Momentum is growing against the Trudeau carbon tax.


petros
+4
#1
This morning a poll was released from Angus Ried which shows how 88% of Saskatchewan Residents and 72% of all Canadians support the decision to challenge the Trudeau Carbon Tax in court.

July 26, 2018 – In the emerging federal-provincial battle over carbon pricing – Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, and Ontario Premier Doug Ford appear to be galvanizing public opinion over which level of government should be the ultimate arbiter of the kind of plan should be in place from province to province.

While a federal carbon pricing plan is poised to come into effect next January and be applied to provinces that are not deemed by the Trudeau government to have a sufficient plan in place, two-in-three Canadians (64%) say it should be individual provinces, not Ottawa, that determine the appropriate path to reduce carbon emissions. The rest, (36%) say the federal government should have the power to implement its own plan if necessary.

The specific decisions made by Moe and Ford are perceived differently, however.

Seven-in-ten Canadians (72%), including nearly 88 per cent of those in Saskatchewan say Moe is right to challenge the Trudeau plan in court, arguing that his province has its own plan in place. By contrast, half of Canadians (51%), and about the same number in Ontario (55%) say that Ford’s recent decision to end Ontario’s cap and trade program was the right one.



Four-in-five past Conservative voters (82%) say the provinces should maintain jurisdictional control of carbon pricing. Past Liberal and NDP voters are divided: half among each take each side
Support for the federal carbon tax sits at 45 per cent. This is relatively unchanged from last year (44%) but represents a significant drop from 56 per cent support for the idea in 2015
Just over half of Canadians (56%) say global warming is real, and primarily caused by human industrial activity. One-in-five (20%) say it is real but caused by natural processes. The rest are split between uncertainty (11%) or outright disagreement (14%)

Most say provinces should have jurisdiction on carbon pricing

The conversation around carbon pricing in Canada has taken on a renewed level of urgency and conflict ahead of Ottawa’s September 1st deadline for the provinces to submit carbon pricing proposals. British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec already have carbon pricing plans announced or in place, while the four Atlantic provinces have all stated their intention to release plans before the deadline.

In Saskatchewan, Premier Scott Moe – whose government recently launched a reference case in the to clarify the federal government’s jurisdiction on this issue – got a new ally June 29th, when Doug Ford was sworn in as Premier of Ontario. Ford immediately announced he would scrap his own province’s climate plan and end its participation in a cooperative cap and trade program with Quebec and California. Moe has suggested that his province has its own plan that does not necessitate carbon pricing, while Ford has not announced details of any carbon pricing going forward.

For most Canadians, the power to decide what should be done in each province should reside in the provincial governments hands. In every region of the country, more say they prefer provincial to federal authority on this issue:

Premier Moe has significant support from his province on this issue, with more than four-in-five (82%) saying the provinces should hold the power. In Alberta, where 2019 election favourite Jason Kenney could join the anti-carbon pricing club, seven-in-ten (71%) agree with this line of thinking.

Perhaps troubling for the federal Liberals, nearly half of their own past voters (48%) say the federal government should take a back seat on this issue:

While the Saskatchewan Party “acknowledges the science-based reality of climate change” it has also stated that “a one-size-fits-all carbon tax fails to recognize the diverse nature of our great Canadian economy.” As such, the province would like to avoid being compelled to participate.

Lots more with official interactive graphs.

Carbon conflict: two-thirds of Canadians say provinces should have the final say on pricing - Angus Reid Institute
 
Walter
+2
#2
A losing issue for Turdoh, especially when Kenney becomes premier of AB next spring.
 
petros
+2
#3
Moe has got this.
 
Hoid
#4
How much worse could Trudeau have beaten Harper?

It was a total wipe out.
 
petros
#5
Snap out of it.
 
pgs
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

How much worse could Trudeau have beaten Harper?

It was a total wipe out.

Really WIPE OUT ?
 
petros
#7
88 out 100. A concensus.
 
MHz
-1
#8
Considering the collected money is given back to the residents as 'credits' I highly doubt only 12% of the residents would be getting rebates. If it is 12% then the 88% are taking money out of the pockets of the poor in the Province.

About as immoral as the rich always are, if it doesn't go into their pockets only it is a bad move.
 
petros
+2
#9
Why would anyone get a rebate for a nonexistent tax?
 
MHz
#10
Why are a million (or so) Albertians getting a deposit every 3 months?
 
Twin_Moose
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

Why are a million (or so) Albertians getting a deposit every 3 months?

What are the percentage received compared to what was paid into the tax?
 
MHz
#12
Can't do your own research?
 
Mowich
+2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Moe has got this.

I was reading about the poll in another article this morning, pete.......did my happy dance, I did. I will always credit Brad Wall for his initial and lone stance against this vainglorious attempt to foist yet another loathsome and totally unnecessary tax on the provinces and us very weary taxpayers.
 
petros
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

Why are a million (or so) Albertians getting a deposit every 3 months?

Their expenses went up loaning a Govt money and getting back less than spent isn't getting a bonus.
 
Twin_Moose
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

Can't do your own research?

I'm not paying anything in nor receiving your pity pay so I was asking out of curiosity to your claim
 
MHz
#16
I didn't click on the link as I was looking for data on a different Province.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#17
Momentum is growing against Trudeau.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#18
Trudeau’s carbon tax backfires on the Liberals


http://torontosun.com/opinion/column...n-the-liberals


Yikes!
 
petros
+5
#19  Top Rated Post
But but it's not a tax grab. It goes to save polar bears and orca.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

But but it's not a tax grab. It goes to save polar bears and orca.


I heard a Polar Bear died up in the Arctic. They had a picture and everything! Everyone knows that Polar Bears live forever and never get sick and die.


Libs...


*snicker*
 
Twin_Moose
+1
#21
Liberals are looking at trying to buy off voters

$2B federal fund for water infrastructure announced in Regina Tuesday

Quote:

Climate change has an undeniable effect on Saskatchewan and water management is essential to adapting to warmer temperatures across the globe, according to civil engineer Wayne Clifton.
Clifton said the frequency of rain and water runoff is also much more variable and requires human intervention. He added that 95 per cent of the water flowing through Sask. is not benefiting the province.
"Adaptation to our changing world will require management systems to contribute water for the environment, water for the communities, water for the economy," Clifton said on Tuesday.
Clifton spoke as Federal Safety Minister Ralph Goodale announced the Canadian government's plan for carbon pricing in Regina.
Goodale also announced $2 billion dollars in federal funding for water infrastructure, which he said is a huge opportunity for Saskatchewan to transform and diversify its infrastructure.
The fund will "help build major transformative infrastructure projects to advance flood proofing, drought proofing and water-based economic development," Goodale said.

Justin Trudeau Denies Trolling Doug Ford With Carbon Tax Event On Premier's Turf

Quote:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took to the heart of Ford Nation to explain how money raised through a carbon tax will go directly back to Canadians in provinces that are fighting his climate plan.
Trudeau held the press conference Tuesday at Humber College in Doug Ford's home turf of Etobicoke — but denied that his choice of scenery had anything to do with the Ontario premier.
"I don't see provincial premiers as opponents, I see them as partners," Trudeau said when a reporter asked if Ford — whose rumoured national ambitions are already sparking chatter — is now his biggest political adversary.
"This has been [Science Minister] Kirsty Duncan's riding since we both got elected together way back when in 2008. And this is an issue that is both perfectly suited to Humber College with its leadership on environmental issues and perfectly suited to Kirsty as our minister of science," the prime minister said.
Ford moved to scrap Ontario's cap-and-trade system, which would have exempted the province from a federally-imposed carbon tax, just four days after taking office.
Trudeau said Tuesday that Ontario — as well as Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick — will now get a national carbon tax plan. Ford has promised to take the federal government to court.
"We will not take this lightly," the premier said in a statement Tuesday. "We will take this fight all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary."
Ford said the scheme, which he regularly calls "the worst tax ever," won't do anything to help the environment.
Trudeau was asked to respond to that argument at the press conference in Etobicoke.
"We know, and it's basic economics, that if you start putting a price on something you don't want, people will look at ways of not having to pay that price," Trudeau said. "But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the Nobel Prize in economics winner."
In early October, Nobel Prize winner Paul Romer said a carbon tax is a simple way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
"People will see that there's a big profit to be made from figuring out ways to supply energy where they can do it without incurring the tax," Romer told CBC's As It Happens. "The problem is not knowing what to do. The problem is getting a consensus to act."

Trudeau gambles Canadians will take the long view on climate: Don Pittis

Quote:

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau threw down the gauntlet with his national carbon plan in Ontario Premier Doug Ford's riding yesterday, the word "tax" did not pass his lips.
With talk of "incentives" and euphemisms such as "a regulatory charge on fuel" Trudeau began what is widely seen as a plan to make fighting climate change a key issue in fighting the next federal election.
But whatever it's called, the Liberals could face an uphill battle against the economic and political forces of short-termism that behavioural economists say guide the decisions of most Canadians.
© Mark Blinch/Reuters Carbon tax opponents like Ontario Premier Doug Ford have warned that carbon taxes will raise the price of gas and will cost families an extra $260 dollars a year.
When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau threw down the gauntlet with his national carbon plan in Ontario Premier Doug Ford's riding yesterday, the word "tax" did not pass his lips.
With talk of "incentives" and euphemisms such as "a regulatory charge on fuel" Trudeau began what is widely seen as a plan to make fighting climate change a key issue in fighting the next federal election.
But whatever it's called, the Liberals could face an uphill battle against the economic and political forces of short-termism that behavioural economists say guide the decisions of most Canadians.


Don't say tar — or tax
As someone old enough, and nerdy enough, to have used the term "tarsands" before it picked up its negative baggage and been forced to change, I fear I may soon find myself in the same position on carbon taxes.
But for many of us who have been steeped in resource economics for decades, in pollution pricing, "tax" is not a bad word. To most economic thinkers, carbon taxes forces us to take account of something that will come back and bite us in the end.
Just a few years ago, before the recent conservative backlash against carbon pricing, the carbon tax was celebrated by politicians who understood it as a clever economic tool that would smoothly and painlessly aid in the transformation to a low-carbon economy.
But as Ford and other conservative-leaning premiers weigh in against carbon taxes — just as President Donald Trump has done south of the border — it is not at all clear that putting a price on carbon will be an easy political win.
In trying to convince Canadians to think decades into the future, and accept short-term pain for long-term gain, Trudeau's Liberals will come up against the twin obstacles of behavioural economics and the principal of laissez-faire, both of which stand in opposition to planning for the very long term.

'I'll be dead soon'

"It is known from behavioural economics research that people are often driven by short-term gratification — that is, people tend to choose the immediate, albeit smaller reward," says a scientific article on the psychology of economic decision-making.
In behavioural economics, based on experiments that show we fail to follow the "rules" of standard economics, it's hard to trace the evolutionary logic that has led us to accept a small reward now rather than a larger reward later.
Perhaps it is because when humans were evolving the complex set of internal rules that now govern our impulses, people who waited too long died before getting their reward.
"Climate change? That's a you problem," says a woman addressing potential voters in a humorous video that tries to convince young Americans to take voting seriously, "I'll be dead soon."
Those who think climate change is fake news are welcome to add their comments below. But if you trust the view of the vast majority of scientists who insist that climate change will eventually bring economic ruin to vast swaths of humanity, then an Ontario government news release promising the financial benefits of doing nothing certainly proves the behaviourialists' point.
"Eliminating carbon taxes will save the average family $260 per year and help reduce gas prices by 10 cents per litre," says the release
The fact is, humans, as well as wanting our rewards now, are in general very poor at planning for future crises. While almost everyone would certainly escape from the path of a flooding river, people commonly build in low areas known to flood every few decades despite the inevitable future cost.
Most people fail to save for retirement unless forced, even when the alternative is an old age of misery. Even on a shorter time scale, people commonly refuse to evacuate homes in front of a hurricane, having to be rescued after the fact.

Have it all now
But in their latest campaign, the Trudeau Liberals appear to have enlisted the help of their own behavioural economists.
"We will send a climate change action incentive directly to Canadians to help them adjust to an economy in which pollution is no longer free," said Trudeau yesterday.
Short-term thinkers afraid of losing Ford's $260 will get a cheque for $307 to cover the cost of the carbon tax in advance, rising to $718 by 2022. The long-term benefits of saving the planet from destruction are tossed in for free.
While such a strategy could bring some voters onside, business groups opposed to the carbon tax may be harder to convince.
The principle of laissez-faire — the free-market idea that business does best without government interference — has proved itself to be a winner in the past. Of course, that argument is ignored when the government interference involves things like bailing out a pipeline with taxpayer cash.
But if the voters can be convinced, economists insist that businesses, by necessity, will learn how to be just as successful within the new carbon tax regime. Oops — I mean carbon pricing system.

I think this article just called Canadians Idiots
 
OpposingDigit
#22
If we are unable to solve or repair the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant Disaster in Japan since March 2011, and with tons and tons of extremely radioactive leakage into the Pacific Ocean each and every day ..... with radiated water vapor rising into the sky and then condensing into rain ...... why are we talking about climate change?

In addition; I have no confidence with any carbon reduction plan whch does not involve or include the military. One military excursion overseas is more than enough to lose whatever gains made against increasing carbon output here in Canada.
 
Twin_Moose
+1
#23
Here we go it's starting already I thought the Carbon tax will all be returned to the provinces and be neutral, before implementation 10% is being withheld

Carbon rebates called a ‘vote-buying scheme’ by Sask. Premier Scott Moe

Quote:

The federal government’s promise to families of rebate on the carbon tax is being called a vote-buying scheme by Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Tuesday
Ottawa will return 90 per cent of money received from a carbon tax back to Canadians as he imposed a carbon price on Saskatchewan starting in April 2019.
Moe said this is purely a political decision.
“We see it as a cynical vote-buying scheme using your money to buy your vote,” Moe said.
Under Trudeau’s plan, a family of four in the province will receive a $609 Climate Action Incentive payment in 2019 as he imposed a carbon price on Saskatchewan for not signing on to a carbon tax plan.
The amount would rise to $1,459 by 2022.
A single adult would receive $305, with $152 for a second adult in a couple, which would also be the amount for a first child in a single-parent household.
Each family would receive $76 for each child, or a second child in the case of a single-parent household.
Trudeau said his new carbon tax rebate system puts a price on pollution without breaking the bank for families.
Moe urged Trudeau not to impose the carbon tax, starting at $20 a tonne in 2019 and rising $10 each year until it hits $50 a tonne in 2022, until the province’s court case had been decided.
Saskatchewan has launched a constitutional challenge against the federally imposed carbon tax. It is not expected to be heard by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal until spring 2019.
Ottawa announced two years ago it would require every province to have a price on emissions and that it would impose one on those who refused.
Gas is estimated to go up 4.42 cents a litre in 2019 in Saskatchewan, with natural gas expected to increase by 3.91 cents per cubic metre.
Gas and diesel used for farm trucks and machinery will be exempt from fuel charges associated with the carbon tax.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) is slamming the carbon tax, saying it will increase costs for consumers without helping the environment.
“A carbon tax will leave Saskatchewanians with less money and make it harder to find jobs, but it won’t help the environment,” Todd MacKay, the CTF’s Prairie director, said in a statement.
“It’s infuriating that Trudeau thinks that he can buy support from Saskatchewanians with tax rebates paid for by their neighbours.”

READ MORE: Sask. expects to hear carbon tax court ruling in 2019

The government of Canada said the federal ‘backstop’ carbon pollution pricing system, which will be implemented in Saskatchewan along with Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick in 2019, will incur additional costs as a result of pricing carbon pollution.
However, various sectors around the country will receive added support, helping them to keep energy costs down.
Universities, colleges, hospitals, schools, municipalities, non-profit organization and Indigenous communities will receive an estimated $150 million by 2023-24: $15 million in 2019-20, $25 million in 2020-21, $30 million in 2021-22, $40 million 2022-23, and 2023-24.
The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (GGPPA), implemented on June 21, 2018 that established a country-wide standard for reducing carbon pollution, will provide relief for farmers in everything from fuel charge for fuels used in tractors, trucks and other farm equipment.

The GGPPA indicates a registered distributor can deliver, without the fuel charge applying, gas or light fuel oil to a farmer at a farm as long as the fuel is used only in the operation of eligible farming equipment.
The relief is provided upfront, with the use of exemption certificates, as long as the conditions are met.
Farmers do not have to be registered to receive this relief.
The new federal carbon pollution pricing system is made up of two components – a charge on fossil fuels, and an output-based pricing system (OBPS) for emission-intense industrial facilities.

Proceeds from OBPS in Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Ontario, will be given back to the province it came from. The Canadian government will decide how to return the proceeds.
Saskatchewan has launched a constitutional challenge against the federally imposed carbon tax. It is not expected to be heard by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal until spring 2019.

 
Hoid
#24
Where are you getting this info on nuclear leakage in Japan? That would show up on weather radar and it does not.
 
petros
+1
#25
Show up on radar? What the f-ck are you smoking?
 
petros
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Liberals are looking at trying to buy off voters
$2B federal fund for water infrastructure announced in Regina Tuesday
Justin Trudeau Denies Trolling Doug Ford With Carbon Tax Event On Premier's Turf
Trudeau gambles Canadians will take the long view on climate: Don Pittis
I think this article just called Canadians Idiots

It did. So when are we damming the North and South Saskatchewan Rivers again?
 
OpposingDigit
#27
Hi! Hoid

I have followed the Japan nuclear accident extremely closely since it happened. I became sort of obsessed with nuclear energy and accidents around the globe because of the health implications and that I live next door to a nuclear power plant. Fukushima-Daiichi’s three reactor meltdowns may have emitted two to four times as much cesium-137 as the reactor catastrophe at Chernobyl.

I believe that the complete island of Japan has been contaminated. I believe that the reason that the U.S. is now talking about raising the limits of what is considered to be safe radiation is because of this accident in Japan. Last July, it was reported that radioactive levels are increasing in wine from California's Napa Valley,

Japanese news media are being discouraged to write or report. Contamination of soil, vegetation and water is so widespread in Japan that evacuating all the at-risk populations could collapse the economy.
Last edited by OpposingDigit; Oct 24th, 2018 at 10:28 AM..
 
MHz
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

It did. So when are we damming the North and South Saskatchewan Rivers again?

To ship water south? Their snow melt has been increasing every years has it not? Like the Canadian rivers going north there are lots of lakes left behind when the spring floods are done, for the area it makes the land more productive. The floods in the US should be diverted to the SW before water from Canada is needed and then it should come from the Great Lakes and Canada increases the inflow into the lakes.
 
petros
#29
How would you divert a flood?
 
Twin_Moose
#30
Illegal drainage of course Lol