Alberta has plunged into a "depression", says Mullen Group CEO
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Is there a pre existing demand for fossil fuel at the personal level?
Is there a pre existing demand for renewable energy at the personal level?
Until the personal demand for fuel changes for personal demand for renewable energy. Your top bottom BS is dead in the water.
BC has already achieved its targets with a carbon tax.
That is the most left-based carbon pricing model.
It hasn't negatively affected the economy either.
That is the most left-based carbon pricing model.
It hasn't negatively affected the economy either.
Have people replaced fossil fuel cars with electric cars?
Have people replaced carbon based electricity with carbon neutral electricity?
They haven't don't **** until that happens.
All they have is a new revenu.
Carbon emissions aren't exclusively created by cars.
But to your point about electricity..
The Electricity System is Shifting to Renewable Energy
In 2015 a new record was set globally, with more investments in new renewable power than in new power from fossil fuels. US$367 billion was invested in total in renewable power globally. Further, 2015 was the first year when clean energy investment was higher in developing countries than in developed ones. In 2015, Africa and the Middle East invested $13.4 billion in renewables, which is up 54 percent over 2014. China, the United States, and Japan appear to lead the general trend. It appears that renewable energy technology costs continue to decline. The Report states that hydro continues to be the world’s leading renewable power resource (59%), followed by wind (22%) and solar (13%).
In late 2015 two Canadian provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan announced that they would increase their production of renewable power. In particular, in Alberta the new government in its Climate Leadership Plan (“Plan”), released on November 22, 2015, committed to focusing on renewables, specifically wind power. It aims to increase renewable sources to 30 per cent of the province’s electricity production by 2030. Under the Plan, coal-fired electricity generation will be phased-out. The Plan sets out a phased-in increase in renewable energy where two-thirds of the coal-generating capacity (4200 MW) will be replaced by renewable energy and one-third (2100 MW) by natural gas.
http://www.globalenergyblog.com/the...medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original
But to your point about electricity..
The Electricity System is Shifting to Renewable Energy
In 2015 a new record was set globally, with more investments in new renewable power than in new power from fossil fuels. US$367 billion was invested in total in renewable power globally. Further, 2015 was the first year when clean energy investment was higher in developing countries than in developed ones. In 2015, Africa and the Middle East invested $13.4 billion in renewables, which is up 54 percent over 2014. China, the United States, and Japan appear to lead the general trend. It appears that renewable energy technology costs continue to decline. The Report states that hydro continues to be the world’s leading renewable power resource (59%), followed by wind (22%) and solar (13%).
In late 2015 two Canadian provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan announced that they would increase their production of renewable power. In particular, in Alberta the new government in its Climate Leadership Plan (“Plan”), released on November 22, 2015, committed to focusing on renewables, specifically wind power. It aims to increase renewable sources to 30 per cent of the province’s electricity production by 2030. Under the Plan, coal-fired electricity generation will be phased-out. The Plan sets out a phased-in increase in renewable energy where two-thirds of the coal-generating capacity (4200 MW) will be replaced by renewable energy and one-third (2100 MW) by natural gas.
http://www.globalenergyblog.com/the...medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original
Until people adopt renewable on a personal level, like they consume carbon based product on a personal level. Your **** is dead in the water Floss.
BC already made their carbon reduction targets in 2014.
They are continuing to reduce emissions and keeping it revenue neutral.
These initiatives are happening whether you like it or not.
If the goal was to rob the citizens of more money through blatant lies the it is a success
The citizens voted in the government that put this carbon pricing model in place and are generally satisfied with it.
It's called Stockholm syndrome. Nice revisionism though....they barely won the election and I have yet to meet anyone who is satisfied with the leftist cash grab to promote the nanny state.
Nanny state and political correctness is just something the dumb curmudgeons say when they are met with successful counter arguments.
But anyway..
The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: It works - The Globe and Mail
I have no problem with that. It just won't replace fossil fuel until people personally make the decision to do so. And I haven't seen much personal will to do so. Other then Politically.
I've never once stated otherwise.
In fact I've repeated over and over that the jump start and acceleration of this process comes from government investment and is politically motivated.
Once it gets off the ground, by all means, let the private industry take over.
These are isolated events that you get fed by people who work in the fossil fuel industry (like cap'n morgan and petros).
The truth is that it's the other way around:
We Could Be Witnessing the Death of the Fossil Fuel Industry—Will It Take the Rest of the Economy Down With It? | Alternet
OMFG! You are such a moron. The article doesn't give any verifiable stats or traceable reduction in taxation in other areas. In fact, and if you were from BC you would know, the offsetting cuts were to increases made by the same govt. In other words they raised taxes then reduced them to offset another increase. It is smoke and mirrors. As for the BC economy well it has a small boost from the North (oil and gas production...go figure) and managed to maintain a lesser degree of collapse from 2008-2010 due to spending on Olympic projects (which the citizens will pay for about another 75 years) and is still a desireable place for the Chinese to migrate creating steady population growth. But hey...like all blind idiots don't ever let facts get in the way of rhetoric and lies....you still haven't had a response to the scientifically proven fact the earth is cooling, not warming, and I don't expect one soon as it would mean admitting to the big lie and farce of AGW.
It's not smoke and mirrors at all.
They take carbon tax revenue and use it as an incentive for companies that reduce emissions. Any excess revenue goes toward reducing income tax and corporate taxes.
They take carbon tax revenue and use it as an incentive for companies that reduce emissions. Any excess revenue goes toward reducing income tax and corporate taxes.
So you say they tax the individual to pay incentives to corporations....that's gonna get you a lot of friends...lol
Now listen closely...I'll type slow to help you. First they raised taxes across the board then they reduced credits to individuals resulting in a net tax increase to the average family of 8%. Then they introduce a carbon tax and declare it revenue neutral by reducing the recent tax increases by 4%. In the end the citizen is shafted for 4% more in general taxes plus the new carbon tax on top. Get it yet? Smoke and f*cking mirrors young man.
In simpler terms you might understand. You have 10 apples, I used to take 6 but now I take 8 from you, then I give you 1 back and tell you how magnanimous I am because you now have 1 more apple than before, you eat it up like that Mentalfloss guy and start telling everyone how great I am and how the system is working because you are better off than before when in truth you used to be left with 4 apples and now you get 3. Once again I know simple concepts like this are hard for you but hope this made it clearer.
No one was expecting to make their money back on the taxes.
That's not what revenue neutral means.
That's not what revenue neutral means.