NDP to back Conservative motion calling for carbon tax pause on all home heating fuels

[CdnFox]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-support-conservative-motion-carbon-tax-1.7016776

New Democrats are planning to vote in favour of a Conservative motion to exempt all home heating fuels from the federal carbon tax.

"The panicked reaction of Liberals a few days ago, it seemed to be tied to electoral chances more than anything else," the party's House leader Peter Julian said Thursday.

The Liberals have been facing increasing political pressure to extend a carbon tax exemption to fuels such as natural gas and propane after announcing a three-year exemption for home heating oil last week.

 

 

Wooo HOOOOOO - and THAT"S going to be a hell of a blow to Justin   That's going to put Severe limits on his future spending losing that revenue, and to top it off every climate freak out there will (correctly) blame him for 'killing the carbon tax'.

He has totally blown his foot off with this and made the situation worse.

[herbie]

OMG it's not a confidence issue and depending on the exact wording of the motion it could be meaningless. The NDP can support it and not bring down the govt and scoop a few votes from the jealous malcontents.

Then we wait for the Senate and all the usual delays... and doesn't address the issue of provinces that need oil heat cuz they have no other option.

Edited November 2, 2023 by herbie

[Legato]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

OMG it's not a confidence issue and depending on the exact wording of the motion it could be meaningless. The NDP can support it and not bring down the govt and scoop a few votes from the jealous malcontents.

Then we wait for the Senate and all the usual delays... and doesn't address the issue of provinces that need oil heat cuz they have no other option.

OMG did anyone say it's a confidence issue? That knee jerk rattled my windows

[herbie]

No but woohooing over it sure sounds like he thinks it's Trudeau's Stalingrad.

[PIK]

20 minutes ago, herbie said:

No but woohooing over it sure sounds like he thinks it's Trudeau's Stalingrad.

Seems like it.  Trudeau and few cronies sitting in a bunker. Lol

[herbie]

Meanwhile in BC where the Federal Carbon Tax policies mean dick shit, Mr. Eby better make the same decision before the Opposition takes it and owns the issue.

[Nefarious Banana]

20 hours ago, herbie said:

OMG it's not a confidence issue and depending on the exact wording of the motion it could be meaningless. The NDP can support it and not bring down the govt. and scoop a few votes from the jealous malcontents

Confidence issue ?

[CdnFox]

21 hours ago, herbie said:

OMG it's not a confidence issue and depending on the exact wording of the motion it could be meaningless. The NDP can support it and not bring down the govt and scoop a few votes from the jealous malcontents.

Then we wait for the Senate and all the usual delays... and doesn't address the issue of provinces that need oil heat cuz they have no other option.

Why are you freaking out?  Nobody said it was a confidence issue or that the gov't will fall.

And it will definitely be enforceable on the govt'. They will have to set aside the carbon taxes on heating fuel. BUt as there's no spending its' not a confidence motion.

Now - trudeau COULD in theory declare that it is and that an election will happen if it passes but that's pretty unlikely.

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Confidence issue ?

He meant confidence motion. Some motions are motions of 'confidence' - in other words their passing or failing indicates that the house has no confidence in the current gov't and that automatically triggers an election. All spending bills are automatically confidence motions (which is why if a budget fails we go to an election) and the gov't can declare other bills to be a matter of confidence.

This one isn't so far so if the motion passes the gov't doesn't fall.

[herbie]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

This one isn't so far so if the motion passes the gov't doesn't fall.

Exactly, it's not like a budget failing to pass.

It's not like you can avoid heating your home, so in the overall scheme of CO2 reduction doesn't need immediate drastic action. It could be a problem solved by already existing market pricing and change out incentives.
It's also a populist idea that's not overly harmful to the overall objective like the current simplistic 'scrap the tax" being pushed. People were up in arms about their car's gas tank and never even considered this before.

Keep in mind, the federal NDP also proposed exempting farmind fuel as well and that was rejected by the Tories. Could be railing that the Tories are "against farmers" if I wanted to just to troll.

As was pointed out elsewhere in some places the tax on LNG home heating is almost as much as the cost of the fuel itself. I'd sure like to see every 3rd house on the block using LNG instead of wood 'cuz they can't afford it'.

[CdnFox]

53 minutes ago, herbie said:

Exactly, it's not like a budget failing to pass.It's not like you can avoid heating your home, so in the overall scheme of CO2 reduction doesn't need immediate drastic action.It could be a problem solved by already existing market pricing and change out incentives.

Well then why did they put it on in the first place? And why didnt' the liberals exempt all home heating? And why are the enviro types so upset about it? And why just three years, why not just remove it permanently?

LOL  - this was votebuying. And the only reason that cutting the carbon tax on heating doesn't matter is that the carbon tax never mattered in the first place at all, it does nothing,.

 

Quote

It's also a populist idea that's not overly harmful to the overall objective like the current simplistic 'scrap the tax" being pushed. People were up in arms about their car's gas tank and never even considered this before.

It's not harmful because the tax wasn't doing anything anyway.  But it's going to be VERY harmful to justin's pocket book.

The problem for the libs is that justin just killed the carbon tax.  The excuses hes' given are the same for everything - not everyone can afford an electric car so why not give time for people to adjust? We can't afford groceries so why not give a break till things have time to adjust? It hurts the costs of housing so why not pause till we get housing under control? etc etc.

He's basically said it's not really necessary and people will seize on that. And that's his signature environmental policy shot, his cash cow dead, and PP is going to look the hero for spearheading it.   Someone really needs to tell justin that with you hold the PIN in your teeth and throw the GRENADE,  not the other way around

 

[August1991]

The BQ will vote with the federal Liberals. This vote is meaningless.

=====

Soon, the NDP and BQ will vote against the federal Liberals. Take note!

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, August1991 said:

The BQ will vote with the federal Liberals. This vote is meaningless.

=====

Soon, the NDP and BQ will vote against the federal Liberals. Take note!

well we'll see. there's nothing in it for them to support it but they have to know the cpc will be the next gov't  and it already doesn't owe quebec much.  A few brownie points could go a long way.

[I am Groot]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

well we'll see. there's nothing in it for them to support it but they have to know the cpc will be the next gov't  and it already doesn't owe quebec much.  A few brownie points could go a long way.

The BQ are as or more crazed for climate change than the Liberals. Of course, them coming from a province blessed with huge hydro electric assets makes that more than slightly hypocritical, but then everything they say is hypocritical. 

[Zeitgeist]

I find it fascinating and powerful when the NDP and Conservatives come together on issues.  It speaks to the workers’ roots of the NDP and the upward mobility opportunity aspects of the Conservatives, which are the best aspects of both parties.  The NDP want special privileges for the poor and the Conservatives want to bring down economic barriers for all irrespective of class.

The Liberals lose here, because they appear as cynical elitists using socialist rhetoric.   It’s the realization that statist, highly interventionist approaches by government are often self-serving and create barriers to the self-determination of individuals, including at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.  The social engineering of big government gets replaced by deregulation, lower taxes, and less political ideology from on high.  It would be a breath of fresh air after 8 years of government expansion and stories about how colonial, racist, and genocidal Canada is.  It might actually salvage a sense of national purpose and pride.

Otherwise, if the Post-National State Liberals get re-elected, I hope all power devolves to the provinces and the ridiculous country Canada has become, a shadow of its former great self, is cast into the dustbin of history along with its cartoon passports, snowflake crowns, and western alienation.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[I am Groot]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I find it fascinating and powerful when the NDP and Conservatives come together on issues.  It speaks to the workers’ roots of the NDP and the upward mobility opportunity aspects of the Conservatives,

I, being a cynic, think it probably speaks more to their desperate need to show that they're somehow different from the Liberals they're joined at the hip to, and so perhaps inspire people to vote for them.

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

I, being a cynic, think it probably speaks more to their desperate need to show that they're somehow different from the Liberals they're joined at the hip to, and so perhaps inspire people to vote for them.

You’re right.  The NDP are always a disaster because they disincentivize work and drive up debt.  They keep the poor down by making it easier not to work rather than supporting the working poor.  It’s a countdown to economic crisis.  The Conservatives are much better for Canada.  The Liberals used to be strong but basically lost their way after Chrétien.  Now they’re the NDP on steroids.  

[Queenmandy85]

The purpose of the carbon tax is to get people to reduce their carbon emissions. If we refuse to make the sacrifice, the losers will be future generations. We are using up the petroleum and coal that belongs to future generations. We are also pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate rarely seen in the past. It is our decendents who are going to suffer.

So, Mr. Poilievre has a choice if he eliminates the carbon tax.

1. Rationing. Rationing is complicated and difficult to enforce.

2. Cap the production and importation of coal, petroleum fuel products and natural gas to 1995 levels with an annual reduction of 5%. 

3. Start building nuclear power plants in Canada and around the world. Those uneducated irrational anti-nuke groups will fade away when February rolls around and they have already used up the annual allowance of fossil fuel.

Pierre Poilievre isn't stupid, nor is he evil, so he is already mulling over how he is going to get our carbon emissions down. It just isn't a policy you want to campaign on.

[Zeitgeist]

21 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The purpose of the carbon tax is to get people to reduce their carbon emissions. If we refuse to make the sacrifice, the losers will be future generations. We are using up the petroleum and coal that belongs to future generations. We are also pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate rarely seen in the past. It is our decendents who are going to suffer.

So, Mr. Poilievre has a choice if he eliminates the carbon tax.

1. Rationing. Rationing is complicated and difficult to enforce.

2. Cap the production and importation of coal, petroleum fuel products and natural gas to 1995 levels with an annual reduction of 5%. 

3. Start building nuclear power plants in Canada and around the world. Those uneducated irrational anti-nuke groups will fade away when February rolls around and they have already used up the annual allowance of fossil fuel.

Pierre Poilievre isn't stupid, nor is he evil, so he is already mulling over how he is going to get our carbon emissions down. It just isn't a policy you want to campaign on.

The high cost of energy without carbon taxes is already an incentive to reduce energy consumption.  I’ve said it many times and it never seems to be said enough:  Existing is a carbon footprint.  We use energy and consume to survive and thrive.  The jurisdictions that have the highest standard of living at the lowest cost and the most freedom will always be the most desirable places to live and people will always flock to them, no matter what ideological bullshit they spew in denial of this fact of human nature.  Adding to the cost of living doesn’t make life better.  It makes life harder.  Improving the environment is good but must be affordable or it simply won’t register with taxpayers.   I say taxpayers, not most university students who don’t bear the costs of their existence.  Once people realize how hard it is to buy a home, start a family, and have some semblance of the American Dream, priorities change fast.  Only the rich central planners, guys like Bloomberg or Gates or Carney, want to slap existence taxes on the population because they can afford them.

Most MP’s are in the top one or two percent of income earners.  Quite frankly they’re out of touch with what most Canadians want and need.

Yeah Poilievre could do more on nuclear and I’m sure he’ll have some program ideas incentivizing green tech, but he should get Canada out of all climate agreements immediately, as we have no chance of meeting climate targets without exterminating most Canadians or at least turning the population into a feudal outdoor encampment. In fact, our emissions are increasing.  Get real.  The US won’t play these games.  Not even Biden imposes carbon taxes.  Trump or the next Republican president will get the US out of all BS net zero agreements the second he can.  

Edited November 5, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[blackbird]

24 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The purpose of the carbon tax is to get people to reduce their carbon emissions.

People are using natural gas furnaces and driving their cars because that is a necessity of life.  It is very inconsiderate and harmful to Canadians to tax them for just living.  Who could turn their temperature down in their home in a cold country like Canada?  It is an insane demand by Trudeau and others.  Do you think Trudeau turned the heat down in his offices and home?  Not a chance.

Trudeau constantly accuses ordinary Canadians of polluting, Canadians who are just trying to live their life and make ends meet.  He constantly claims the carbon tax is fighting pollution, which is the biggest lie of the century.

He flies around the world constantly in a government jet, emitting huge amounts of CO2 and thinks nothing of it.  This is hypocrisy.  He is currently off on a jaunt to a conference of the organization of Americas.

Also, man cannot control the climate and nothing will change that fact.  Man only contributes a tiny amount of the total CO2.  97% of CO2 is natural emitting.

All humans emit CO2 when they breath.  Would Trudeau call humans polluters.  Probably.

According to Trudeau and Guilbeault, humans are the problem.  They worship Mother Earth.  This is an idol and false god.  Humans are not the problem.  The problem in this country is the people who do not understand all this climate change alarmism and environmental radicalism (Guilbault is a known radical from Greenpeace who climbed a building illegally in Toronto).

Edited November 5, 2023 by blackbird

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The purpose of the carbon tax is to get people to reduce their carbon emissions.

No, the purpose of the carbon tax is to allow liberal gov'ts to raise more tax money in a way that is accepted by a bunch of 1diots because they falsely believe it will have an impact.  The majority of the money stays in the hands of the gov't.

THe carbon tax does almost nothing for cliamte change. In bc it was found over the years to slow the growth of carbon emissions by about 5-10 percent.  Slow the growth - not reduce it at all as had previously been believed.

And the math shows why this is obviously the case  It was originally hoped that energy costs would be more 'elastic', but they're not.

So if we don't do it future generations wont' notice a difference.  But it distracts us from having to do something that might ACTUALLY make a difference but would require work and might not be popular.  So if anything the carbon tax makes things worse for future gens

Don't kid yourself. You're doing nothing good when you pay that tax, and it's just plain lazy to think you are.

[Queenmandy85]

 Reducing the global population is an important step, but that will take centuries if we do it voluntarily. We don't have centuries. If we do not begin to take agressive measures now to cut emissions, the reduction in population due to global warming will be both involuntary and horrifying. In the 1980's, it was estimated the full effects of the greenhouse effect would come in about 250 years. So far, this appears to remain a valid estimation. However, as the model also demonstrated, we only have a century at best to act in order to mitigate it. After that, it becomes a self-generating process that will accelerate. We have had warmer periods in the past, but the time period was much longer, allowing the system to adapt. Every time we have had a rapid change in climate, it has caused a massive extinction event. The Permian event is the big one. Even mall sudden changes have caused civilizations to collapse.

The other problem we are facing is the rapid depletion of our oil and coal reserves. Without coal, you cannot make steel. Without steel, you cannot generate electricity. Without lubricating oil, all the nuclear and hydroelectric generators will cease to work. We will return to the post-Roman conditions Europe faced. We are using up the resourses future generations will need to survive, regardless of climate change. How will we feed 20 billion people without transportation infrastructure.

We should have acted in the early 1980's or sooner. Canada, especially western Canada is sitting on a massive reserve of uranium. We could supply the world with nuclear power plants sufficient to replace fossil fuels in 30 years. That would dramatically reduce global carbon emissions, preserve petroleum and coal for future generations, and buy time to develope thorium LIFTR reactors and fusion power.

If Mr. Poilievre grasps that with both hands, he will deserve a Nobel Pease prize.

[Queenmandy85]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, the purpose of the carbon tax is to allow liberal gov'ts to raise more tax money in a way that is accepted by a bunch of 1diots because they falsely believe it will have an impact.  The majority of the money stays in the hands of the gov't.

So, are you advocating rationing or a limit on fossil fuel production? 

 

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So if we don't do it future generations wont' notice a difference.

Perhaps a carbon tax won't have an impact, but our decendents will sure as hell notice a difference in their lives, and I use the word "hell" literally. 

Governments can only do what the people will allow. They can stretch the limit so far, but we have an uneducated electorate who are increasingly influenced by snake oil con men who say all these people who actually understand physics are just a bunch of liberals. God help us. 

[eyeball]

On 11/4/2023 at 7:45 AM, Zeitgeist said:

Conservatives want to bring down economic barriers for all irrespective of class

I think Doug Ford clearly puts the lie to this. There's nothing to indicate Conservatives aren't just as apt to tilt the economic playing field in their friends direction as Liberals.

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So, are you advocating rationing or a limit on fossil fuel production? 

 

Did i say anything like that? If you lefties actually learned to listen instead of just making crap up you'd be a lot more likely to actually achive something on the file.

Did you not just see where i noted fuel and energy expenditures were no where near as elastic as originally hoped?

15 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Perhaps a carbon tax won't have an impact, but our decendents will sure as hell notice a difference in their lives, and I use the word "hell" literally. 

If it has no impact on climate they won't notice a difference in their lives climate wise one way or another.

What they will notice is that they have a substantially lower standard of living due to excessive taxation and lack of productivity and they will have lost the ability to adapt or affect the climate at all. So if it is 'hell' - they're stuck with it because people like you couldn't get their head past an ineffective carbon tax.

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Governments can only do what the people will allow. They can stretch the limit so far, but we have an uneducated electorate who are increasingly influenced by snake oil con men

Snake oil con men who sold them a carbon tax as a solution to the problem.

It's impossible to take you seriously on the issue. You litearlly wholeheartedly support something which not only doesn't work to address the issue but will severely weaken any future effort to do something else that might.  I guess you were part of that  'uneducated electorate' you mentioned? How very self aware.