Even sterile saline has an expiry date. Every Ambulance station, fire hall, first aid room in the country to make sure their sterile water is still useable. Still haven't got a straight answer how a sealed bottle of sterile water goes bad in 1 year.Following on the heels of the latest carbon tax (the other other carbon tax) from two days ago on July 1st, 2023:
In a bid to reduce food waste, a parliamentary committee is recommending the federal government look into the impacts of eliminating “best-before” dates on groceries.
Could scrapping best-before dates reduce food waste? Committee says government should look at impacts — CTV News
In a bid to reduce food waste, a parliamentary committee is recommending the federal government look into the impacts of eliminating 'best-before' dates on groceries.apple.news
The House of Commons agriculture committee — which undertook a four-month look at rising food prices in Canada and how to address the issue — is recommending the government work with the provinces and territories to investigate the impacts of scrapping best-before dates.
The suggestion is one of 13 recommendations in a new non-binding report by the committee, which comes amid heightened political attention on the rising cost of groceries. Food prices have been increasing at their fastest rate in more than 40 years.
April Fools!! Here's your Carbon Tax F#ckers!!!
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
hmmm
wouldn't that mean it precipitates out of the water and becomes even more purified?
I would think that if anything is contaminating the water over time it's things like polyethylene terephthalate, high-density polyethylene, and bisphenol A (BPA)
They can "address the issue" by reducing their bloody spending practices which causes inflation - what dolts we have as leaders! Amazing how little Canadians seem to care.Following on the heels of the latest carbon tax (the other other carbon tax) from two days ago on July 1st, 2023:
In a bid to reduce food waste, a parliamentary committee is recommending the federal government look into the impacts of eliminating “best-before” dates on groceries.Could scrapping best-before dates reduce food waste? Committee says government should look at impacts — CTV News
In a bid to reduce food waste, a parliamentary committee is recommending the federal government look into the impacts of eliminating 'best-before' dates on groceries.
The House of Commons agriculture committee — which undertook a four-month look at rising food prices in Canada and how to address the issue — is recommending the government work with the provinces and territories to investigate the impacts of scrapping best-before dates.
The suggestion is one of 13 recommendations in a new non-binding report by the committee, which comes amid heightened political attention on the rising cost of groceries. Food prices have been increasing at their fastest rate in more than 40 years.
Never seen any with crystals yet. We try to use outdated ones for practice. Still sounds like CYA by the manufacturer.
Another thing came up in a conversation with medical supplies and the ban on single use plastics. Oxygen masks and tubing are single use plastics. Are they being replaced with single use paper tubes? What happened to saving the trees?
I have yet to see an air tight paper tube. Wouldn't work for O2. What happened to reduce, reuse, recycle? Can't do any of that with paper -- well some recycling.
I’m
I figure if the energy costs to recycle are greater than the value of the product and we might as well burry it. Or burn if they get the right equipment.
Reuse, recycling isn’t as easy as some people would like you to believe. Works well in high population areas, but the further out you are, the more expensive and difficult it becomes.
I figure if the energy costs to recycle are greater than the value of the product and we might as well burry it. Or burn if they get the right equipment.
Fuel regulations coming into effect Saturday (July 1st, 2023 Canada Day) will put more pressure on the already-strained finances of Saskatchewan farmers, according to SARM.
The clean fuel standards, which are meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in fuel production and importation, are expected to add 17 cents to the price of a litre of fuel, along with the 37-cent increase that will be added through the federal carbon tax by 2030.
The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities issued a statement Thursday saying the big jumps in fuel prices will directly affect the bottom line of farmers in the province.
“We see this very much as a Carbon Tax 2.0,” SARM president Ray Orb said in a statement. “This will increase costs to all farm production, there’s no doubt about it.”
According to SARM, rising fuel prices have already created financial strain for farmers, squeezed profit margins thin and put more pressure on those working in an “already challenging industry.”
The organization said it’s pushing for the federal government to reconsider imposing taxes that will put farming operations at risk.
“SARM continues to stress to the Federal Government that it is imperative to strike a balance between environmental stewardship and the economic well-being of Saskatchewan’s farmers,” the organization said in a statement.
“Agriculture is an energy-intensive industry, requiring fuel for machinery, transportation, and heating. The imposition of these carbon taxes directly increases the cost of these essential inputs, straining farmers’ profitability and jeopardizing the viability of their operations.”
If the federal taxes continue to push up production costs for farmers, SARM said Saskatchewan’s farmers will be at a disadvantage, putting the province’s agricultural exports and economic growth at risk.
www.ckom.com
www.cjme.com
The clean fuel standards, which are meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in fuel production and importation, are expected to add 17 cents to the price of a litre of fuel, along with the 37-cent increase that will be added through the federal carbon tax by 2030.
The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities issued a statement Thursday saying the big jumps in fuel prices will directly affect the bottom line of farmers in the province.
“We see this very much as a Carbon Tax 2.0,” SARM president Ray Orb said in a statement. “This will increase costs to all farm production, there’s no doubt about it.”
According to SARM, rising fuel prices have already created financial strain for farmers, squeezed profit margins thin and put more pressure on those working in an “already challenging industry.”
The organization said it’s pushing for the federal government to reconsider imposing taxes that will put farming operations at risk.
“SARM continues to stress to the Federal Government that it is imperative to strike a balance between environmental stewardship and the economic well-being of Saskatchewan’s farmers,” the organization said in a statement.
“Agriculture is an energy-intensive industry, requiring fuel for machinery, transportation, and heating. The imposition of these carbon taxes directly increases the cost of these essential inputs, straining farmers’ profitability and jeopardizing the viability of their operations.”
If the federal taxes continue to push up production costs for farmers, SARM said Saskatchewan’s farmers will be at a disadvantage, putting the province’s agricultural exports and economic growth at risk.
SARM says federal fuel taxes put Sask. farmers at a disadvantage
Fuel regulations coming into effect Saturday will put more pressure on the already-strained finances of Saskat...
www.ckom.com
Moe not happy about regulations, transport challenges slowing Sask. exports
Premier Scott Moe is concerned about federal regulations and transportation issues making it harder to ship Sa...
www.cjme.com
In Saskatchewan it's fuel, in California it's water.
Then there are all those pesky worker safety and health standards. And the whole "No DDT" thing.
Then there are all those pesky worker safety and health standards. And the whole "No DDT" thing.
We'll be fine here. The Viterra and Cargill canola oil plants are the supplies for CO-OP to meet the fuel standards. In fact clean diesel from SK already covers from Vancouver Island to Thundrbay and the Arctic.Fuel regulations coming into effect Saturday (July 1st, 2023 Canada Day) will put more pressure on the already-strained finances of Saskatchewan farmers, according to SARM.
The clean fuel standards, which are meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in fuel production and importation, are expected to add 17 cents to the price of a litre of fuel, along with the 37-cent increase that will be added through the federal carbon tax by 2030.
The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities issued a statement Thursday saying the big jumps in fuel prices will directly affect the bottom line of farmers in the province.
“We see this very much as a Carbon Tax 2.0,” SARM president Ray Orb said in a statement. “This will increase costs to all farm production, there’s no doubt about it.”
According to SARM, rising fuel prices have already created financial strain for farmers, squeezed profit margins thin and put more pressure on those working in an “already challenging industry.”
The organization said it’s pushing for the federal government to reconsider imposing taxes that will put farming operations at risk.
“SARM continues to stress to the Federal Government that it is imperative to strike a balance between environmental stewardship and the economic well-being of Saskatchewan’s farmers,” the organization said in a statement.
“Agriculture is an energy-intensive industry, requiring fuel for machinery, transportation, and heating. The imposition of these carbon taxes directly increases the cost of these essential inputs, straining farmers’ profitability and jeopardizing the viability of their operations.”
If the federal taxes continue to push up production costs for farmers, SARM said Saskatchewan’s farmers will be at a disadvantage, putting the province’s agricultural exports and economic growth at risk.
SARM says federal fuel taxes put Sask. farmers at a disadvantage
Fuel regulations coming into effect Saturday will put more pressure on the already-strained finances of Saskat...Moe not happy about regulations, transport challenges slowing Sask. exports
Premier Scott Moe is concerned about federal regulations and transportation issues making it harder to ship Sa...
Aren't the expiry dates a "suggestion" that you may want to use the item by that date? It won't necessarily be bad after that date but it's possible. ???? I personally like the idea of the expiry date because it helps me keep my "pantry" in order.
The PBO says average Alberta families will be forking over $1,157 extra per year because of the second carbon tax by 2030, while households in Saskatchewan will pay about $1,117 more.
Within seven years, the combined punishment of Trudeau’s two carbon taxes will cost average Alberta families $3,930 and Saskatchewan families $2,840 more per year. That even accounts for the rebates Trudeau sends with his first carbon tax.
By 2030, the two carbon taxes will increase the price of gas by about 55¢ per litre.
Trudeau’s two carbon taxes will impact families living in Alberta and Saskatchewan more than families living in any other province. Both prairie provinces are cold, and families need fossil fuels just to survive the winter months. Both provinces require driving long distances between cities. And both provincial economies rely on producing the fuels that heat homes and keep the rest of Canada moving.
Because of these facts of life in Alberta and Saskatchewan, Trudeau’s two carbon taxes will cost the average prairie family about $500 more than families in any other province.
Here’s the kicker: you’re being punished with carbon taxes, and it’s not fixing the problem.
With Canada making up just 1.5% of global emissions, the PBO notes that “Canada’s own emissions are not large enough to materially impact climate change.”
apple.news
As always, the rest at the above link….
(Calculations using data from the Government of Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions website show that, if all our gasoline and diesel-powered cars and trucks were taken off the road for one year, the total emissions avoided would offset China’s emissions for just 58 hours)
apple.news
Within seven years, the combined punishment of Trudeau’s two carbon taxes will cost average Alberta families $3,930 and Saskatchewan families $2,840 more per year. That even accounts for the rebates Trudeau sends with his first carbon tax.
By 2030, the two carbon taxes will increase the price of gas by about 55¢ per litre.
Trudeau’s two carbon taxes will impact families living in Alberta and Saskatchewan more than families living in any other province. Both prairie provinces are cold, and families need fossil fuels just to survive the winter months. Both provinces require driving long distances between cities. And both provincial economies rely on producing the fuels that heat homes and keep the rest of Canada moving.
Because of these facts of life in Alberta and Saskatchewan, Trudeau’s two carbon taxes will cost the average prairie family about $500 more than families in any other province.
Here’s the kicker: you’re being punished with carbon taxes, and it’s not fixing the problem.
With Canada making up just 1.5% of global emissions, the PBO notes that “Canada’s own emissions are not large enough to materially impact climate change.”
OPINION: Carbon taxes hit Alberta and Saskatchewan hardest — Toronto Sun
On July 1, Canada celebrated its 156th birthday. Your present from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau? A second carbon tax. Trudeau buried a second carbon tax in fuel regulations that took effect on Canada Day. Here’s how it works: fuel producers are required to reduce the carbon content of their...
(Calculations using data from the Government of Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions website show that, if all our gasoline and diesel-powered cars and trucks were taken off the road for one year, the total emissions avoided would offset China’s emissions for just 58 hours)
Gwyn Morgan: Trudeau Liberals are gutting Canada's economic well-being — Financial Post
Ottawa is fighting a war on carbon emissions on the backs of those who can least afford it
Farmers wait as bill on carbon pricing exemption remains with the Senate — CTV News
Canadian farmers are expecting to pay more to heat their barns and dry crops after a bill that would have exempted natural gas and propane from aspects of the carbon pricing scheme remains in the Senate.
Soon everyone will be forced to have air conditioning. Heat pumps save energy when making heat but a huge waste for cooling but who cares if power consumption will rise in summer instead of dropping.(Calculations using data from the Government of Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions website show that, if all our gasoline and diesel-powered cars and trucks were taken off the road for one year, the total emissions avoided would offset China’s emissions for just 58 hours)
Farmers wait as bill on carbon pricing exemption remains with the Senate — CTV News
Canadian farmers are expecting to pay more to heat their barns and dry crops after a bill that would have exempted natural gas and propane from aspects of the carbon pricing scheme remains in the Senate.apple.news
GUNTER: Trudeau government's policy for EVs just foolish — Toronto Sun
The Ford Motor Company announced Thursday it was pushing back its target for building electric vehicles (EVs). Instead of rolling out EVs at a rate of 600,000 a year by the end of 2023, Ford would not reach that goal until sometime in 2024 (or maybe even 2025). And what about its previously...
And what about its previously announced target of 2 million EVs by 2026? Well, that forecast would have to be delayed until … until they can’t say when.
How come? In Ford’s words, “slower-than-expected consumer adoption.”
Simply put, car buyers aren’t that interested in EVs. Electric vehicles are more expensive, even with huge government subsidies. The wiring in lots of homes can’t support fast chargers, which means your family EV is out of commission for hours as it gets more juice. And even on a full charge, it can’t go more than half the distance of an old-fashioned gasoline vehicle, especially in cold weather.
Is it any wonder a recent survey by J.D. Power and Associates found that Canadians are losing interest in EVs, even as the environmental industry cranks up the propaganda and governments in the western world mandate the end of the internal combustion engine.
In Canada, J.D. Power found what they call “EV consideration” – consumers’ willingness to consider buying an EV – has declined 13 percentage points since last year, from 47 percent in 2022 to 34 percent this year.
Ford admitted while its overall profits as a company should come in above $2 billion this year, profits would have been closer to $7 billion were it not for a $5 billion loss in their Model e division – the unit that manufactures EVs.
For carmakers that aren’t receiving billions and billions of tax dollars to subsidize their operations (as Volkswagen and Chrysler’s parent company Stellantis are), EV production slowdowns cannot be far behind Ford’s.
No matter what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his eco-fanatic Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault may fantasize, if EVs aren’t practical (and they aren’t), Canadians are going to be reluctant to convert. The rest at the above link….
It’s not surprising Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s signature policy on fighting climate change — raising carbon taxes — is encountering increasing blowback from Canadians.
A Nanos/CTV poll released Sunday found 67% of those surveyed say it’s a poor time to increase carbon taxes — currently at $65 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions, rising to $170 per tonne in 2030 — while 53% say it’s ineffective in fighting climate change.
There’s also skepticism that higher gasoline prices due to carbon taxes reduce fuel consumption, with 45% calling the policy ineffective, up from 36% in 2019.
What the poll’s findings illustrate is how out of touch the Trudeau government is with the concerns of ordinary Canadians, at a time when 52% are $200 or less away from missing their bill payments at the end of the month, according to a recent report by insolvency firm MNP Ltd.
apple.news
It also speaks to a report by Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux last year contradicting the Trudeau government’s claim most households paying the federal carbon tax end up better off financially because of its climate action incentive payments.
Giroux, an independent, non-partisan watchdog on federal spending, reported that when the negative impact of the carbon tax on the economy is factored in, most households end up worse off financially.
He added nothing Canada does to reduce its emissions — 1.5% of the global total — will have any significant impact on climate change unless major emitters such as China reduce their emissions.
apple.news
The poll’s findings do not suggest most Canadians reject the reality of climate change.
It found 64% believe human-induced climate change is linked to severe weather, compared to 28% who attribute it to natural causes, with 8% unsure.
What it does suggest is that a growing number of Canadians no longer accept Trudeau’s argument that raising their cost of living through increasing carbon taxes in hard times is an effective way of fighting climate change. “How can we fight climate change in a way that still allows Canadians to feel comfortable that they can pay for the groceries this week and pay for the rent or the mortgage next month?”
A Nanos/CTV poll released Sunday found 67% of those surveyed say it’s a poor time to increase carbon taxes — currently at $65 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions, rising to $170 per tonne in 2030 — while 53% say it’s ineffective in fighting climate change.
There’s also skepticism that higher gasoline prices due to carbon taxes reduce fuel consumption, with 45% calling the policy ineffective, up from 36% in 2019.
What the poll’s findings illustrate is how out of touch the Trudeau government is with the concerns of ordinary Canadians, at a time when 52% are $200 or less away from missing their bill payments at the end of the month, according to a recent report by insolvency firm MNP Ltd.
McCAUGHEY: ‘Zero carbon’ race a boon to China, not America — Toronto Sun
When politicians go green, vowing zero carbon, the public should see red. We all want to protect the environment. But lefty politicians are making reckless promises to “transition” entirely to renewables — wind and solar — within a few years. Never mind that Joe Public will get clobbered with...
It also speaks to a report by Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux last year contradicting the Trudeau government’s claim most households paying the federal carbon tax end up better off financially because of its climate action incentive payments.
Giroux, an independent, non-partisan watchdog on federal spending, reported that when the negative impact of the carbon tax on the economy is factored in, most households end up worse off financially.
He added nothing Canada does to reduce its emissions — 1.5% of the global total — will have any significant impact on climate change unless major emitters such as China reduce their emissions.
EDITORIAL: Canadians skeptical about carbon taxes — Toronto Sun
It’s not surprising Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s signature policy on fighting climate change — raising carbon taxes — is encountering increasing blowback from Canadians. A Nanos/CTV poll released Sunday found 67% of those surveyed say it’s a poor time to increase carbon taxes — currently at...
The poll’s findings do not suggest most Canadians reject the reality of climate change.
It found 64% believe human-induced climate change is linked to severe weather, compared to 28% who attribute it to natural causes, with 8% unsure.
What it does suggest is that a growing number of Canadians no longer accept Trudeau’s argument that raising their cost of living through increasing carbon taxes in hard times is an effective way of fighting climate change. “How can we fight climate change in a way that still allows Canadians to feel comfortable that they can pay for the groceries this week and pay for the rent or the mortgage next month?”
File under , no shit Sherlock.It’s not surprising Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s signature policy on fighting climate change — raising carbon taxes — is encountering increasing blowback from Canadians.
A Nanos/CTV poll released Sunday found 67% of those surveyed say it’s a poor time to increase carbon taxes — currently at $65 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions, rising to $170 per tonne in 2030 — while 53% say it’s ineffective in fighting climate change.
There’s also skepticism that higher gasoline prices due to carbon taxes reduce fuel consumption, with 45% calling the policy ineffective, up from 36% in 2019.
What the poll’s findings illustrate is how out of touch the Trudeau government is with the concerns of ordinary Canadians, at a time when 52% are $200 or less away from missing their bill payments at the end of the month, according to a recent report by insolvency firm MNP Ltd.
McCAUGHEY: ‘Zero carbon’ race a boon to China, not America — Toronto Sun
When politicians go green, vowing zero carbon, the public should see red. We all want to protect the environment. But lefty politicians are making reckless promises to “transition” entirely to renewables — wind and solar — within a few years. Never mind that Joe Public will get clobbered with...
It also speaks to a report by Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux last year contradicting the Trudeau government’s claim most households paying the federal carbon tax end up better off financially because of its climate action incentive payments.
Giroux, an independent, non-partisan watchdog on federal spending, reported that when the negative impact of the carbon tax on the economy is factored in, most households end up worse off financially.
He added nothing Canada does to reduce its emissions — 1.5% of the global total — will have any significant impact on climate change unless major emitters such as China reduce their emissions.
EDITORIAL: Canadians skeptical about carbon taxes — Toronto Sun
It’s not surprising Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s signature policy on fighting climate change — raising carbon taxes — is encountering increasing blowback from Canadians. A Nanos/CTV poll released Sunday found 67% of those surveyed say it’s a poor time to increase carbon taxes — currently at...
The poll’s findings do not suggest most Canadians reject the reality of climate change.
It found 64% believe human-induced climate change is linked to severe weather, compared to 28% who attribute it to natural causes, with 8% unsure.
What it does suggest is that a growing number of Canadians no longer accept Trudeau’s argument that raising their cost of living through increasing carbon taxes in hard times is an effective way of fighting climate change. “How can we fight climate change in a way that still allows Canadians to feel comfortable that they can pay for the groceries this week and pay for the rent or the mortgage next month?”
The federal government and several provinces continue to march forward on a massive centrally-planned restructuring of the Canadian economy and our energy markets despite disastrous results in the parts of Europe and the United States that have pursued similar policies. Which raises a commonsense question: if this approach didn’t work in Europe and the U.S., why implement the same policies in Canada and expect different results?
Yet Ottawa has imposed formal and informal restrictions on the exploration, development and transportation of traditional, reliable sources of energy such as oil and gas while pouring massive subsidies into unreliable renewable energy sources, principally wind and solar.
Because the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine, these energy sources require back-ups, which must be available and maintained, making renewables more expensive. Like Europe and the U.S., Canada is on a path of more expensive but less reliable energy, which confounds basic common sense.
At the same time, governments in Canada, particularly the Trudeau government, are imposing additional regulations to transition all motor vehicles to electric without any thought given to — let alone a realistic plan to address — the practical question of where all the additional electricity will come from to power both existing and future needs.
In fact, the federal government has explicitly premised its plan on a yet-to-be-determined technological breakthrough.
In other words, both the grand restructuring of the Canadian economy and therefore the wellbeing of Canadians rely on an assumed technological breakthrough in the future. To say this strategy lacks basic common sense is generous.
apple.news
Yet Ottawa has imposed formal and informal restrictions on the exploration, development and transportation of traditional, reliable sources of energy such as oil and gas while pouring massive subsidies into unreliable renewable energy sources, principally wind and solar.
Because the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine, these energy sources require back-ups, which must be available and maintained, making renewables more expensive. Like Europe and the U.S., Canada is on a path of more expensive but less reliable energy, which confounds basic common sense.
At the same time, governments in Canada, particularly the Trudeau government, are imposing additional regulations to transition all motor vehicles to electric without any thought given to — let alone a realistic plan to address — the practical question of where all the additional electricity will come from to power both existing and future needs.
In fact, the federal government has explicitly premised its plan on a yet-to-be-determined technological breakthrough.
In other words, both the grand restructuring of the Canadian economy and therefore the wellbeing of Canadians rely on an assumed technological breakthrough in the future. To say this strategy lacks basic common sense is generous.
Opinion: Canadians pay a high price when governments ignore common sense — Financial Post
Common sense says don't boost immigration during a housing crisis, adopt losing energy policies or rule-wrap investment