April Fools!! Here's your Carbon Tax F#ckers!!!

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,154
9,556
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
What do Canadians think of carbon taxes? We know what the federal government thinks: Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault is a huge fan, as he has been a vocal proponent of his government’s imposition of a minimum price of $65 per tonne of carbon, which has raised the price at the pump by 14 cents per litre in much of the country.

The escalating carbon tax, which will eventually reach $170 per tonne, combined with the new clean fuel regulations, which the PBO estimates will cost households between $384 and $1,157 a year by 2030, will raise gas prices even further.

As for Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, she is carbon-tax-positive, as well. While in Prince Edward Island in July, she was asked about the impact higher fuel prices will have on residents and gave this tone-deaf answer: “I am right now an MP for downtown Toronto, and a fact that still shocks my dad is that I don’t actually own a car.… I’m like 300 metres from the nearest subway; I walk, I take the subway.”

While she apparently forgot that she has access to a ministerial car and chauffeur, she did concede that, “I understand that there are communities in P.E.I. and across Atlantic Canada where you need to drive.”

Indeed. And what do people in those communities, and the rest of country, think about carbon taxes? As it turns out, they’re not nearly as bullish on the subject.
A recent survey by Nanos Research found that two-thirds of Canadians think now is “poor timing” or “very poor timing” for a carbon tax increase. Western and Atlantic Canadians take the dimmest view, at 79 and 73 per cent respectively. Even in eco-conscious Quebec, 53 per cent of respondents think the timing is wrong.

Sixty-five per cent of Ontarians and 63 per cent of British Columbians said they believe a carbon tax is not an effective way to encourage people to use less fuel.

And it appears that they are right on the money. According to the government’s own national inventory report on greenhouse gases, while Canada has reduced emissions in many sectors, transportation is not one of them. Although transportation emissions dropped at the start of the pandemic, they have since been rising rapidly, increasing by around five per cent between 2020 and 2021, due to a 27 per cent increase in the number of vehicles on the road, particularly trucks, since 2005.

Businesses rely on road transportation to move product. Individuals rely on it to move themselves and their groceries, children, hockey equipment, furniture — basically anything too bulky to carry. People with mobility issues — a growing cohort of seniors — aren’t hopping on the subway. And people in rural areas don’t have a subway to hop on.

In their zeal to convert everyone to cyclists and transit riders, the Liberals are ignoring the everyday realities of Canadians. They are asking Canadians to save money by foregoing time, without realizing that people have precious little of each. In other cases, they are asking people to do the impossible: not use their vehicles, when their vehicles are their only way of getting from point A to B. The rest at the above link…
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,154
9,556
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
The Trudeau government on Thursday rolled out yet another clean energy initiative, this one to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Canada’s electricity sector to net-zero by 2035.

It says this will cost the average household an extra $35 to $61 annually for electricity initially, but will eventually result in savings because of public investments in a more efficient national electricity grid. I’ve heard that promise before.
Of course those investments, costing up to $400 billion by 2050 to upgrade and maintain the grid to meet the increased demand for such things as charging electric vehicles, will also be paid by Canadians, eventually.

The good news is Canada’s electricity grid — with each province responsible for providing power to its own citizens — is already almost 85% emissions free, primarily because of the use of hydro and nuclear power and to a lesser extent, wind and solar energy….so who is this targeted at?
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,027
3,812
113
Edmonton
The Trudeau government on Thursday rolled out yet another clean energy initiative, this one to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Canada’s electricity sector to net-zero by 2035.

It says this will cost the average household an extra $35 to $61 annually for electricity initially, but will eventually result in savings because of public investments in a more efficient national electricity grid. I’ve heard that promise before.
Of course those investments, costing up to $400 billion by 2050 to upgrade and maintain the grid to meet the increased demand for such things as charging electric vehicles, will also be paid by Canadians, eventually.

The good news is Canada’s electricity grid — with each province responsible for providing power to its own citizens — is already almost 85% emissions free, primarily because of the use of hydro and nuclear power and to a lesser extent, wind and solar energy….so who is this targeted at?
Guess!
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,154
9,556
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
The provinces hardest hit by the proposed clean electricity regulations because of their energy mixes, which include coal and in some cases, significant natural gas, are Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia….& I’m assuming the last two will get an apology and then extension from the current Government do to their unique situation’s, etc….? 😉
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,027
3,812
113
Edmonton
The provinces hardest hit by the proposed clean electricity regulations because of their energy mixes, which include coal and in some cases, significant natural gas, are Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia….& I’m assuming the last two will get an apology and then extension from the current Government do to their unique situation’s, etc….? 😉
Ya, Trudy's hatred of the West is well known & visceral so yes, I agree.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,032
2,704
113
Toronto, ON
The it will cost more now to save later sounds like the insurance companies. Governments pass a whole bunch of laws protecting insurance companies from big settlements and the government always says premiums will go down. Yet the premiums go up and the insurance companies get rich. This sounds like the same type of scam.

Saskatchewan coal plants capture carbon now. They are pretty much CO2 free but I am sure TrueDope has found a way not to count that.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,032
2,704
113
Toronto, ON
Shocking. Coal smoke is the smell of FREEDUMB!
If the CO2 is captured it really can't go in the air can it? Not sure who would be smelling the smoke.

But the only alternative to coal for a flat province for a reliable power backbone is nuclear. Wind and solar are good surge backups in most places (SK gets little sun in the winter). I think SK has already dammed the only places that can provide hydro.
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,027
3,812
113
Edmonton
The it will cost more now to save later sounds like the insurance companies. Governments pass a whole bunch of laws protecting insurance companies from big settlements and the government always says premiums will go down. Yet the premiums go up and the insurance companies get rich. This sounds like the same type of scam.

Saskatchewan coal plants capture carbon now. They are pretty much CO2 free but I am sure TrueDope has found a way not to count that.
He will ignore whatever we do and he'll insist that it's even worse then he first imagined. He'll also be "obligated" to follow the WEF, WHO & the UN - all corrupt organizations so that he can maintain his "ego" since he is so admired by the likes of Schwab & Co. The fact that Canadians were neither asked nor voted on the implementation of such terrible policies is beyond him. He simply doesn't care cuz it's all about him!!
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
57,990
8,285
113
Washington DC
If the CO2 is captured it really can't go in the air can it? Not sure who would be smelling the smoke.

But the only alternative to coal for a flat province for a reliable power backbone is nuclear. Wind and solar are good surge backups in most places (SK gets little sun in the winter). I think SK has already dammed the only places that can provide hydro.
Yeah, that's why it's shocking. They're depriving the noble Men of Westernesse of the clean, cool, invigorating air of FREEDUMB!

Obviously a Chinese commie plot!
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,154
9,556
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Yeah, that's why it's shocking. They're depriving the noble Men of Westernesse of the clean, cool, invigorating air of FREEDUMB!

Obviously a Chinese commie plot!
This is Saskatchewan:
1691778539605.jpeg
This is Alberta:
1691778567821.jpeg
This is New Brunswick:
1691778866110.jpeg
This is Nova Scotia:
1691778896586.jpeg
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, for example, argue the 2035 target is unrealistic, will cost electricity ratepayers too much money and that the deadline should be extended to 2050.

The feds have suggested provinces refusing to agree to the 2035 net-zero emissions target for electricity may be denied some federal funding to help with the transition costs….so if it just doesn’t make realistic financial sense to do this before 2050, then you’ll get punished financially for not doing it by 2035. Makes sense.

All of this simply drives home the fact that transitioning to green energy from fossil fuels costs money and that these costs are ultimately borne by the public, whether as carbon taxes, carbon pricing, clean fuel regulations, clean electricity regulations or other government measures.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
57,990
8,285
113
Washington DC
Fossil forever! Pure, unadulterated, natural petroleum and coal! No "scrubbing," and burn off the gas in flares!

And no nukes! We need the metals for weapons!

And put lead back in the gasoline!

This eco-bullshit is just that. What good did it ever do anybody (except lobbyists)?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,263
12,777
113
Low Earth Orbit
Fossil forever! Pure, unadulterated, natural petroleum and coal! No "scrubbing," and burn off the gas in flares!

And no nukes! We need the metals for weapons!

And put lead back in the gasoline!

This eco-bullshit is just that. What good did it ever do anybody (except lobbyists)?
Fossil? What makes methane a fossil fuel when you yourself fart enough to heat your daily cup of espresso and mescal?
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
21,966
6,093
113
Twin Moose Creek
If the CO2 is captured it really can't go in the air can it? Not sure who would be smelling the smoke.

But the only alternative to coal for a flat province for a reliable power backbone is nuclear. Wind and solar are good surge backups in most places (SK gets little sun in the winter). I think SK has already dammed the only places that can provide hydro.
We have many rivers that can be dammed yet, but the cost to deliver to the highest population in the province would be huge. That's why the carbon capture project was implemented cheaper to deliver the energy to the sectors that need it, Sask/Alta developed their gas fired power plant's scrubbers to emit almost no CO2, but are charged on the potential emissions of the gas being used.