Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax

[eyeball]

20 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

To put an exclamation point on it - China is responsible for 67% of the increase in Global emissions since 2000. India is responsible for 15%. What rationale could ever maintain that Canada's attempt to reduce our emissions by 30% of our measly 2% makes any sense at all? As I - and others have stated many times - Canada could make a bigger difference by building pipelines and helping to replace coal in other parts of the world - although I admit, even that would have a relatively negligible overall effect. At this point in time - I'm sure Canadians would like to shut off buying Saudi oil.......... 

What measly 2%?  We're just as responsible for the global increase. It doesn't matter one bit that someone else is burning the oil/coal we dig out of the ground. The best way to stop global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is to leave them in the ground.

 

[turningrite]

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What measly 2%?  We're just as responsible for the global increase. It doesn't matter one bit that someone else is burning the oil/coal we dig out of the ground.

 

And Trudeau's carbon tax, which focuses on taxing Canadian consumers, fixes this problem how? Reportedly, the 100 largest polluters in Canada are responsible for 71 percent of this country's emissions but many of them, and particularly those that rely on export markets, will be given exemptions under Trudeau's plan. So, his scheme, which seems intended to pick Canadians' pockets, won't have much if any impact on emissions that result from consumption elsewhere.  From a climate change perspective, it's smoke and mirrors mixed with a little redistributive ideology, which as I said previously in this string is a Liberal favorite. Or, as Thomas Walkom put it in his column in today's Toronto Star, the tax and rebate scheme "...isn't exactly a sleight of hard. But it's close."

Edited October 24, 2018 by turningrite

[Spiderfish]

I wonder if the 2.65 billion dollars the Liberal government spends on "foreign aid" to "help other countries deal with climate change"  makes a difference in stopping fossil fuels from coming out of the ground in China or India.  

[Spiderfish]

7 minutes ago, turningrite said:

From a climate change perspective, it's smoke and mirrors mixed with a little redistributive ideology, which as I said previously in this string is a Liberal favorite.

Brad Wall summed it up pretty well yesterday... "usually when someone tells you to send in money but you'll get more back in return, it's a Nigerian Prince."

[taxme]

21 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

To put an exclamation point on it - China is responsible for 67% of the increase in Global emissions since 2000. India is responsible for 15%. What rationale could ever maintain that Canada's attempt to reduce our emissions by 30% of our measly 2% makes any sense at all? As I - and others have stated many times - Canada could make a bigger difference by building pipelines and helping to replace coal in other parts of the world - although I admit, even that would have a relatively negligible overall effect. At this point in time - I'm sure Canadians would like to shut off buying Saudi oil.......... 

It's all about stealing more money from the taxpayer in the form of another tax now known as the carbon tax. Just more money for the government to waste. There is no end to how far our communist federal government will go to steal more money in the form of tax dollars from our wallets. It's endless with these thieves in Ottawa. Canadians now pay approx. 72% out of their dollar that they earn towards some kind of taxes or fees. But ask most Canadians if they really care? A better question still is do they care about anything other than themselves? 

This is why I just keep putting most of my money into taxes. They are always going up. A great investment indeed.   I think that I am doing the right thing, I think?  

[taxme]

6 minutes ago, Spiderfish said:

I wonder if the 2.65 billion dollars the Liberal government spends on "foreign aid" to "help other countries deal with climate change"  makes a difference in stopping fossil fuels from coming out of the ground in China or India.  

NOPE. 

[taxme]

2 minutes ago, Spiderfish said:

Brad Wall summed it up pretty well yesterday... "usually when someone tells you to send in money but you'll get more back in return, it's a Nigerian Prince."

Doug Ford calls the carbon tax just another tax on Canadians. Really? I would never have guessed that one. Chuckle-chuckle. 

[taxme]

13 hours ago, Hates politicians said:

No politician is going to take money out of one of your pockets and put the same amount back into your other pocket. If it was true why take it to begin with? Politicians lie, it's that simple. and anyone who believes a politician is as bright as  a bag of hammers

The sad part about it all is that it would appear as though the majority of Canadians will believe anything a politician tells them. Canadians never question their "lies". They just go along with those lies and eat those lies up like candy. Let's face it and be realistic here. Probably 90% of the taxes we pay are there to enhance politicians in their efforts to make Canada and Canadians appear to believe that all of their liberal/socialist/communist programs and agendas are all good and great for us and those taxes will help make Canada great, I mean un great. 

I hope that all hammers will forgive you for what you said that no doubt was an insult to them. At least hammers are useful. It's the politicians that are useless. 

[taxme]

On 10/23/2018 at 9:56 AM, Centerpiece said:

We need facts - we need the truth. We need rational, common sense.

The UN plan to avoid Armageddon is pure folly. Any gains that can by “sucker countries” will be dwarfed by the increase in emissions by so-called “developing” countries. Any rational look at the UN target of cutting global emissions in half by 2030 is not only unachievable – it is outrageously insane – literally the thinking of madmen. In fact, emissions will grow over that period. Globally, they have already grown by 40% since 2000!

It boggles the mind how the UN and our pliant media use such ambiguous terms as pollution, kilotons of carbon emissions – and yes, the term “Climate Change” itself. With Kyoto – and now Paris, many countries have made commitments that extend back to the 2005 Kyoto Agreement. Following below is a summary of statistics that show who the largest emitters are – and how successful they have been at reducing their GHG emissions. To give them an advantage, I’ve started at the year 2000. An important observation/opinion – the vast majority of any reductions are likely related to the shift away from coal – certainly this was the case in the EU – headed up by England/Ireland.

China’s Climate “Plan” alone says that they will not begin to reduce emissions until 2030 including the continued building of coal-fired generation plants. India has massive plans for coal. Russia has no plan. The EU has for the most part, has converted the majority of coal-fired energy – so they are faced with diminishing returns.

What do we do? Well, we’ve already wasted trillions on this scam. The move away from coal was driven more by economics than anything else – perhaps sped up by a few years – and as stated before, most emission reductions came from that transition – mostly to oil and gas. The answer is to seriously look at mitigation plans – plans which can address the troubling aspects of Climate Change but also the positive ones – and make no mistake, there are positive elements to a moderately warmer planet. We will never, ever in our lifetime achieve any meaningful reduction in global emissions – if there is a reduction at all.

Take a look at the real world below, data taken from the link that I’ve provided. Here’s a list of the top emitters, as of 2016. It shows how much their emissions have increased of reduced since 2000 – and what share of the world’s total GHG emissions they emit.

Total Global emissions for 2016 expressed in thousands of kilotons – 35755

Country                     % of Global Emissions            % increase/decrease since 2000

China                                   29%                                                         +286%

US                                        14%                                                          -14%

India                                     7%                                                            +238%

Russia                                   5%                                                            no change

Japan                                    3.5%                                                        -2%

Germany                              2%                                                           -10%

Canada                                 2%                                                           -7%

 

Source: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&sort=des8  

I have no doubt that the UN has Canada on their suckers list of countries that give them plenty of tax dollars to waste on their UN pet peeve stupid and useless communist programs and agendas that have given Canada and Canadians grief. It is time for Canada to withdraw from the United Nations and save us hundreds of millions in tax dollars from those leeches. Bureaucracies like the UN need to be eliminated. I wish. 

[eyeball]

31 minutes ago, turningrite said:

And Trudeau's carbon tax, which focuses on taxing Canadian consumers, fixes this problem how? 

It doesn't fix it one bit so long as we ship fossil fuels to places that burn them with little to no regard for the climate.

It's not called global climate change for nothing.

[Spiderfish]

40 minutes ago, taxme said:

Doug Ford calls the carbon tax just another tax on Canadians. Really? I would never have guessed that one. Chuckle-chuckle. 

I have one better... Ralph Goodale on twitter yesterday announced this carbon tax plan as "a major new federal payment going to every household in Sask!!"

What...huh??  I thought it was a tax...turns out according to Liberals, it's a major new payment going to all families.  Phew, for a minute there I was worried.

I am a bit curious though, how does paying citizens more than they collect from them in carbon tax supposed to discourage people from emitting so-called "carbon pollution"?  And wasn't this supposed to be revenue neutral??  Right...

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, Spiderfish said:

I am a bit curious though, how does paying citizens more than they collect from them in carbon tax supposed to discourage people from emitting so-called "carbon pollution"?  And wasn't this supposed to be revenue neutral??  Right...

The Libs are being disingenuous when promising to return to taxpayers in the affected provinces the carbon taxes they will pay directly. Substantially more will be paid indirectly in the form of carbon taxes paid by service providers and businesses that are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices that will not be recouped by taxpayers. Rather, the Trudeau scheme will primarily operate as a tax and redistribute enterprise, giving the current governing party the opportunity to engage in the kind of social engineering and vote buying machinations it prefers. The entrenched subsidy class will no doubt benefit while middle class taxpayers will very likely end up paying the freight in terms of reduced living standards, as usual. The promised rebate cheques are a shiny distraction intended to get Trudeau through next year's election.

As for the revenue neutrality, there was a good article in yesterday's Financial Post (link below) about how Trudeau's scheme varies significantly from the approach favoured by economists that achieves revenue neutrality by reducing damaging forms of taxation that stifle productivity and competitiveness.  But why try to be constructive when you can play political Santa Claus? Trudeau does love to dress up for an audience so I wonder if he's got his red suit and long white beard ready?

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/kevin-libin-trudeaus-carbon-plan-is-so-much-worse-than-just-a-tax

Edited October 24, 2018 by turningrite

[Centerpiece]

Trudeau and his gang are pretty slippery - oily actually. Although they have promised (well, sort of - after all, it's a Liberal promise!) to return 90% of the revenue while the tax is $10 a ton. How about when it goes to $20 - or $50 - or as the eco-nuts would like - hundreds of dollars. Will all that go back to Canadians? Of course not - they've already said they are trying to change peoples' attitudes. Like Rogers, Bell and Cogeco - it's just a promotional program so they can sucker you in for a long term tax grab. 

[GostHacked]

17 hours ago, Hates politicians said:

No politician is going to take money out of one of your pockets and put the same amount back into your other pocket. If it was true why take it to begin with? Politicians lie, it's that simple. and anyone who believes a politician is as bright as  a bag of hammers

To add to this, is that it won't solve a damn thing. People will simply pay more to pollute. Put a monetary value on it and it will lose all value. I don't really think the Cap n Trade deal was a solution either. Corps will pay to pollute, and find loop holes to get their money back at tax time. 

[eyeball]

54 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

To add to this, is that it won't solve a damn thing. People will simply pay more to pollute. Put a monetary value on it and it will lose all value. I don't really think the Cap n Trade deal was a solution either. Corps will pay to pollute, and find loop holes to get their money back at tax time. 

The only solution is to leave it in the ground. Its just that simple.

[Centerpiece]

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The only solution is to leave it in the ground. Its just that simple.

Simple? First. get the middle East, China, Russia and India to do that. Chances of success: less than zero. But let's assume the whole world goes insane overnight and it actually happens. No cars, no furnaces, no air conditioners, no food processing, no lights. That's what would happen as soon as inventories run out. As I said in the topic title - The folly of Climate "Plans".

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Simple? First. get the middle East, China, Russia and India to do that. Chances of success: less than zero. But let's assume the whole world goes insane overnight and it actually happens. No cars, no furnaces, no air conditioners, no food processing, no lights. That's what would happen as soon as inventories run out. As I said in the topic title - The folly of Climate "Plans".

Trust me, I get that we'll need fossil fuels in the near term but imagining we're limiting emissions while releasing our tar sands and coal into the hands of India and China is as patently self-deluding as it is self-serving.

[Centerpiece]

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Trust me, I get that we'll need fossil fuels in the near term but imagining we're limiting emissions while releasing our tar sands and coal into the hands of India and China is as patently self-deluding as it is self-serving.

There's a good chance that it would displace some of the coal they are burning - or if you're a fan of Human Rights, displacing Saudi oil. Either way, it would at least "do no harm" and at best, reduce China and India's dependence on coal and therefore reduce emissions - otherwise, you're just admitting to complete failure - so why should Canada self flagellate? But again, you're losing track of the big picture: if you believe the IPCC, there is simply no chance at all that we can make ANY difference in the next 20-30 years towards their "save the planet" goals. So we'd best get ready for tomorrow's reality - and adapt. There might be some bad, but there will also be a lot of good.

[Hates politicians]

5 hours ago, turningrite said:

The Libs are being disingenuous when promising to return to taxpayers in the affected provinces the carbon taxes they will pay directly. Substantially more will be paid indirectly in the form of carbon taxes paid by service providers and businesses that are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices that will not be recouped by taxpayers. Rather, the Trudeau scheme will primarily operate as a tax and redistribute enterprise, giving the current governing party the opportunity to engage in the kind of social engineering and vote buying machinations it prefers. The entrenched subsidy class will no doubt benefit while middle class taxpayers will very likely end up paying the freight in terms of reduced living standards, as usual. The promised rebate cheques are a shiny distraction intended to get Trudeau through next year's election.

As for the revenue neutrality, there was a good article in yesterday's Financial Post (link below) about how Trudeau's scheme varies significantly from the approach favoured by economists that achieves revenue neutrality by reducing damaging forms of taxation that stifle productivity and competitiveness.  But why try to be constructive when you can play political Santa Claus? Trudeau does love to dress up for an audience so I wonder if he's got his red suit and long white beard ready?

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/kevin-libin-trudeaus-carbon-plan-is-so-much-worse-than-just-a-tax

There is no such thing as revenue neutral. I said before no politician is going to take money out of your right  pocket and put the exact same amount back into your left pocket. The term revenue neutral is a crock of shit.

[Hates politicians]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

It doesn't fix it one bit so long as we ship fossil fuels to places that burn them with little to no regard for the climate.

It's not called global climate change for nothing.

Climate has been changing as long as the earth has existed. It will still keep changing long after humans are gone, providing politicians don't blow it up

[Hates politicians]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

The only solution is to leave it in the ground. Its just that simple.

So let me get this right. Your going to stop driving a vehicle, stop riding in a vehicle stop using paved roads, stop heating your home, stop using anything made from oil. Is this correct?

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Hates politicians said:

Climate has been changing as long as the earth has existed. It will still keep changing long after humans are gone, providing politicians don't blow it up

Pretty stupid and ignorant statement: temperatures increase under the greenhouse effect, which can be shown in a lab.  Humans are releasing greenhouse gasses, and the graph  of emissions correlates with the temperature increase.

Your pronouncement is an empty observation.  We know why temperatures are increasing.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Hates politicians said:

So let me get this right. Your going to stop driving a vehicle, stop riding in a vehicle stop using paved roads, stop heating your home, stop using anything made from oil. Is this correct?

Wrong.

[Hates politicians]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Pretty stupid and ignorant statement: temperatures increase under the greenhouse effect, which can be shown in a lab.  Humans are releasing greenhouse gasses, and the graph  of emissions correlates with the temperature increase.

Your pronouncement is an empty observation.  We know why temperatures are increasing.

Becauee politicians like you wpewing too uch hot air

[Hates politicians]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Wrong.

Well your saying leave oil in the ground, so put your money where your mouth is. We will go back to the stone age without oil.