April Fools!! Here's your Carbon Tax F#ckers!!!
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said it would be a criminal offence if Premier Scott Moe keeps Saskatchewan’s three coal power plants, which produce around a quarter of the province’s electricity, open past 2030.
Canadians are being told by Ottawa and the international community that in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, we must lead by example and cut our meagre 1.5 per cent share of global emissions to zero, ignoring Canadians’ well-being, standards of living and energy security. Yet big emitters like China, India and Germany are not following our lead.
Moving the goalposts from 2050, one part of Ottawa’s net-zero plan is to implement clean electricity regulations (CER) to achieve a “net-zero” electrical grid by 2035, a plan that builds on Ottawa’s 2018 coal power regulations. Those regulations specify the closure of coal power plants by 2029.
Pre-empting the recently announced Canada electricity advisory council before it has even met, Guilbeault has now faced off with Premier Moe, who contends that Ottawa’s unilateral decision to achieve net-zero emissions in power production by 2035 is unrealistic, even unachievable, without causing massive disruption.
apple.news
“We will not attempt the impossible when it comes to power production in our province,” said Moe. Instead, the premier sensibly proposed to fulfill the original net-zero target by 2050.
Guilbeault immediately countered the Saskatchewan proposal with a threat: “We’ve regulated the ban on coal through CEPA (the Canadian Environmental Protection Act), which is a criminal tool that the federal government has … so not complying with this regulation would be a violation of Canada’s Criminal Code.”
Moe replied, “When individuals in this province, or any other province, they flick their lights on or their furnace fan kicks in that’s deemed illegal and cause for someone to go to jail, come get me.… We’re standing up for an affordable reliable power supply here in Saskatchewan. None of those are provided by the federal net-zero plan.” Indeed.
Premier Moe is right to challenge Ottawa’s unrealistic policy expectations to achieve “net zero” emissions. An honest, realistic national conversation about the true costs, benefits and consequences of the federal government’s forced energy transition is long overdue and much needed. It’s good that Saskatchewan has chosen to open the door to a rational debate.
Canadians are being told by Ottawa and the international community that in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, we must lead by example and cut our meagre 1.5 per cent share of global emissions to zero, ignoring Canadians’ well-being, standards of living and energy security. Yet big emitters like China, India and Germany are not following our lead.
Moving the goalposts from 2050, one part of Ottawa’s net-zero plan is to implement clean electricity regulations (CER) to achieve a “net-zero” electrical grid by 2035, a plan that builds on Ottawa’s 2018 coal power regulations. Those regulations specify the closure of coal power plants by 2029.
Pre-empting the recently announced Canada electricity advisory council before it has even met, Guilbeault has now faced off with Premier Moe, who contends that Ottawa’s unilateral decision to achieve net-zero emissions in power production by 2035 is unrealistic, even unachievable, without causing massive disruption.
Opinion: Saskatchewan is right to question Guilbeault's net-zero plans — National Post
Ron Wallace and Tammy Nemeth: Premier Moe is right to challenge Ottawa’s unrealistic policy expectations to achieve 'net zero' emissions
“We will not attempt the impossible when it comes to power production in our province,” said Moe. Instead, the premier sensibly proposed to fulfill the original net-zero target by 2050.
Guilbeault immediately countered the Saskatchewan proposal with a threat: “We’ve regulated the ban on coal through CEPA (the Canadian Environmental Protection Act), which is a criminal tool that the federal government has … so not complying with this regulation would be a violation of Canada’s Criminal Code.”
Moe replied, “When individuals in this province, or any other province, they flick their lights on or their furnace fan kicks in that’s deemed illegal and cause for someone to go to jail, come get me.… We’re standing up for an affordable reliable power supply here in Saskatchewan. None of those are provided by the federal net-zero plan.” Indeed.
Premier Moe is right to challenge Ottawa’s unrealistic policy expectations to achieve “net zero” emissions. An honest, realistic national conversation about the true costs, benefits and consequences of the federal government’s forced energy transition is long overdue and much needed. It’s good that Saskatchewan has chosen to open the door to a rational debate.
we all know who the real criminals are
and they're not in saskatchewan
and they're not in saskatchewan
Isn’t Trudeau banning it by some arbitrary date to please someone at the UN or whatever?
Shit, just googled it. Check this out:
Gonna need to beef up all those gas and coal fired power plants to make all that clean 'lecrizity........
Yeah, electric heat that relies on electricity we don't have.
And next door Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pledged to put a stop to two of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s marquee energy policies in her election night victory speech, running headlong into new emissions reduction rules that are key to Ottawa achieving its climate targets.
Ms. Smith opposes both the federal government’s plan to force provinces to slash emissions from their electricity grids starting in 2035 and the emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, slated to take effect in 2030.
apple.news
Only three provinces in Canada rely heavily on non-renewable electricity: Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. That makes them the main targets for Ottawa’s net-zero power policies.
Ms. Smith opposes both the federal government’s plan to force provinces to slash emissions from their electricity grids starting in 2035 and the emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, slated to take effect in 2030.
Ottawa hopes for collaboration as Danielle Smith vows to stop federal energy and climate policies — The Globe and Mail
The Premier is a vocal opponent of the federal government’s plan to force provinces to slash emissions from their electricity grids and the emissions cap for the oil and gas sector
But they want to keep the dollars flowing . Must keep up the equalization .And next door Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pledged to put a stop to two of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s marquee energy policies in her election night victory speech, running headlong into new emissions reduction rules that are key to Ottawa achieving its climate targets.
Ms. Smith opposes both the federal government’s plan to force provinces to slash emissions from their electricity grids starting in 2035 and the emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, slated to take effect in 2030.
Only three provinces in Canada rely heavily on non-renewable electricity: Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. That makes them the main targets for Ottawa’s net-zero power policies.Ottawa hopes for collaboration as Danielle Smith vows to stop federal energy and climate policies — The Globe and Mail
The Premier is a vocal opponent of the federal government’s plan to force provinces to slash emissions from their electricity grids and the emissions cap for the oil and gas sector
one has to wonder, what burns cleaner, natural gas or wood?
So forcing everyone to survive the winter burning wood is really smart then!
smh @ the morons we put in power
Back before we had clean burning natural gas and everyone burned wood and coal we had much cleaner air and never encountered smog said no one ever .
According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the federal government’s carbon tax will cost the average Canadian family up to $710 this year, even after rebates. But now the PBO has calculated that families will pay up to $1,160 when what amounts to a second carbon tax is fully implemented in 2030.
The second carbon tax is buried in the Clean Fuel Regulations, which mandate that fuel companies reduce the carbon intensity of the fuels that they produce. When producers can’t meet federally imposed standards, they will have to pay for credits. Because the companies aren’t charitable institutions those costs inevitably will be passed on to consumers — i.e., any Canadian who buys gasoline or diesel…or purchases anything shipped using gasoline or diesel…good times…
apple.news
This week the Trudeau government is rolling out its second carbon tax. The PBO estimates it will remove $9 billion from the economy. That’s a big hit when too many Canadians are already worrying about making their mortgage or rent payments on time.
And it’s not clear it will reduce overall Canadian emissions, which increased during the first year of the first carbon tax. (It’s almost certain not to reduce global emissions: Canada is only responsible for 1.5 per cent of those. As the PBO puts it: “Canada’s own emissions are not large enough to materially impact climate change.”) Canada’s emissions amount to a rounding error when calculating China’s emissions alone, let along global emissions.
apple.news
The second carbon tax is buried in the Clean Fuel Regulations, which mandate that fuel companies reduce the carbon intensity of the fuels that they produce. When producers can’t meet federally imposed standards, they will have to pay for credits. Because the companies aren’t charitable institutions those costs inevitably will be passed on to consumers — i.e., any Canadian who buys gasoline or diesel…or purchases anything shipped using gasoline or diesel…good times…
Opinion: If you didn’t like Ottawa’s first carbon tax, you won't like the second one either — Financial Post
Buried in the Clean Fuel Regulations
This week the Trudeau government is rolling out its second carbon tax. The PBO estimates it will remove $9 billion from the economy. That’s a big hit when too many Canadians are already worrying about making their mortgage or rent payments on time.
And it’s not clear it will reduce overall Canadian emissions, which increased during the first year of the first carbon tax. (It’s almost certain not to reduce global emissions: Canada is only responsible for 1.5 per cent of those. As the PBO puts it: “Canada’s own emissions are not large enough to materially impact climate change.”) Canada’s emissions amount to a rounding error when calculating China’s emissions alone, let along global emissions.
Junk Science Week — Ross McKitrick: The Social Cost of Carbon game — Financial Post
Estimates of the SCC championed by Guilbeault are not science
Why does no one ask how we can reduce our footprint while growing our population ?According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the federal government’s carbon tax will cost the average Canadian family up to $710 this year, even after rebates. But now the PBO has calculated that families will pay up to $1,160 when what amounts to a second carbon tax is fully implemented in 2030.
The second carbon tax is buried in the Clean Fuel Regulations, which mandate that fuel companies reduce the carbon intensity of the fuels that they produce. When producers can’t meet federally imposed standards, they will have to pay for credits. Because the companies aren’t charitable institutions those costs inevitably will be passed on to consumers — i.e., any Canadian who buys gasoline or diesel…or purchases anything shipped using gasoline or diesel…good times…
Opinion: If you didn’t like Ottawa’s first carbon tax, you won't like the second one either — Financial Post
Buried in the Clean Fuel Regulations
This week the Trudeau government is rolling out its second carbon tax. The PBO estimates it will remove $9 billion from the economy. That’s a big hit when too many Canadians are already worrying about making their mortgage or rent payments on time.
And it’s not clear it will reduce overall Canadian emissions, which increased during the first year of the first carbon tax. (It’s almost certain not to reduce global emissions: Canada is only responsible for 1.5 per cent of those. As the PBO puts it: “Canada’s own emissions are not large enough to materially impact climate change.”) Canada’s emissions amount to a rounding error when calculating China’s emissions alone, let along global emissions.
Junk Science Week — Ross McKitrick: The Social Cost of Carbon game — Financial Post
Estimates of the SCC championed by Guilbeault are not science