninformed the public is on the realities of what we need to survive and thrive.  Raising the costs of essentials only raises the costs of essentials.  No climate goals are achieved.  I’m fact, the poorer population will ignore these issues just like the developing world.  In fact carbon taxes are shifting production to dirtier jurisdictions globally.  EVs and battery production mining for rare earth metals is causing other environmental devastation.

Stop believing in pretend action that’s actually highly damaging to real working people.  The downtown walkable transit friendly communities are unaffordable and for the affluent.  The wealthy wrote these policies because they’re oblivious to the impacts.

500,000 immigrants per year will substantially add to our emissions and everyone will pay more for homes, heating, transportation, and goods, especially with carbon taxes.

The so-called left has sold out their workers and poor to fill their leisure time with fairy tale notions of climate purity.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Totally  wrong.  Each segment of the chain gets dinged and all of those input costs land on the final retail price. What, you think companies, drivers, etc. don’t pass these along to the consumers?

No, it's really not.  If you add a 5% carbon tax, you're adding 5% to each carbon-based input in the supply chain, not the whole supply chain.  If fuel/energy/delivery costs only add up to 20% of the total end-price of the item being purchased, then you're adding 5% to that 20%, which according to my abacus is 1% and that means I'm not wrong. 

55 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You really don’t seem to have a grasp of how little choice most people have but to commute long distances because of housing costs, family connections, etc. Carbon taxes factor into the costs of goods before they’re even put on a diesel truck or train.

I drive around 40,000km per year for business alone, nevermind my travel for hockey, golf etc.  I very much understand the cost of commuting and fuel.  

55 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You’re one step away from saying people can go without heat to cut costs and save the planet.  

We can have a reasonable conversation without you saying silly things like that, can't we?

55 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Humans are carbon-based.  We rely on a variety of fuels for much of what we need.  What’s more, our electricity sources for the EVs still rely heavily on natural gas and other fuels.  

Natural gas plants operating at scale are far, far cleaner than your G-Wagon for your commute.  If you're commuting your Corola to Toronto every day, than I do feel for you (especially because its cancer to drive on the highway) but if you're commuting in a Corola you're probably not part of the problem and will likely get most of that back in tax credits.   ?‍♂️

55 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

In fact carbon taxes are shifting production to dirtier jurisdictions globally.  EVs and battery production mining for rare earth metals is causing other environmental devastation.

This is a very good point, and one I used to argue on this very forum years ago.  If we're taxing our polluters here, but then closing our factories down and offshoring our pollution to China or Mexico, we've not achieved anything but lost jobs.  That's why the climate treaties and multi-lateral agreements need to be made (and are being made).  We're headed for a future where Canadian export industries will get taxed/tariffed for being dirty and complaining about it at home isn't going to matter.  That goes both ways though.  We need to penalized companies that outsource their pollution and then try to bring the production back here.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The same groups that complain about the Carbon Tax hurting the poor want to abolish income taxes for consumption taxes.

(HCT:In reality they get these ideas from fringe videos paid for by people who benefit from no carbon taxes and no income taxes either, ie. energy company owners.  They're always the ones suspiciously absent from the "scary billionaires" videos, the ones that say Gate is going to vaccine a silicon chip into you.  My suspicion anyway...)

The worst part about it is that many of the people complaining are those very same poor, who rant about the "elites" who are trying to screw them while demanding policy action that actively makes their situation worse.  ?‍♂️

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Canada's overall impact is not large, but our per-capita impact is among the worst in the world along with petro states like Qatar or Saudi Arabia.

Canada also happens to be an enormous state, geographically, with wild variations in temperature that mean every home needs both heat in winter and air conditioning in summer. Not to mention its gas and oil production.

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Poorer nations than Canada are transitioning faster than we are,

Like who?

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

While more pro-active countries than us expand their economies and substantially reduce CO2 levels at the same time,

Like who?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

One of the things about carbon taxes is that they are experienced more by wealthier people with higher carbon footprints. 

Do they really? Wealthier people tend to live in urban areas. They tend to live in very well-insulated homes or condos. Poorer people tend to live in shittier places with worse insulation. And then there's rural people. Electricity is already more costly out in rural areas. They have the wind blasting against the side of their house and have much longer to travel. Not to mention they can't exactly clear their driveways with a shovel.

Now if you're talking about the likes of the Desmarais or Bronfmans, sure, but they don't give a shit about a carbon tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The same groups that complain about the Carbon Tax hurting the poor want to abolish income taxes for consumption taxes.

(HCT:In reality they get these ideas from fringe videos 

I haven't bothered  thinking much about this idea but the western European countries seem to get the majority of their revenue from consumption taxes. These are often 25%-35% or more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

We're headed for a future where Canadian export industries will get taxed/tariffed for being dirty and complaining about it at home isn't going to matter.  

There are currently 27 (of 190) countries with carbon taxes.

I don't think we need to worry any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. Do a lot of driving, do you? Need a snowblower to clear your driveway? Get a ton of cold and snow in Toronto?

 

12 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

2. I haven't bothered  thinking much about this idea but the western European countries seem to get the majority of their revenue from consumption taxes. These are often 25%-35% or more. 

1. Not really.
2. Interesting.  They also get more services too.  And their top tax rates are high compared to us: https://taxfoundation.org/top-personal-income-tax-rates-europe-2022/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Do they really? Wealthier people tend to live in urban areas. They tend to live in very well-insulated homes or condos. Poorer people tend to live in shittier places with worse insulation. And then there's rural people. Electricity is already more costly out in rural areas. They have the wind blasting against the side of their house and have much longer to travel. Not to mention they can't exactly clear their driveways with a shovel.

No, the poorest people live in run-down cities where there are social services.  If you are dirt poor and from a rural area, in Southern Ontario, you're living with family or you're moving to Hamilton or Brantford or something.  

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Canada also happens to be an enormous state, geographically, with wild variations in temperature that mean every home needs both heat in winter and air conditioning in summer. Not to mention its gas and oil production.

Our practical geography is not nearly as big as our technical.  When almost everyone lives within a few hours of the border, we're not as big as the maps say.  

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Like who?

Like who?

The UK, all of Scandinavia for example.  Even China is investing way more in green energy than us.  Like Alberta, they still burn loads of coal, but while they are starting to pull ahead in development and scale for solar/wind while, we have people here convinced that economic armaggeddon will come if we do...anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Our practical geography is not nearly as big as our technical.  When almost everyone lives within a few hours of the border, we're not as big as the maps say.  

It's still damn cold in winter and hot in summer. Except, not coincidentally, in places like Toronto and Vancouver.

17 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The UK, all of Scandinavia for example.  Even China is investing way more in green energy than us.

The UK's economy, as far as I can see, is f*cked. And a big part of the reason for that is their dumb energy policy. China is not really a fair comparison. They're like twenty times bigger. And they're also investing in coal plants. And China is doing a lot of screwy things that are going to bite them on the ass.

Everyone uses Scandinavia for everything but these are small countries without our summer heat or huge resource industries. Sure, Norway has oil, but it's offshore oil. No need to mine. It was also smart enough to bank a substantial part of the royalties so it's incredibly rich. It can afford to splurge.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

It's still damn cold in winter and hot in summer. Except, not coincidentally, in places like Toronto and Vancouver.

Southern Ontario (Toronto) and parts of BC (Victoria/Vancouver) are the hottest places in the country in the summer, though they don't get as cold as inland cities north of them like, say, Edmonton.  

These excuses/explanations you list are all over the place.  The UK is f*cked because of green energy (it's not, and they've had Brexit to deal with, but whatever).  China doesn't count because it's bigger, and  Scandinavia doesn't count because they're smaller?  I don't even know where to start.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Southern Ontario (Toronto) and parts of BC (Victoria/Vancouver) are the hottest places in the country in the summer, though they don't get as cold as inland cities north of them like, say, Edmonton.  

These excuses/explanations you list are all over the place.  The UK is f*cked because of green energy (it's not, and they've had Brexit to deal with, but whatever).  China doesn't count because it's bigger, and  Scandinavia doesn't count because they're smaller?  I don't even know where to start.  

Fancy me pointing out context.

And if you read the UK papers the place is an absolute mess, and it is largely due to an energy policy which prioritized renewable energy over reliable energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2023 at 7:55 PM, Moonbox said:

No, it's really not.  If you add a 5% carbon tax, you're adding 5% to each carbon-based input in the supply chain, not the whole supply chain.  If fuel/energy/delivery costs only add up to 20% of the total end-price of the item being purchased, then you're adding 5% to that 20%, which according to my abacus is 1% and that means I'm not wrong. 

I drive around 40,000km per year for business alone, nevermind my travel for hockey, golf etc.  I very much understand the cost of commuting and fuel.  

We can have a reasonable conversation without you saying silly things like that, can't we?

Natural gas plants operating at scale are far, far cleaner than your G-Wagon for your commute.  If you're commuting your Corola to Toronto every day, than I do feel for you (especially because its cancer to drive on the highway) but if you're commuting in a Corola you're probably not part of the problem and will likely get most of that back in tax credits.   ?‍♂️

This is a very good point, and one I used to argue on this very forum years ago.  If we're taxing our polluters here, but then closing our factories down and offshoring our pollution to China or Mexico, we've not achieved anything but lost jobs.  That's why the climate treaties and multi-lateral agreements need to be made (and are being made).  We're headed for a future where Canadian export industries will get taxed/tariffed for being dirty and complaining about it at home isn't going to matter.  That goes both ways though.  We need to penalized companies that outsource their pollution and then try to bring the production back here.  

If you tax Canadian companies that offshore production to dirtier jurisdictions, consumer money will just buy the same products from foreign companies.  The playing field isn’t level, and if you think Gina is going to abide by our green boy scout club rules, I’ve got land you might love in Tuktayuktuk…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,742
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CrazyCanuck89
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...