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

[petros]

No it wasn't and my butt is just fine.

 

[mentalfloss]

I never knew you'd take it up there so hard.

Poor guy.

 

[petros]

Hey ankle grabber, is that the best you've got?

 

[mentalfloss]

I'm feeling good.

 

[petros]

Why? Ignorance is bliss?

Paul Martin’s Liberal government proposed the Pacific Gateway Act (Bill C-68) in 2005 and Stephen Harper’s Conservative government modified it in 2006 as the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative. The proposed investment was $591 million in infrastructure and upgrades. In 2007, the federal government increased its investment to $1 billion and committed $2.1 billion to a national fund for infrastructure and border crossings.

In January 2006, the British Columbia government launched its own $3-billion Gateway Program for major infrastructure projects, and produced studies on enhancing the strategy and infrastructure related to the gateway. These efforts complement the establishment of the Asia Pacific Trade Council, which provides advice to the premier on capturing opportunities in the Asia Pacific region.

Considerations of the APGCI

While the APGCI will mean billions of dollars in trade and employment, it also represents a 300% increase in container shipping and a 25% increase in bulk cargo shipments at the Port of Vancouver by 2020. All of those extra goods arriving in Vancouver will have to be shipped on to their destinations. The initiative will triple the number of trucks on highways, and require an extensive expansion of the roads, bridges, rail lines and port facilities that support it. It also represents huge increases in air transportation for the movement of people and goods.

The infrastructure required to establish and operate the trade gateway means an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The expansion of a transportation system will always push the boundaries of surrounding urban and human-made environments, which aggravates environmental conditions. The need to establish sustainable development strategies may be the most important issue facing the establishment of transport systems.

Environmental Considerations of Trade with Asia

Along with the obvious implications of delivering a greater volume of goods to market, it is important to look beyond our own borders to investigate the broader implications of a Canadian initiative. Canada’s major partner in the APGCI Gateway is China, with its questionable environmental record. China burns coal to produce 70% of its electricity, with demand growing at the same rate as its economy. With coal reserves available for 100 years, in 2005 China began opening a coal-fired power plant every week, all spewing toxic soot, sulphur and CO2, and used more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined, making it the largest emitter of gases on the planet.

The Chinese government was reluctant to invest in plants with expensive advanced technology, but in 2007 began building more efficient, less polluting coal power plants. In 2008, National Geographic reported that China’s GHG emissions were rising substantially. In 2009, China announced that it planned to shut down some of its smaller inefficient plants, and environmental scientists announced that “no matter what the Western industrialized nations do, China's greenhouse emissions will be hard to stop” (Spiegel Online, 6 March 2009).

In 2010, the United Nations announced that it intended to fund 20 new coal-fired power plants in China and India under its Clean Development Mechanism. While China focused on using the most-efficient forms of coal-derived power, other countries, including Canada, moved to ban dirty coal outright. The Chinese government announced that it would identify emission goals and monitoring rules to show it is serious about curbing emissions. The resulting targets would allow China’s GHG emissions to keep rising, but more slowly than its economic growth.

While this sounds like good news, one must wonder; in 2011, coal supplier Universal Coal Ltd announced that China and India were seeking to invest in additional coal assets in South Africa.

Learn more: Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative

 

[darkbeaver]

A carbon tax is rational. We Whites should show some pride in the land that sustains us.

For carbon based lifeforms a carbon tax is as irrational as a pale skinned lifeform adhering to white supremacy when skin pigment has never been proven to be an aid to clear thinking.

 

[petros]

A commuter From Langley now spends 200 minutes less a week behind the wheel. Yup. It was carbon tax saving them a tank a week.

Personally I say Hwy 17 was the best thing to happen to BC since Hwy 1 in 1967.

 

[mentalfloss]

I heard Buckley's is good for your sniffles.

 

[petros]

Which came first 2005 or 2008?

Does 3hrs and 20 minute less behind the wheel per week reduce emissions?

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Port Mann/Highway 1 Improvement Project is the largest-ever transportation project in British Columbia’s history. Drivers are saving 40 minutes a day – hours a week – on the faster, safer and more efficient bridge and highway.

The new 10-lane Port Mann Bridge and highway improvements between Langley and Vancouver relieved the worst traffic bottleneck in the province and expanded transit service, the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) network and accessibility for cyclists and pedestrians.

A faster, more efficient Port Mann Bridge
Drivers are saving several hours a week on the Port Mann Bridge. Compared to alternate routes, such as the Pattullo Bridge, the Port Mann/Highway 1 Improvement Project is saving drivers more than 40 minutes every day. That’s more than three hours a week.

A widened Highway 1, dedicated local connection lanes on the Port Mann Bridge, improved signage and rebuilt interchanges all along the corridor mean the highway isn’t just faster, it’s safer and more reliable, too.

Expanded transportation options
In addition to saving drivers time, the Port Mann/Highway 1 Improvement Project has created new transportation options for commuters of all types.

The improved bridge and highway have allowed for the first transit service over the Port Mann Bridge in 25 years and its first-ever pedestrian and cyclist pathway. Car poolers can also take advantage of dedicated HOV lanes connected from Vancouver all the way to Langley.

Rebuilt interchanges along Highway 1 have incorporated wider shoulders, cyclist lanes and multi-user paths to facilitate walking and biking over the highway within municipalities.

 

[Jinentonix]

We'll be better off, just like BC.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Man, you're STILL swallowing the BC govt's tripe? It's over dude. The carbon tax in BC has done f*ck all for it. And so far, the only retards who refuse to see it are you and the BC govt.

It's probably accurate for a cross Canada survey. Only one province, Alberta, gets most of its power from coal.

Oh, so coal is the only hydrocarbon eh?
Saskatchewan: derives about 78% of its power generation from coal and natgas.
Ontario: derives about 1/3 of its power from natgas.
NB: Over 50% of their hydro generation comes from coal, natgas and oil.
NS: Roughly 70% of their power is derived from coal, natgas and oil.
NWT: 65% of their power comes from natgas and oil.
Nunavut: 100% of their power generation is derived from oil.
PEI: 45% of power generation derived from oil.

In fact, the only provinces that have more "renewable" sources than non-renewables are those provinces fortunate enough to be situated where they can take advantage of hydro-electric power, except for PEI. In reality, only 6 provinces and territories have more renewable capacity than non-renewable and the only one that doesn't use primarily hydroelectric power is PEI. BC, MB, QC, NL and the Yukon all have significant hydroelectric capacity.
Even in Ontario, the reality is only about 35% of Ontario's hydro generation comes from renewables and about 23% of that is hydroelectric.

 

[Vbeacher]

You seem to look at it as zero sum. Raising the gas tax does not mean we can't lower other taxes or deregulate in other ways.

In fact, eliminating class-discrimination in immigration policy could actually help Canada's poor. When we allow only wealthy foreign nationals into Canada, they move to the suburbs, buy large lots with parking spaces, and cars. The poor who can't afford a car jest end up even more marginalized in such an urban environment.

Should we eliminate class-discrimination in immigration policy, more working-class poor might move to Canada, move into the less expensive parts of town, buy smaller lots, move closer to work and walk to work, etc. Result? urban environments that would be not only more environmentally friendly but more poor-friendly too.

This is one of the most absurd ideas I've ever read. The noted economist Milton Friedman was a firm proponent of immigration, but said quite clearly that open immigration cannot work in a welfare state. We have a progressive tax system here, and mandated government entitlements for every citizen. Every person who comes to this country who does not earn enough to pay income taxes (currently one third of Canadians do not pay income tax) is a drain on the rest of the country. They are not capable of paying for their share of government services, so the rest of us have to fork out more to do so. Given the number of poor earners who currently come to Canada the Fraser Institute pegged the cost to all levels of government at some $30 billion per year as it is.

 

[Jinentonix]

This is one of the most absurd ideas I've ever read. The noted economist Milton Friedman was a firm proponent of immigration, but said quite clearly that open immigration cannot work in a welfare state.

There's no sense in quoting Freidman unless he's a self-hating Jew. Lefties don't like Jews unless they're the self-hating kind.

 

[Vbeacher]

There has been a great deal of propaganda on this subject from progressive politicians, media and academics. There has, though, been very little information. We are told continually that the world is warming, and that some portion of that warming is due to carbon dioxide. This is linked with our new 'carbon tax' as if paying this tax is somehow going to ameliorate the warming. Yet no one actually says so. It is simply linked in the stories.

The fact is these carbon taxes are going to do absolutely nothing to combat global warming. Canada's share of world CO2 emissions is hovering around 1.6%. In fact, India plans to increase it's CO2 emissions by the equivalent of EVERYTHING Canada currently puts out next year. And they're planning on doing that every year for the next twenty years as they build coal fired power stations to modernize and industrialize their economy.

Trudeau hopes to lower our CO2 emissions by a third, through enormous expense, and probable damage to our economy. Yet that paltry amount will be added into the world CO2 emissions by India in just a few months of 'progress' there. Other countries like China, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, are on a coal power plant building spree. Of some 180 countries in the UN, only a few dozen have actually agreed to verified reduction in CO2 emissions any time in the next generation. The US, Russia, China and India, by far the biggest emitters, are not among that group.

 

[White_Unifier]

This is one of the most absurd ideas I've ever read. The noted economist Milton Friedman was a firm proponent of immigration, but said quite clearly that open immigration cannot work in a welfare state. We have a progressive tax system here, and mandated government entitlements for every citizen. Every person who comes to this country who does not earn enough to pay income taxes (currently one third of Canadians do not pay income tax) is a drain on the rest of the country. They are not capable of paying for their share of government services, so the rest of us have to fork out more to do so. Given the number of poor earners who currently come to Canada the Fraser Institute pegged the cost to all levels of government at some $30 billion per year as it is.

I never said give them the right to social services. We could do what Svalbard does: declare Canada a visa-free zone. This means that you could come to work in Canada but enjoy no right to social services. Essentially, you just have a right to work in Canada visa-free.

By eliminating class discrimination on this basis, we would allow more working-class poor to move to Canada than is presently possible. This means they'd move into the less expensive parts of town, and businesses would adapt to cater to it. So construction companies would build smaller houses, busing companies would move n to provide more mass transit, etc. As a result, even the native-born poor would benefit from their foreign peers who would grow their numbers and so allow them to build more poor-friendly neighbourhoods. The free market would take care of that and, since the foreign nationals would enjoy no right to social services, Milton Friedman would probably applaud this.

There's no sense in quoting Freidman unless he's a self-hating Jew. Lefties don't like Jews unless they're the self-hating kind.

I actually like many of friedman's ideas, especially when it comes to open borders. He actually supported open borders in principle as long as it does not impose costs on the taxpayer. A visa-free policy would probably conform to Friedman's ideas on this matter.

 

[Vbeacher]

I never said give them the right to social services. We could do what Svalbard does: declare Canada a visa-free zone. This means that you could come to work in Canada but enjoy no right to social services. Essentially, you just have a right to work in Canada visa-free.

By eliminating class discrimination on this basis, we would allow more working-class poor to move to Canada than is presently possible. This means they'd move into the less expensive parts of town, and businesses would adapt to cater to it. So construction companies would build smaller houses, busing companies would move n to provide more mass transit, etc. As a result, even the native-born poor would benefit from their foreign peers who would grow their numbers and so allow them to build more poor-friendly neighbourhoods. The free market would take care of that and, since the foreign nationals would enjoy no right to social services, Milton Friedman would probably applaud this.

The issue I have with this is that, to begin with, it's unconstitutional. Second, it would massively lower wages among working-class Canadians. What you would wind up with is enormous competition for low-skilled jobs, which would result in an across the board increase in poverty.

And we already have far too many poor immigrants. I don't know where you live, but where I am our public housing projects and jails are full of failed immigrants and refugees.

 

[White_Unifier]

The issue I have with this is that, to begin with, it's unconstitutional. Second, it would massively lower wages among working-class Canadians. What you would wind up with is enormous competition for low-skilled jobs, which would result in an across the board increase in poverty.

And we already have far too many poor immigrants. I don't know where you live, but where I am our public housing projects and jails are full of failed immigrants and refugees.

I haven't visited any jail recently myself, so what do I know.

But don't forget that while wages might drop, so would costs even more. We always seem to forget that part of the equation. You should go back to reading Friedman again. He did not oppose open borders and was quite fond of the open-border policies of the 1800s in the US. His opposition was to the welfare state, totally different matter.

And even on that front, he did not oppose the welfare state totally. he still supported school vouchers and universal compulsory education for example.

And how would an open-border policy be against the Constitution?

 

[Angstrom]

The tax covers most types of fossil fuels. Since it came in, B.C.’s total use of those fuels has dropped by 16.1% (2008-13). By contrast, in the rest of Canada fuel use went up by 3% over that time. B.C.’s dramatic drop since the tax marks a big change from the previous eight years (2000-2008), when its fuel use was actually rising slightly compared to the rest of Canada’s. (These results reflect the latest available Statistics Canada data, and were published in a leading research journal.)

Moreover, B.C. significantly outperformed the rest of Canada on each of the fuels covered by the carbon tax, including home heating oil and natural gas. This consistent result across all fuel types is strong evidence that the policy is working well. And it further debunks the cross-border shopping argument (people aren’t hauling their home-heating oil tanks to Washington).

As for the economy, B.C.’s GDP has slightly outperformed the rest of Canada’s since the carbon tax began. This makes sense. BC simply raised taxes on pollution and lowered them on income. Since 2008, the province has cut income taxes by almost $1 billion more than it has taken in carbon revenues – so taxpayers are ahead overall. B.C.’s personal and corporate income tax rates are now among the lowest in Canada, making it an attractive place to do business.

Financial Post - B.C.’s carbon tax shift works

Are you saying we should trust politician to lower income taxes with a carbon pricing revenu, when politician had promised income taxes was only for war time...... you are a special kind of stupid aren't ya.

 

[Vbeacher]

I haven't visited any jail recently myself, so what do I know.

But don't forget that while wages might drop, so would costs even more.

Not in today's environment. Too many things are imported. Too many other things are governed by factors unrelated to demand, such as the cost of gas/oil and electricity, for example. The cost of housing certainly wouldn't drop. Huge numbers of rich Chinese buying condos would continue to keep the price high.

And how would an open-border policy be against the Constitution?

If these foreigners get in trouble they still have the benefit of our court system, including government paid lawyers. If they're sick, we'll still have to care for them with our publicly financed health care (recall a federal court said the Tories couldn't deny any kind of health care even to failed refugee claimants). The law requires children be educated and requires the public pay for that. Are these open visa people to have no children? There are lots more. I highly doubt the courts would sit still for us letting an unsuccessful person starve to death or freeze to death, nor would we want to.

 

[petros]

Remember the Russian weather machine theory?

Maybe Trudeau convinced Putin to turn it off with a pay out funded by Carbon Taxes

 

[mentalfloss]

Thermometer Rising - Climate Change and Canada’s Economic Future