Two-thirds of Canadians approve of Canada's new carbon tax


DaSleeper
#121
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

You can't rest what you don't have.

 
mentalfloss
#122
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

You made a claim which is a lie. If it was truly revenue neutral (and not the stupid and incorrect definition way you use), I would not have an objection to it. But as of 01/01 this year, Wynn/Trudeau are collecting extra money at the pumps from us. There has been no offsetting tax decrease. This is not revenue neutral. It is a tax grab.

It's done annually.

At the end of the calendar year they either spend the money on projects or offset it with a tax rebate.


If you belief revenue neutral means that every dollar you lose, you get it back later, then you are.. well... That's not what revenue neutral means if that's what you're thinking.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#123
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It's done annually.

At the end of the calendar year they either spend the money on projects or offset it with a tax rebate.


If you belief revenue neutral means that every dollar you lose, you get it back later, then you are.. well... That's not what revenue neutral means if that's what you're thinking.



Revenue Neutral means that tax revenue will not change. The total amount of tax revenue will remain the same while individuals may wind up paying more or less tax depending on the distribution of how they pay taxes. What you are describing is not revenue neutral. Your description just means it is a tax grab -- an additional source of revenue but will not be put in general revenues. Having pet projects for the new revenue does not mean neutrality.
 
White_Unifier
#124
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I haven't changed my habits nor do I know anybody that has. The only way a tax will change behaviors is if it hurts.

Different people react differently. A wealthy person who enjoys driving his Hummer around might just decide to grin and bear it. But a poorer person might decide to take his lower income tax to buy a bicycle so as to avoid the higher cost of public transit resulting from the carbon tax.

Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

Revenue Neutral means that tax revenue will not change. The total amount of tax revenue will remain the same while individuals may wind up paying more or less tax depending on the distribution of how they pay taxes. What you are describing is not revenue neutral. Your description just means it is a tax grab -- an additional source of revenue but will not be put in general revenues. Having pet projects for the new revenue does not mean neutrality.

That is a problem. I like the way Hong Kong did it with very low income taxes and no value-added tax either.

A relatively tariff-free jurisdiction too.
 
Remington1
+1
#125
Trudeau's Carbon Tax was not based on Canadian interest, or the climate for that matter. This was clearly one of JT's ideology, it will affect the countries growth, investments and jobs. Our competitive partner to the south will take advantage of our less than stellar intuitive approach. No business will choose to pay more dollars to do business here.
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#126
lord we don't need the temperature to go up and cause another age of enlightenment
lol...enlightenment...
geez, we would never see the globalist lefties here again
thats what they are really scared of...enlightenment
 
Vbeacher
+3
#127  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Don't you guys hate always being wrong?


In practice, the province has cut $760-million more in income and other taxes than needed to offset carbon tax revenue.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/sec.theg...Fservice%3Damp

Try something a little more updated.

But thereís a fundamental problem with the B.C. model and proponents would do well to temper their enthusiasm: B.C.ís carbon tax is not actually revenue neutral. Back in 2008/09, when the province first introduced the carbon tax, the B.C. government promised revenue neutrality. And initially it was. To offset the new revenue, the government introduced new cuts to personal and business tax rates and a new tax credit for low-income earners. The value of these new tax reductions was enough to offset all the new revenue generated from the carbon tax.

However, just five years later, as the carbon-tax revenue increased, the government no longer provided new tax cuts that sufficiently offset the carbon taxís revenue. In other words, B.C.ís carbon tax ceased being revenue neutral in 2013/14.


How B.C.
 
Murphy
Conservative
#128

wwwyoutubecomwatchvPzr6wk7FVXE

 
mentalfloss
#129
Climate change is real.

It's primarily caused by humans.

Carbon pricing is the appropriate remedy.

Get over it, folks, because this is a systemic change ain't going anywhere.



Chamber of Commerce has bold plan for Yukon carbon tax monies

The Yukon Chamber of Commerce has some strong opinions on what to do with carbon tax money that will be collected in the territory.

The federal government has said such a tax will be implemented across the country by 2018; and the Yukon Liberals campaigned last year on a promise to return the tax directly to Yukoners' pockets.

But the organization that represents businesses in the territory has other ideas. It has just released its official policy on both the carbon tax and energy policy for the Yukon.

Key among its recommendations include creating an "arm's length, apolitical, independent and professionally managed third-party Yukon Green Energy Trust," to manage the proceeds of a tax.

The policy reiterates previous stances on a northern carbon tax, noting that Yukon businesses and consumers don't have the same options for reducing their carbon consumption as southern Canadians do; it also points out that because Yukon is cold, dark, and covers a large area with a small population, the carbon footprint per person is disproportionately higher.

It also encourages the Yukon government to work with the other territories to seek "a lower or delayed set of emission targets for the North."

The Chamber is also in favour of a private sector steering committee, to determine how to allocate revenues from carbon pricing.

Chamber president Peter Turner says those revenues should be dedicated to "business-oriented solutions."

"A third party organization [would] look at how to direct those monies, with the objective of getting us off non-renewable solutions. And we're not sure that the government is the right body to do that," Turner said.

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4009831
 
petros
#130
Why? Because some decided for you?
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#131
Capital Weather Gang
Biting cold that set records in Canadian Arctic poised to invade eastern U.S. this weekend

In recent days, some of the coldest March air in decades has gripped portions of Alaska and the Canadian Arctic. Fragments of that frigid air will come crashing into the eastern United States on Friday and into the weekend.

The air spilling into the Great Lakes, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic may not fall to record levels, but it could bring the coldest weather to parts of the region since January.

Its pedigree is impressive.

On Saturday, Mould Bay in the Canadian Arctic set an all-time record low of minus-66.5 degrees (minus-54.7 Celsius).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8116d625b3f4 (external - login to view)

yup
global warming is real fake and the carbon tax is just a butt screw
we are going into a monster cold cycle and we are gonna be double screwed thanks to liebarrel stupidity
 
petros
#132
Quote:

Fragments of that frigid air will come crashing into the eastern United States on Friday and into the weekend.

Normally you'd hear west coast people brag about tulips and daffodils at this time of year while the rest of Canada waits another 6-8 weeks for the grass to turn green.


Not this year.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+1
#133
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Climate change is real.

Correct.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It's primarily caused by humans.

No, it's not. Human contribution? Most likely. Primary driver? Not likely

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Carbon pricing is the appropriate remedy.

No, it's not. An appropriate remedy would be one that actually worked. This is a policy based on a lot of assumption and little actual study.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Get over it, folks, because this is a systemic change ain't going anywhere.

And that's why it'll work. Tax the livng sh*t out of everyone, send the money out of country and everyone will be too poor to spend their hard-earned cash on frivolous bullsh*t like heating in the winter or a/c in the summer for those in certain parts of Canada, that'll sure cut down on emissions.

It's already affecting the cost of food and not in a good way. Just three years ago we could spend $250 in the grocery store and come away with a crap-ton of food and beverages. Not today, especially if you want to eat meat.

Another perfect example of how this is simply a cash grab is the cattle industry. It takes a lot of land to farm cattle and the incredible numbers of them do produce a surprising amount of methane. It also takes a lot of land to grow feed for the cattle since the days of pasture fed beef are pretty much gone. But a farmer in PEI discover something amazing, something that was picked up on at one of our universities in Nova Scotia I believe. They've discovered that particular form of red seaweed not only makes a fantastic cattle feed, it also reduces the methane in cow farts literally to zero. Which in science terms means there's no real measurable output of methane.

Where's the govt jumping all over that idea and promoting the hell out of it? Why is the govt promoting carbon taxes and pricing and yet doing very little to encourage people to generate as much of their own power as they can? You want people less reliant on fossil fuels for power generation? Then give them real incentives to generate their own. Don't just tax the crap out of something you force them to use, that's just bullsh*t. And I'm pretty sure if you thought hard enough about it, you'd agree.
 
Vbeacher
+1
#134
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Climate change is real.

It's primarily caused by humans.

You got a cite for that? My understanding is even climate scientists won't commit to more than that humans are having an impact, but at some immeasurable level.

Quote:

Carbon pricing is the appropriate remedy.

Why? It's not working. It's not going to work. It costs a fortune. None of the world's major emitters has or will commit to reducing Co2 emissions except, maybe, a few decades down the line. Most of the world won't even commit to that. Has all of this escaped your notice, somehow?

Quote: Originally Posted by JinentonixView Post

Correct.
And that's why it'll work. Tax the livng sh*t out of everyone, send the money out of country and everyone will be too poor to spend their hard-earned cash on frivolous bullsh*t like heating in the winter or a/c in the summer for those in certain parts of Canada, that'll sure cut down on emissions.

Well, it'll cut down on OUR emissions. But suppose we completely eliminate OUR emissions. What does that do for the environment? Because India's annual increases over the next twenty years are planned to be, well, roughly the same as our entire current emissions. Which means that if we voluntarily go back to the bushes and make no emissions, the Indians will replace our lost emissions in one year. Then the next year, they'll double them, and the next year, triple them, and the next year, quadruple them, etc., etc., etc...
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#135
Quote: Originally Posted by VbeacherView Post

Why? It's not working. It's not going to work. It costs a fortune. None of the world's major emitters has or will commit to reducing Co2 emissions except, maybe, a few decades down the line. Most of the world won't even commit to that. Has all of this escaped your notice, somehow?

Actually that is not correct. Almost every major industrial power has committed to reducing carbon emissions including nations like China and India which are among the worst polluters. However, you cannot expect these nations to do their part if countries like Canada do nothing.

[QUOTE=Vbeacher;2426934]You got a cite for that? My understanding is even climate scientists won't commit to more than that humans are having an impact, but at some immeasurable level./QUOTE]

There is a lot of climate BS out there spread by supporters of the oil and coal industries, but legitimate climate scientists overwhelmingly support the facts surrounding global warming. Indeed, if you live in Canada you would have to be blind not to notice its effects.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#136
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

However, you cannot expect these nations to do their part if countries like Canada do nothing.

Why not?
 
Vbeacher
+1
#137
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

Actually that is not correct. Almost every major industrial power has committed to reducing carbon emissions including nations like China and India which are among the worst polluters.

This is simply not true. China has said that in about 30 years they'll start cutting Co2 emissions, but haven't committed to any real numbers. India has said it's the responsibility of the West and it is focusing on economic expansion (thus the growing number of coal fired generators). It has said that it will 'do its part' in future, but it's goals contain no set targets for overall CO2 reduction.

Quote:

However, you cannot expect these nations to do their part if countries like Canada do nothing.

I'm willing to make the same commitment China and India is, if that comforts you.


Quote: Originally Posted by VbeacherView Post

You got a cite for that? My understanding is even climate scientists won't commit to more than that humans are having an impact, but at some immeasurable level./QUOTE]

There is a lot of climate BS out there spread by supporters of the oil and coal industries, but legitimate climate scientists overwhelmingly support the facts surrounding global warming. Indeed, if you live in Canada you would have to be blind not to notice its effects.

I stand by what I said unless you have an actual statement from an authoritative source which shows the severity of the impact human beings are having on the degree of global warming. As far as I'm aware no one has quantified just how much impact humans are having.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+1
#138
Quote: Originally Posted by VbeacherView Post

You got a cite for that? My understanding is even climate scientists won't commit to more than that humans are having an impact, but at some immeasurable level.



Why? It's not working. It's not going to work. It costs a fortune. None of the world's major emitters has or will commit to reducing Co2 emissions except, maybe, a few decades down the line. Most of the world won't even commit to that. Has all of this escaped your notice, somehow?



Well, it'll cut down on OUR emissions. But suppose we completely eliminate OUR emissions. What does that do for the environment? Because India's annual increases over the next twenty years are planned to be, well, roughly the same as our entire current emissions. Which means that if we voluntarily go back to the bushes and make no emissions, the Indians will replace our lost emissions in one year. Then the next year, they'll double them, and the next year, triple them, and the next year, quadruple them, etc., etc., etc...

Yep. The best argument I heard went something like this. Say you and I are neighbours and we both enjoy having backyard fires. Now let's say that you have a limited access to firewood so you only have a fire 1-2 nights a week, while I have a near limitless supply and have a fire 7 nights a week. Now let's say someone convinces me that these little fires are really bad for the environment and cause global warming so I give them up, but being such a good neighbour I give you access to my firewood supply and you have a backyard fire 7 days a week. Other than the two days a week when we'd both be having fires, I've actually reduced my emissions by bugger-all since I merely passed the buck on to you.

If we're still digging coal to ship to China and India, then we're not really doing SFA to reduce emissions.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#139
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Why not?

Did you ask that to be stupid or are you just trolling?

[QUOTE=Vbeacher;2427498]This is simply not true. China has said that in about 30 years they'll start cutting Co2 emissions, but haven't committed to any real numbers. India has said it's the responsibility of the West and it is focusing on economic expansion (thus the growing number of coal fired generators). It has said that it will 'do its part' in future, but it's goals contain no set targets for overall CO2 reduction./QUOTE]


Sorry, but that is simply not true. China's green energy program is advancing more quickly than its conventional power programs. The 30 year number you mention is in fact China's target for completeing its conversion to green energy, not its start. In fact China's installation of wind turbines is so great that it is contracting out construction of components to nations outside of China, including the USA.

Here is a link to a video you might find interesting. It is a little out of date, but still makes a strong argument for China's green energy commitment.


If the video is too long try reading this.
https://www.theguardian.com/business...el-2020-energy (external - login to view)
 
mentalfloss
#140
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Why? Because some decided for you?

Nope.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#141
Mister Knoweverything can't even post a video!
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#142
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Mister Knoweverything can't even post a video!

That is a hell of a lot better than the title you own - Mr .Know Nothing. BTW it really isn't very hard to look smarter than you. I simply avoid posting rubbish.
 
Vbeacher
+1
#143
The focus on China’s big renewable-energy investment diverts attention away from actions that are less in keeping with its green image. China installed record numbers of coal plants in 2015 and the first half of 2016, according to the International Energy Agency. For all of the talk about China’s huge investments in wind and solar energy, the agency found that in 2014, the latest year for which data are available, 66% of Chinese energy needs were met by coal power. Wind energy supplied 0.4%. Wind will grow, but coal will remain a dominant energy source for China in the decades to come.

“A Green Leap Forward in China? What a Load of Biomass” (external - login to view)
 
petros
+1
#144
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

That is a hell of a lot better than the title you own - Mr .Know Nothing. BTW it really isn't very hard to look smarter than you. I simply avoid posting rubbish.

Go burn some carbon Smurfette.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#145
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Go burn some carbon Smurfette.

Actually I would much prefer to be a Smurfette than the uninformed idiot who posted that comment.
 
petros
+1
#146
So why did you post stupid sh-t? You can't burn carbon. Period.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#147
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

So why did you post stupid sh-t? You can't burn carbon. Period.

It appears that you may be the stupid schitt.

https://www.reference.com/science/ch...3b454ee2855642 (external - login to view)
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#148
lol...
by the spelling mistake in the above link i would suspect other problems with burning an atom

"Can I burn an electron, proton, atom or any of such particle? If yes, then how and what would happen after it? If not, then why not?

Mahesh Shenoy, Physix Teacher, FloatHeadPhysix - Youtube

No you cannot burn an electron or proton or even an atom or any such fundamental particles.

Why?
Because the word 'burn' is just a word used to describe one kind of chemical reaction in which some fuel (say wood containing sugar) combines with oxygen in the air to form carbon dioxide and water with release of large amount of heat and light."
https://www.quora.com/Can-I-burn-an-...t-then-why-not (external - login to view)
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#149
Quote: Originally Posted by DanbonesView Post

Because the word 'burn' is just a word used to describe one kind of chemical reaction in which some fuel (say wood containing sugar) combines with oxygen in the air to form carbon dioxide and water with release of large amount of heat and light."
https://www.quora.com/Can-I-burn-an-...t-then-why-not (external - login to view)


Thanks for supporting me. Now pass along the information to Petros who does not seem to understand that the word "burn" refers to a chemical reaction that produces CO2 from carboniferous fuels, which was exactly my point all along.
 
no new posts