The Mask Gets Ripped Off Yet Another Carbon Tax Lie


captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+4
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

You dumas, you sound just like Donald Trump. Trucks move building supplies and tools. That hybrid car of yours should be in the carpool lane but you won't let anyone sit in it.

The tards will never understand that gas/diesel for a personal vehicle are not the only uses of hydrocarbons.

Groceries on the store shelves, electronics and everyday goods all depend on truck and rail to get into the hands of the consumer... Hell, these same savants can't put together their use of nat gas for heating or power generation
 
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
taxslave
Free Thinker
+2
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Yeah I think of your point every time a see a single occupant of a monster pickup. As I said, if you want to burn fossil fuels then pay for the privilege.

Sounds like you got a really bad case of penis envy.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

The tards will never understand that gas/diesel for a personal vehicle are not the only uses of hydrocarbons.

Groceries on the store shelves, electronics and everyday goods all depend on truck and rail to get into the hands of the consumer... Hell, these same savants can't put together their use of nat gas for heating or power generation

We are not allowed to have natural gas. If we did there would be no one to tax. So we burn wood which is the one truly sustainable fuel.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

We are not allowed to have natural gas. If we did there would be no one to tax. So we burn wood which is the one truly sustainable fuel.

You guys in BC are so lucky that you have access to that non-carbon based wood that doesn't emit any GHGs
 
petros
#34
They have banned wood fireplaces and stoves in new construction.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#35
Even with that non-carbon based wood that doesn't emit any GHGs?
 
Highball
#36
Two University of California , San Francisco junk scientists after being exposed for using plagerized and unsupported data dealing with this question.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+3
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Yeah I think of your point every time a see a single occupant of a monster pickup. As I said, if you want to burn fossil fuels then pay for the privilege.

Ummm.....FVCK YOU!!!

Who are you or anyone else to decide what my privileges are? Why does every leftard think they have some right to dictate how other people live? Mind your own damn business!
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

You are jealous of people who drive trucks. There are a lot of your type.

Did you know my big ol', badass truck is more fuel efficient than flossy's 2007 Honda Civic?

I had no idea you and he lived so close together you could compare the fuel efficiency of your respective vehicles. And I just wonder how your truck compares in fuel efficiency with other automobiles of the same year.

Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

You dumas, you sound just like Donald Trump. Trucks move building supplies and tools. That hybrid car of yours should be in the carpool lane but you won't let anyone sit in it.


Dumbass? I think that word reflects you far better than me. I'm betting you didn't understand my post. I said nothing about transport trucks. And what hybrid? And what carpool lane? You really have a reading problem putting all that unstated info into my posts.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Sounds like you got a really bad case of penis envy.

I certainly would not have to worry about that in your case.

Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNick View Post

Ummm.....FVCK YOU!!!

Who are you or anyone else to decide what my privileges are? Why does every leftard think they have some right to dictate how other people live? Mind your own damn business!

Somehow I don't think you can control anything I say. However, I am certainly happy that it seems to have spoiled your day.
 
EagleSmack
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

I love how some people continue to eat the bullsh!t sandwiches the government serves up.

Privilege? Wow. People already do pay for the (rolling eyes) privilege. It's called purchasing the fuel.

Basically, you're saying it's okay that they lied, just because it feeds your warped view that fuel is evil..

You'd think environmentalists would be rabid that the revenue neutral carbon tax is not going toward new clean energy endeavors. But then being an environmentalist isn't really about making the planet a cleaner better place. It's about being a part of an exclusive club of bullsh!t artists. And it's probably a cool way to meet chicks.

That sums it up nicely.
 
Decapoda
+3
#40
We're finally told what Trudeau's carbon tax will cost us. Are you sitting down?

Far from being painless as advertised, the costs to households will be significant.

Three provinces — Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia — will be hit with more than $1,000 of carbon tax per year to comply with the $50-per-tonne carbon tax Ottawa has mandated for 2022. Nova Scotia ($1,120) and Alberta ($1,111) will have the highest bills, followed by Saskatchewan ($1,032), New Brunswick ($963), Newfoundland ($859) and Prince Edward Island ($788 ). The average household in Ontario will pay $707 a year to comply with the carbon tax once its fully implemented.

Who gets the lowest bill? British Columbia ($603 per year), Quebec ($662) and Manitoba ($683). Simply put, households in provinces with the lowest bills will pay just a bit more than half compared to households in the hardest-hit provinces.

But it gets worse, since most experts say carbon prices must continue to increase sharply to effectively lower emissions. At $100 a tonne, for example, households in Alberta will pony up $2,223, in Saskatchewan they’ll pay $2,065 and in Nova Scotia, $2,240. In fact, at $100 a tonne, the average price for households in all provinces is well north of $1,000 per year.

Already across Canada, particularly in the Maritimes, a significant number of households fit the definition of “energy poverty” — that is, 10 per cent or more of household expenditures are spent simply procuring the energy needed to live (to power the home and transportation). In 2016, the Fraser Institute measured energy poverty in Canada and found that when you add up the costs to power the home and cars, 19.4 per cent of Canadian households devoted at least 10 per cent or more of their expenditures to energy.

--
Revenue neutral, eh?? Nope, just another tax grab.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#41
Now we can start seeing the budget balancing itself lol
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+2
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by Decapoda View Post

We're finally told what Trudeau's carbon tax will cost us. Are you sitting down?

Far from being painless as advertised, the costs to households will be significant.

Three provinces — Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia — will be hit with more than $1,000 of carbon tax per year to comply with the $50-per-tonne carbon tax Ottawa has mandated for 2022. Nova Scotia ($1,120) and Alberta ($1,111) will have the highest bills, followed by Saskatchewan ($1,032), New Brunswick ($963), Newfoundland ($859) and Prince Edward Island ($788 ). The average household in Ontario will pay $707 a year to comply with the carbon tax once its fully implemented.

Who gets the lowest bill? British Columbia ($603 per year), Quebec ($662) and Manitoba ($683). Simply put, households in provinces with the lowest bills will pay just a bit more than half compared to households in the hardest-hit provinces.

But it gets worse, since most experts say carbon prices must continue to increase sharply to effectively lower emissions. At $100 a tonne, for example, households in Alberta will pony up $2,223, in Saskatchewan they’ll pay $2,065 and in Nova Scotia, $2,240. In fact, at $100 a tonne, the average price for households in all provinces is well north of $1,000 per year.

Already across Canada, particularly in the Maritimes, a significant number of households fit the definition of “energy poverty” — that is, 10 per cent or more of household expenditures are spent simply procuring the energy needed to live (to power the home and transportation). In 2016, the Fraser Institute measured energy poverty in Canada and found that when you add up the costs to power the home and cars, 19.4 per cent of Canadian households devoted at least 10 per cent or more of their expenditures to energy.

--
Revenue neutral, eh?? Nope, just another tax grab.

Did anyone ever think anything different?
 
petros
+2
#43
If they doubled GST to 10% instead of a carbon tax every sector of society would have screamed bloody murder but GST can't save the planet the way a carbon tax can because it's a super tax with unearthly powers.
 
White_Unifier
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

But, Colpy, it really is revenue neutral. There will be just as much money in Canada after as before.

Just more of it'll be in the government's hands.

Yay.

With that kind of pretzel logic, you should run for office. I might not vote for that kind of logic; but given my track record of voting for the loser each time, that I wouldn't vote for that logic might increase your chances of winning.

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

If they doubled GST to 10% instead of a carbon tax every sector of society would have screamed bloody murder but GST can't save the planet the way a carbon tax can because it's a super tax with unearthly powers.

Why not lower the GST to compensate?
 
EagleSmack
+2
#45
Yet another lie! When are the Climate Nazies going to stop!
 
petros
+1
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

With that kind of pretzel logic, you should run for office. I might not vote for that kind of logic; but given my track record of voting for the loser each time, that I wouldn't vote for that logic might increase your chances of winning.



Why not lower the GST to compensate?

Then the planet will die.

Keep up please.
 
Decapoda
+2
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

Did anyone ever think anything different?

Ralph Goodale does....in fact he's actually been trying to convince people that it's actually a way to cut taxes and promote pipeline construction. Only a Liberal could be so hopelessly obtuse.

Ralph Goodale - A way to cut taxes on income, farm land and small business, while boosting a case for a pipeline.
 
petros
+1
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Yet another lie! When are the Climate Nazies going to stop!

Hansen is Hitler.
 
EagleSmack
#49
We're finally told what the carbon tax will cost us. Are you sitting down?

Households in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia will be hit with more than $1,000 of carbon tax per year, while those in British Columbia, Quebec and Manitoba will pay around $650


http://business.financialpost.com/op...on-bill-canada


Yowza!
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

Did anyone ever think anything different?

I did. I was sure this would end third world poverty, find a cure for stupidity and fix globull warming.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#51
First ministers meeting expected to be tense

Quote:

OTTAWA - Wrangling over the agenda doesn't bode well for Friday's first ministers' meeting, which is shaping up as one of the most fractious gatherings of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial leaders in decades.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is bracing for a barrage of criticism from premiers upset about the federal approach to pipelines, carbon taxation, environmental assessments, GM's Oshawa plant closure in Ontario and the oil price crisis — none of which are specifically on the agenda.
Meanwhile, federal officials privately concede little headway is likely to be made on the official objective of the Montreal meeting: reducing interprovincial trade barriers.
Indeed, the feds are fully expecting the most openly hostile premier — Ontario's Doug Ford — will do his best to derail the meeting altogether, including potentially storming out of the gathering or possibly even boycotting it outright. Trudeau is scheduled to hold a 30-minute bilateral meeting with Ford on Thursday afternoon.
Federal suspicions have been stoked by what insiders say are the hardball games Ford and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe are playing on the agenda, demanding that it be expanded in writing to include the oil price crisis and the planned federal tax on carbon pollution.
According to sources familiar with the dispute, who were not authorized to speak publicly, the pair have not been satisfied by the federal response that the agenda already includes a discussion on economic competitiveness — a broad topic that Ottawa says will allow premiers to raise all the issues they please.
Moe confirmed in an interview Wednesday that there is "some frustration, myself included, with the agenda provided by the prime minister," which includes having several federal ministers address the premiers on their initiatives.
He said he intends to raise the oil price crisis, the carbon tax, pipelines and repeal of Bill C-69, which re-writes the rules for environmental assessments of energy projects.
"We'd like it in writing, confirm that we're going to discuss those items. But rest assured that the premier of the province of Saskatchewan will bring those items to the floor (regardless)," Moe said, adding that he doesn't intend to leave the meeting early.
Even the guest list for a pre-meeting dinner hosted by Trudeau on Thursday evening has become a matter of dispute. The feds proposed that it be a private affair for first ministers only, with a single notetaker present. The premiers demanded that each be allowed to bring one official.
This will be the fourth first ministers' meeting Trudeau has hosted since becoming prime minister in 2015. And it's certain to be the most acrimonious.
Since first ministers' last met, the prime minister has lost several of his most reliable provincial Liberal allies — Ontario's Kathleen Wynne, Quebec's Philippe Couillard and New Brunswick's Brian Gallant.
He now faces a phalanx of conservative premiers, four of whom — Ford, Moe, Manitoba's Brian Pallister and New Brunswick's Blaine Higgs — have joined in court challenges to the federal carbon pricing plan and one of whom — Ford — has routinely engaged in conflicts with the federal Liberals in general.
Alberta's NDP Premier Rachel Notley was initially an ally for Trudeau, supporting him on carbon pricing. But she parted company last summer over the failure to get the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project off the ground and is now crusading for federal help to ease the discount price Alberta is obliged to accept for its oil because it can't get it to tidewater for shipment overseas.
She and Moe sent Trudeau a letter this week, asking that the agenda for the first ministers' meeting be revised to include the oil price crisis, which they argued is costing the country $80 million per day.
And Notley disparaged the federal government's preferred focus on interprovincial trade barriers.
"We tend to have conversations about minor internal trade issues and then when it's my opportunity to talk, I say, 'Well, there's one big internal trade issue that we have about getting our product from one province to another and to other markets and it's actually worth 100 times the value of these other issues,'" she said Tuesday.
Trudeau said Wednesday that he looks forward to "talking about anything the premiers want to talk about."
"I'm looking forward to a broad range of discussions on whatever it is they have as priorities," he said on his way into the House of Commons. "Including oil, of course. Natural resources are an essential part of our economy. We're going to be talking about that as well."
Notley, Moe and a number of other premiers, including Newfoundland and Labrador's Dwight Ball and Nova Scotia's Stephen McNeil, also want to talk about Bill C-69, federal legislation that is currently stalled in the Senate and which would set more stringent rules for environmental assessments of energy projects. Critics maintain it will create more red tape and delays in project approvals that will scare off potential investors.
"We are looking for clarity around Bill C-69," Ball said in an interview, adding that it's creating uncertainty in his province's offshore oil and mining industries.
"We know that the regulatory regime can be an impediment in attracting investment."
In a similar vein, Biggs said he wants to talk about reviving the defunct Energy East pipeline proposal, which TransCanada abandoned last year, citing regulatory hurdles and changed circumstances.
Quebec Premier Francois Legault, meanwhile, said he wants to talk about continuing U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum and compensation for dairy farmers hurt by the new NAFTA. In a statement Wednesday, he also said he intends to raise Quebec's demand for federal compensation to cover the cost of the influx of irregular asylum seekers and press Ottawa on the "excessive and ever longer" time taken to address Quebec's files.
Manitoba's Pallister is among the few premiers who appear to actually want to make progress on knocking down interprovincial trade barriers — barriers he said amount to imposing a seven per cent tariff on goods that cross provincial borders.
"I think it's time to strike on that," he said Wednesday.
That said, Pallister too said the meeting needs to be narrowly focused on a few key economic issues, including the oil price crisis.
First ministers are to meet for two hours with Indigenous leaders Friday morning before holing up behind closed doors for some six hours with Trudeau.

 
Hoid
#52
please save us government.
 

Similar Threads

3
NEWS Consumers getting ripped off
by Karlin | Oct 26th, 2005