Keystone pipeline shut down after crude leak in South Dakota


Nick Danger
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

So we can put more taxpayer $ into general revenue . Who will this help and how will it save the world ?

Isn't the general idea of carbon taxing to get the industrial sector to make the connection between pollution and financial costs? Doesn't there come a point where cleaning up their act is cheaper than paying the carbon tax?
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Nick Danger View Post

Isn't the general idea of carbon taxing to get the industrial sector to make the connection between pollution and financial costs? Doesn't there come a point where cleaning up their act is cheaper than paying the carbon tax?

Whatever the cost, it will be passed on to the consumer so there is no cost to them. There is also no incentive to them to change anything.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

Whatever the cost, it will be passed on to the consumer so there is no cost to them. There is also no incentive to them to change anything.

That's not strictly true. Companies can also decide to take the additional cost out of profits, basing the decision on their calculation of what passing on the cost to consumers (i.e., raising prices) will do to sales.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

The hypocrisy argument only strengthens the fact that there needs to be carbon pricing.

Agreed.... Eco-crites like Leo should be heavily taxed.

Quote: Originally Posted by Nick Danger View Post

Isn't the general idea of carbon taxing to get the industrial sector to make the connection between pollution and financial costs? Doesn't there come a point where cleaning up their act is cheaper than paying the carbon tax?

Since when is carbon pollution?
 
Nick Danger
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Since when is carbon pollution?

Haha. Good one.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

Interpret as you like if you're not into reasonable discussion. I don't see much difference between a fast fire and slowly being poisoned by oil in the groundwater from a leaky old pipe - but neither really matter in the pursuit of profit

You're slowly being poisoned by water fluoridation too, but I rarely see anyone get themselves worked up about it.
As for not seeing much difference between a leak and an explosion, well, here's the difference. If there's a leak and it gets into the groundwater, you have some choices, including moving or start buying bottle water in bulk. Yes I know, neither seem particularly appealing.
A several thousand ton bomb gives little warning if/when disaster strikes. It's a lot easier to move on if/when your water has been contaminated than it is when your home has been flattened and everything in it destroyed. Assuming you survive the disaster that is.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+3
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

The hypocrisy argument only strengthens the fact that there needs to be carbon pricing.

No it only proves carbon pricing is a scam. Carbon is already priced in Canada. It is just called royalties, everything else is just taxes.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

That's not strictly true. Companies can also decide to take the additional cost out of profits, basing the decision on their calculation of what passing on the cost to consumers (i.e., raising prices) will do to sales.

It has already been proven that raising the price of fuel does nothing to cut consumption.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

No it only proves carbon pricing is a scam. Carbon is already priced in Canada. It is just called royalties, everything else is just taxes.



It has already been proven that raising the price of fuel does nothing to cut consumption.

Keep telling yourself that.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+3
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Keep telling yourself that.

He's not wrong. 30 years ago the Brits were paying around $5/gallon. Today they're paying more like $10/gallon. Hasn't cut the traffic down any.
25 years ago, gas was around 25-30 cents/liter in Canada(that's around $1-$1.20/ gallon). At one point in the last couple of years it hit around $5/gallon. Didn't see much reduction in traffic as a result. It's been proven time and time again too. People initially feel the pinch, then as time goes by they adjust to it and it's life as usual, again. To put it another way, the price of gasoline in Canada has increased by about 400% over 25 years and there's more cars and trucks than ever on the roads.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+3
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Keep telling yourself that.

All raising gas prices does is cut into the discretionary spending money people have for other things. They will still drive. Besides the real money in oil is the industrial products like plastic kayaks and cell phones all the YUPPIES need.
 
Nick Danger
-1
#41
But doesn't a carbon tax target major industrial producers of GHGs, producers with such thick bottom lines that the price at the pump means little?
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

You're slowly being poisoned by water fluoridation too, but I rarely see anyone get themselves worked up about it.
As for not seeing much difference between a leak and an explosion, well, here's the difference. If there's a leak and it gets into the groundwater, you have some choices, including moving or start buying bottle water in bulk. Yes I know, neither seem particularly appealing.
A several thousand ton bomb gives little warning if/when disaster strikes. It's a lot easier to move on if/when your water has been contaminated than it is when your home has been flattened and everything in it destroyed. Assuming you survive the disaster that is.

I'd rather go out in a flash than suffer a slow lingering death. Your choice on how to go is your own. Fluoridation? Do you assume my well is treated?
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+1
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by Nick Danger View Post

But doesn't a carbon tax target major industrial producers of GHGs, producers with such thick bottom lines that the price at the pump means little?

NOPE. BC's carbon scam hit school districts for their heating costs.

DOn't forget that almost everyone's pension plans are heavily invested in in those same companies.Including your government pension.
 
Nick Danger
#44
So basically it is a consumption tax, although scaled so that fuels producing higher amounts of GHGs pay a higher tax. So theoretically, in that aspect, users will be encouraged to switch to cleaner fuels and/or supplement their needs with alternative fuels. The downside is, if I read this right, that it will cost progressively more to produce GHGs as the tax and the price of the fuel rises. Isn't that the plan?
 
Walter
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Since when is carbon pollution?

Shut-up, shut-up, shut-up.
 
mentalfloss
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

All raising gas prices does is cut into the discretionary spending money people have for other things. They will still drive. Besides the real money in oil is the industrial products like plastic kayaks and cell phones all the YUPPIES need.

Yes the REAL money in oil lol

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

NOPE. BC's carbon scam hit school districts for their heating costs.

DOn't forget that almost everyone's pension plans are heavily invested in in those same companies.Including your government pension.

BC's carbon tax is massive success and that really ruffles the old stock feathers.
 
petros
+1
#47
Carbon eh? It's a success? Is that why I can't see Vancouver Island from my office through the brown skies after 2PM like I can in the morning?
 
EagleSmack
+1
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Carbon eh? It's a success? Is that why I can't see Vancouver Island from my office through the brown skies after 2PM like I can in the morning?


And it's why China is choking in a battleship gray smog and they are making more advances that any other country. Refreshing to see Floosy admitting it was all about hiking taxes on everyone and never about cooling the earth.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
-1
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

BC's carbon tax is massive success and that really ruffles the old stock feathers.

Define what it has been successful about this tax.

PS - Does the BC gvt collect the eco-taxes on BCers that travel to Washington State to tank-up?
 
mentalfloss
-1
#50
It's achieved the objective of reducing emissions.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#51
No it hasn't.

Traffic is just as crazy if not even busier than it was before in the biggest population centers
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

It's achieved the objective of reducing emissions.

It did achieve the reduction of cash available to school and hospital boards to fund their programs .
 
Nick Danger
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

PS - Does the BC gvt collect the eco-taxes on BCers that travel to Washington State to tank-up?

Nah, but they're more than happy to collect from US tourists bringing their bloated yankee bucks north. It all comes out in the wash.

Oddly enough, I have been asked at the Canadian border when returning from day-trips south if I filled my tank while in the US, but the answer is always "No" so it never goes past that point. I wonder if they'd want duty or taxes if I said "Yes"?
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+1
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by Nick Danger View Post

Nah, but they're more than happy to collect from US tourists bringing their bloated yankee bucks north. It all comes out in the wash.

Oddly enough, I have been asked at the Canadian border when returning from day-trips south if I filled my tank while in the US, but the answer is always "No" so it never goes past that point. I wonder if they'd want duty or taxes if I said "Yes"?

Odd that you or others would be consuming all that gas to go to some place without a carbon tax in order to fill up. An effective reduction strategy for carbon.
 
Nick Danger
-1
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

It did achieve the reduction of cash available to school and hospital boards to fund their programs .

It also serves to educate fossil fuel users that the cost of such goes beyond what you pay at the pump, or the truck, or the pipe, or where ever they buy it. This will become more and more of a lesson as the taxes rise.

Did taxes and education eradicate smoking cigarettes? No, but it sure as heck reduced the use by a huge amount. It's to the point now where an increase in consumption tax on tobacco doesn't even make the news. There's a parallel in there if you think about it.

I don't think anyone can deny the need for fossil fuels at this point, but it's also getting harder to deny that there is an environmental price to pay for continued use. I see carbon taxes as part of the educational long game here.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by Nick Danger View Post

It also serves to educate fossil fuel users that the cost of such goes beyond what you pay at the pump, or the truck, or the pipe, or where ever they buy it. This will become more and more of a lesson as the taxes rise.

Did taxes and education eradicate smoking cigarettes? No, but it sure as heck reduced the use by a huge amount. It's to the point now where an increase in consumption tax on tobacco doesn't even make the news. There's a parallel in there if you think about it.

I don't think anyone can deny the need for fossil fuels at this point, but it's also getting harder to deny that there is an environmental price to pay for continued use. I see carbon taxes as part of the educational long game here.

The only thing that will reduce the use of fossil fuels is a cost effective alternative .
We have not yet reached that stage . Lots of people are rushing out to purchase electric cars , this will eventually lower the cost making them more wide spread . It still will be along time before electric will be powering ocean going freighters or 747's for that matter even long haul trucks .

Yes a change away from fossil fuels will happen but not soon .
 
Walter
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

The only thing that will reduce the use of fossil fuels is a cost effective alternative .
We have not yet reached that stage . Lots of people are rushing out to purchase electric cars , this will eventually lower the cost making them more wide spread . It still will be along time before electric will be powering ocean going freighters or 747's for that matter even long haul trucks .

Yes a change away from fossil fuels will happen but not soon .

Most of the electricity is made using so-called fossil fuels.
 
mentalfloss
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

No it hasn't.

Traffic is just as crazy if not even busier than it was before in the biggest population centers

Stick to the Leo DiCaprio script.

That's what you're good at.
 
Nick Danger
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

Yes a change away from fossil fuels will happen but not soon .

It has already started, albeit at no breakneck speed. One of the major sources of GHG's is the transportation industry, and individual automobiles are a big part of that. Reduction in vehicle use, especially in major centers where public transit networks are more extensive is indicated through increased ridership numbers. The proliferation of cycling infrastructure shows that overall personal health statistics and reduced small vehicle use can go hand in hand.

It's still a politically sensitive issue that has a lot of elected officials acting cautiously, but overall public perception has reached the point where the majority of voters believe that the burning of fossil fuels presents a significant environmental threat and that action of some sort is needed. More and more, wantonly wasteful and unnecessary use of fossil fuels is taking on the social persona of public drunkeness or smoking in a car with children. This grassroots shift in the way we look at the issue is just a start.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+1
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by Nick Danger View Post

It also serves to educate fossil fuel users that the cost of such goes beyond what you pay at the pump, or the truck, or the pipe, or where ever they buy it. This will become more and more of a lesson as the taxes rise.

Did taxes and education eradicate smoking cigarettes? No, but it sure as heck reduced the use by a huge amount.

You're comparing an utterly useless product like cigarettes with a substance that virtually runs the global economy? Seriously?


Plan on attracting new manufacturing to Canada with the promise of nice, clean, unreliable, intermittent wind and solar power? Good luck with that.


Of course this all flies in the face of the fact that we're not reducing jack sh*t. All we're doing is transferring the "problem" (and our cash and jobs) to developing and third world countries that have SFA in the way of environmental laws.


Quote:

It also serves to educate

I believe you spelled "indoctrinate" wrong.