Pointless, Useless, Needless Spending.

[Jinentonix]

IN a different thread I pointed out that the Libturds "feed the kids" program worked out to $2.63/day/child. I made an error. I assumed in my calculations that the entire $1 billion would be used to feed the kids. But of course administration costs will eat up a nice chunk. Knowing the Liberals and their cronies that chunk will probably be as high as 50% but I'll be optimistic and go with 25%. That changes the total to $1.98/day/child. And keep in mind, that's ONLY during school days. Weekends, summer holidays, Christmas holidays and other stat holidays, spring break and PA/PD days aren't included. Parents will still have to scrape together enough to feed their kids on those days.
I did some other calculations. Depending on where you live in Canada you are paying, on average, $3-$8+/day JUST on carbon taxes. So the govt's solution to the massive cost of living increase they're responsible for is to take $3-$8 a day away from families and replace it with $2 max/child/day for only half the year.
As a reference, the Canadian taxpayer is paying on average $136/day just for Trudeau's personal groceries.

Let's move onto National Pharmacare. There's only two categories of "national pharmacare" available, contraceptives and diabetic meds. I guess if contraceptives are covered we can stop paying for elective abortions since there's NO fucking excuse now. However it's the diabetes meds that are problematic. There are 52 diabetes meds on the market. Manulife covers 96% of them. Provincial health care plans cover something like 68% of them and up, depending on the province. National Pharmacare will only cover 18 of the 52 diabetes meds on the market, thus limiting availability and options. Not really sure it's worth the cost, especially since both contraceptives and diabetes meds are more comprehensively covered under provincial health plans. Why not cover something that ISN'T covered by provinces? That might be useful.


Next we have national $10/Day Daycare. This one is a beaut. Only around 10% of Canadia families actually qualify for it. Makes me wonder where the all the money is going.

And finally National Dental Care. Another program that not a lot of Canadians actually qualify for, nor are there hordes of dentists lining up to take part.

These are things that Pierre and the Conservatives voted against and for good friggin' reason. They are a WASTE of even more money. Just more "programs" that are designed to steal more mon.... I mean spend more on "administration" costs than they actually spend on the programs.
The kleptocracy marches on.

 

[pgs]

IN a different thread I pointed out that the Libturds "feed the kids" program worked out to $2.63/day/child. I made an error. I assumed in my calculations that the entire $1 billion would be used to feed the kids. But of course administration costs will eat up a nice chunk. Knowing the Liberals and their cronies that chunk will probably be as high as 50% but I'll be optimistic and go with 25%. That changes the total to $1.98/day/child. And keep in mind, that's ONLY during school days. Weekends, summer holidays, Christmas holidays and other stat holidays, spring break and PA/PD days aren't included. Parents will still have to scrape together enough to feed their kids on those days.
I did some other calculations. Depending on where you live in Canada you are paying, on average, $3-$8+/day JUST on carbon taxes. So the govt's solution to the massive cost of living increase they're responsible for is to take $3-$8 a day away from families and replace it with $2 max/child/day for only half the year.
As a reference, the Canadian taxpayer is paying on average $136/day just for Trudeau's personal groceries.

Let's move onto National Pharmacare. There's only two categories of "national pharmacare" available, contraceptives and diabetic meds. I guess if contraceptives are covered we can stop paying for elective abortions since there's NO fucking excuse now. However it's the diabetes meds that are problematic. There are 52 diabetes meds on the market. Manulife covers 96% of them. Provincial health care plans cover something like 68% of them and up, depending on the province. National Pharmacare will only cover 18 of the 52 diabetes meds on the market, thus limiting availability and options. Not really sure it's worth the cost, especially since both contraceptives and diabetes meds are more comprehensively covered under provincial health plans. Why not cover something that ISN'T covered by provinces? That might be useful.


Next we have national $10/Day Daycare. This one is a beaut. Only around 10% of Canadia families actually qualify for it. Makes me wonder where the all the money is going.

And finally National Dental Care. Another program that not a lot of Canadians actually qualify for, nor are there hordes of dentists lining up to take part.

These are things that Pierre and the Conservatives voted against and for good friggin' reason. They are a WASTE of even more money. Just more "programs" that are designed to steal more mon.... I mean spend more on "administration" costs than they actually spend on the programs.
The kleptocracy marches on.

And don’t forget with all those new administrative positions will come new desks , computers and a big fat advertising campaign all provided at twice the cost by Liberal friendly contractors.

 

[Jinentonix]

And don’t forget with all those new administrative positions will come new desks , computers and a big fat advertising campaign all provided at twice the cost by Liberal friendly contractors.

You know it.

 

[Serryah]

IN a different thread I pointed out that the Libturds "feed the kids" program worked out to $2.63/day/child. I made an error. I assumed in my calculations that the entire $1 billion would be used to feed the kids. But of course administration costs will eat up a nice chunk. Knowing the Liberals and their cronies that chunk will probably be as high as 50% but I'll be optimistic and go with 25%. That changes the total to $1.98/day/child. And keep in mind, that's ONLY during school days. Weekends, summer holidays, Christmas holidays and other stat holidays, spring break and PA/PD days aren't included. Parents will still have to scrape together enough to feed their kids on those days.
I did some other calculations. Depending on where you live in Canada you are paying, on average, $3-$8+/day JUST on carbon taxes. So the govt's solution to the massive cost of living increase they're responsible for is to take $3-$8 a day away from families and replace it with $2 max/child/day for only half the year.
As a reference, the Canadian taxpayer is paying on average $136/day just for Trudeau's personal groceries.

Let's move onto National Pharmacare. There's only two categories of "national pharmacare" available, contraceptives and diabetic meds. I guess if contraceptives are covered we can stop paying for elective abortions since there's NO fucking excuse now. However it's the diabetes meds that are problematic. There are 52 diabetes meds on the market. Manulife covers 96% of them. Provincial health care plans cover something like 68% of them and up, depending on the province. National Pharmacare will only cover 18 of the 52 diabetes meds on the market, thus limiting availability and options. Not really sure it's worth the cost, especially since both contraceptives and diabetes meds are more comprehensively covered under provincial health plans. Why not cover something that ISN'T covered by provinces? That might be useful.


Next we have national $10/Day Daycare. This one is a beaut. Only around 10% of Canadia families actually qualify for it. Makes me wonder where the all the money is going.

And finally National Dental Care. Another program that not a lot of Canadians actually qualify for, nor are there hordes of dentists lining up to take part.

These are things that Pierre and the Conservatives voted against and for good friggin' reason. They are a WASTE of even more money. Just more "programs" that are designed to steal more mon.... I mean spend more on "administration" costs than they actually spend on the programs.
The kleptocracy marches on.

Good points all 'round.

So question; when PP and his weenies get into power, will they not only scrap all this, but reframe it so that it actually does what you would think it should do? Or will they just scrap it and forget 'bout it?

 

[Jinentonix]

Good points all 'round.

So question; when PP and his weenies get into power, will they not only scrap all this, but reframe it so that it actually does what you would think it should do? Or will they just scrap it and forget 'bout it?

Scrapping the carbon tax will at least help with the day to day cost of living. And before you think I'm super jazzed on Pierre, I'm not even sure about scrapping the carbon tax.
The problem is it's a "hidden" tax ie: it's buried in the pricing. I want to know if he has some policy in mind to ensure prices come down by an equivalent amount. Because scrapping it won't help if prices stay where they are AND there's no more rebate, even if the rebate is less than what the carbon tax costs the average household.

As for "reframing" the things that I mentioned in my OP, depends on the cost to run the program and how many people it will actually benefit. Scrapping the carbon tax will benefit everyone. Reducing (ostensibly) Canada's puny 750Mt of CO2 eq isn't going to change anything when China is blasting out something like 14,000Mt. It's kind'a like if you were trying to empty a swimming pool with a beach pail while I was filling it up with a firehose. Your efforts would be absolutely pointless. Now imagine it's costing you up to $3k a year to use that tiny little beach pail instead of having it for groceries, rent/mortgage, car payments/transportation costs, daycare, entertainment or whatever but you don't have any choice but to keep paying for that stupid little pail. And every year the price of that beach pail goes up.
Oh yeah, and since the carbon tax is a "hidden" tax, you're also paying PST and/or GST on that carbon tax.

The taxpayer can spend that money more effectively than the govt can. Cutting out a lot of the Trudeau govt fat could also help to open up funds for needed programs.

 

[bob the dog]

One good waste of money for no good reason is the travel budgets. Once in a blue moon it gets leaked out how many miles the members fly each year. Dividing miles flown by 500 as an average speed per hour left the top accumulator with the equivalent of spending six weeks of the work year sitting on a plane. Productivity on those days would be very minimal even if they networked during the time they were in the air. Do that twice a week and the job is not so bad. We are talking business class.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Good points all 'round.

So question; when PP and his weenies get into power, will they not only scrap all this, but reframe it so that it actually does what you would think it should do? Or will they just scrap it and forget 'bout it?

No idea for sure, but for sure we know who’s not going to do it….

 

[Taxslave2]

IN a different thread I pointed out that the Libturds "feed the kids" program worked out to $2.63/day/child. I made an error. I assumed in my calculations that the entire $1 billion would be used to feed the kids. But of course administration costs will eat up a nice chunk. Knowing the Liberals and their cronies that chunk will probably be as high as 50% but I'll be optimistic and go with 25%. That changes the total to $1.98/day/child. And keep in mind, that's ONLY during school days. Weekends, summer holidays, Christmas holidays and other stat holidays, spring break and PA/PD days aren't included. Parents will still have to scrape together enough to feed their kids on those days.
I did some other calculations. Depending on where you live in Canada you are paying, on average, $3-$8+/day JUST on carbon taxes. So the govt's solution to the massive cost of living increase they're responsible for is to take $3-$8 a day away from families and replace it with $2 max/child/day for only half the year.
As a reference, the Canadian taxpayer is paying on average $136/day just for Trudeau's personal groceries.

Let's move onto National Pharmacare. There's only two categories of "national pharmacare" available, contraceptives and diabetic meds. I guess if contraceptives are covered we can stop paying for elective abortions since there's NO fucking excuse now. However it's the diabetes meds that are problematic. There are 52 diabetes meds on the market. Manulife covers 96% of them. Provincial health care plans cover something like 68% of them and up, depending on the province. National Pharmacare will only cover 18 of the 52 diabetes meds on the market, thus limiting availability and options. Not really sure it's worth the cost, especially since both contraceptives and diabetes meds are more comprehensively covered under provincial health plans. Why not cover something that ISN'T covered by provinces? That might be useful.


Next we have national $10/Day Daycare. This one is a beaut. Only around 10% of Canadia families actually qualify for it. Makes me wonder where the all the money is going.

And finally National Dental Care. Another program that not a lot of Canadians actually qualify for, nor are there hordes of dentists lining up to take part.

These are things that Pierre and the Conservatives voted against and for good friggin' reason. They are a WASTE of even more money. Just more "programs" that are designed to steal more mon.... I mean spend more on "administration" costs than they actually spend on the programs.
The kleptocracy marches on.

Traditionally, 60% of program spending is eaten up in administration. This is why we have so many government employees.

 

[Taxslave2]

Scrapping the carbon tax will at least help with the day to day cost of living. And before you think I'm super jazzed on Pierre, I'm not even sure about scrapping the carbon tax.
The problem is it's a "hidden" tax ie: it's buried in the pricing. I want to know if he has some policy in mind to ensure prices come down by an equivalent amount. Because scrapping it won't help if prices stay where they are AND there's no more rebate, even if the rebate is less than what the carbon tax costs the average household.

As for "reframing" the things that I mentioned in my OP, depends on the cost to run the program and how many people it will actually benefit. Scrapping the carbon tax will benefit everyone. Reducing (ostensibly) Canada's puny 750Mt of CO2 eq isn't going to change anything when China is blasting out something like 14,000Mt. It's kind'a like if you were trying to empty a swimming pool with a beach pail while I was filling it up with a firehose. Your efforts would be absolutely pointless. Now imagine it's costing you up to $3k a year to use that tiny little beach pail instead of having it for groceries, rent/mortgage, car payments/transportation costs, daycare, entertainment or whatever but you don't have any choice but to keep paying for that stupid little pail. And every year the price of that beach pail goes up.
Oh yeah, and since the carbon tax is a "hidden" tax, you're also paying PST and/or GST on that carbon tax.

The taxpayer can spend that money more effectively than the govt can. Cutting out a lot of the Trudeau govt fat could also help to open up funds for needed programs.

Big problem here is that we do not all have the same carbon scam tax. BC has its own, with the only real connection to turdOWE's program is it meets the minimum amount of theft from taxpayers. When it was set up in the early 2000s by the BCLiberals, they at least cut other taxes to make it revenue neutral. After the NDPee siezed power 7 years ago, this is no longer the case. They promptly gave us somewhere around 22 new and improved taxes, and moved carbon scam tax money into general revenue. Some other provinces are in the same boat, creating confusion about rebates and costs.

 

[Taxslave2]

Good points all 'round.

So question; when PP and his weenies get into power, will they not only scrap all this, but reframe it so that it actually does what you would think it should do? Or will they just scrap it and forget 'bout it?

I'm hoping, scrap it and forget about it. There are other, more cost effective ways of producing the same results. Some of this also overlaps provincial programs, doubling the bureaucracy. Step1 must be a clear delineation of responsibilities between all levels of government.
There are at least 4 levels of government with taxing authority, all looking to expand their area of control, but only 1 level of taxpayer to finance it all.

 

[pgs]

I'm hoping, scrap it and forget about it. There are other, more cost effective ways of producing the same results. Some of this also overlaps provincial programs, doubling the bureaucracy. Step1 must be a clear delineation of responsibilities between all levels of government.
There are at least 4 levels of government with taxing authority, all looking to expand their area of control, but only 1 level of taxpayer to finance it all.

One sure fire way to pay for scrapping the tax would be to gut the civil service but of course can’t touch any union employees .

 

[Serryah]

Scrapping the carbon tax

It's not really a tax.

will at least help with the day to day cost of living.

It could.

And before you think I'm super jazzed on Pierre, I'm not even sure about scrapping the carbon tax.

Honestly I'm not sure on it either.

The problem is it's a "hidden" tax ie: it's buried in the pricing. I want to know if he has some policy in mind to ensure prices come down by an equivalent amount.

Why would they come down?

Because scrapping it won't help if prices stay where they are AND there's no more rebate, even if the rebate is less than what the carbon tax costs the average household.

True, but when I got my rebate it was great to get it. An extra bundle of cash was welcome.

As for "reframing" the things that I mentioned in my OP, depends on the cost to run the program and how many people it will actually benefit.

Pretty sure it'll benefit the people it's meant to focus on; for people who have issues feeding their kids during the school year, even the prices you quote is more than nothing. Child care, same thing since the other alternative is no care at all which will not work in today's society. As a diabetic, considering the prices of our meds, any help is good. Contraception - making it easier to get would lead to lesser need for abortions one would hope but again, those don't always work either so abortions will still happen.

Scrapping the carbon tax will benefit everyone. Reducing (ostensibly) Canada's puny 750Mt of CO2 eq isn't going to change anything when China is blasting out something like 14,000Mt.

Oh FFS...

It's kind'a like if you were trying to empty a swimming pool with a beach pail while I was filling it up with a firehose. Your efforts would be absolutely pointless.

Unless there were lots of other countries doing that same 'beach pail' and there's pressure on the one with the fire hose to reduce too in which case the pool now empties faster.

And then there's this :

"Despite being the biggest emitter today, however, China’s 11% share of cumulative emissions since the industrial revolution is much smaller than that of the US (20%), which has a population of one quarter the size of China."

The Carbon Brief Profile: China

China has the worlds's largest greenhouse gas emissions.

interactive.carbonbrief.org

And while I don't usually believe China and suspect almost everything about it, it's all we have to go on.

Also, while your analogy works, so does this:

There's a raging forest fire and even with firefighters to fight it, it's not enough. One person just fucks off when evacuation is called, does nothing to fireproof their property and their house goes up allowing the fire to spread further.

One person actually does things to mitigate the fire overtaking his property/home, and his home survives.

Doing something even if things are overwhelming is better than doing nothing.

Now imagine it's costing you up to $3k a year to use that tiny little beach pail instead of having it for groceries, rent/mortgage, car payments/transportation costs, daycare, entertainment or whatever but you don't have any choice but to keep paying for that stupid little pail. And every year the price of that beach pail goes up.
Oh yeah, and since the carbon tax is a "hidden" tax, you're also paying PST and/or GST on that carbon tax.

Okay.

Who cares about the beach pail when all those things will continue to rise because of Climate Change?

That said, I agree that adding it to the GST/HST is too much.

But then overall, it also depends on what province you're in with how it's applied.

Personally I am on the fence of it actually working. Sure the rebate you get back is okay but what is paid out is too much. Plus how much is it really affecting people to change their lifestyle choices? Considering the size of Canada and our population distribution, choices like public transit or things like taking a bike to work or car pooling aren't options.

And expecting the companies to have to pay more just ends up with the rest of us paying more to make up for their lost earnings.

The taxpayer can spend that money more effectively than the govt can. Cutting out a lot of the Trudeau govt fat could also help to open up funds for needed programs.

Assuming that Trudeau's Government is the only one that does this "secret admin costs".

But they aren't; they all do it and if you think the Cons will somehow step in to help their big business friends lose money, whatever you're taking you need to stop.

Again, I do agree the way the Carbon pricing - not tax - is done needs to change. I'm all for that. But since it was left to the provinces how to implement the original pricing, blame the provinces for doing a good, or no job (like NB). In which case only then the feds step in to say how it'll apply.

Overall, yeah we're a drop in the bucket, but the less of that drop that makes it in, it's still SOMETHING.

It's November fucking first, it's Fourteen degrees. The other day it was 20 here.

In my lifetime alone the climate has changed DRASTICALLY - not weather, CLIMATE - so don't tell me it's bunk.

 

[petros]

Its doesnt impact the climate. ITS A TAX NOT A TITHE TO GAIA.

 

[Serryah]

Big problem here is that we do not all have the same carbon scam tax. BC has its own, with the only real connection to turdOWE's program is it meets the minimum amount of theft from taxpayers. When it was set up in the early 2000s by the BCLiberals, they at least cut other taxes to make it revenue neutral.

I think going revenue neutral is the best really of all the options out there. But each province has their own deal - or one imposed by the Feds - so you don't see it. Early BC leadership was smart about it at least.

I'm hoping, scrap it and forget about it. There are other, more cost effective ways of producing the same results. Some of this also overlaps provincial programs, doubling the bureaucracy. Step1 must be a clear delineation of responsibilities between all levels of government.

That I can agree with too.

There are at least 4 levels of government with taxing authority, all looking to expand their area of control, but only 1 level of taxpayer to finance it all.

It'd be a balance though between amalgamating all the departments and potentially firing people, or having it all spread out and wasting money. But overall, yeah, there's only so much that can be taken out of the taxpayer, especially if wages aren't going up nearly enough to cover.

 

[petros]

What has it bought that reduced climate?

 

[Jinentonix]

It's not really a tax.

Ugh! Yes, it really is a tax. It's a hidden consumption tax.

 

[Serryah]

Ugh! Yes, it really is a tax. It's a hidden consumption tax.

Well unlike you, I can admit that I actually didn't understand how it's defined and wrong.


"‍What is a carbon tax?


A carbon tax is a fee that fossil fuel burning corporations pay as a result of government regulations. By fossil fuels, we mean oil, coal, natural gas, and gasoline. When these carbon-filled fuels are burned, they produce greenhouse gas emissions. These gases, such as methane and carbon dioxide, cause global warming by raising the atmosphere’s temperature. Flooding, heat waves, droughts, and blizzards, along with other extreme weather events, are a result of global warming.


The main objective of a carbon tax is to mirror the actual cost that burning carbon creates. Carbon taxes ensure corporations and consumers pay for the external costs they inflict on the wider society."



"What is carbon pricing?


Carbon pricing is a market-based approach to reduce carbon emissions that uses market mechanisms to pass the cost of emitting on to the emitters. It aims to discourage the use of CO2 or emitting fossil fuels in order to address the causes of climate change, protect the environment, and meet international and national climate agreements and pledges."



"How does carbon tax relate to carbon pricing?


A carbon tax is a type of carbon pricing — the other primary type of carbon pricing is emissions trading systems or ETS.


A carbon tax sets an exact price on carbon by specifying a tax rate on GHG emissions or on the carbon amount found in fossil fuels, with the latter becoming more common. Carbon tax differs from an ETS in that the GHG emissions reduction outcome of a carbon tax is not defined in advance, but the carbon price is."

Carbon Pricing vs. Carbon Tax: Understanding the Difference - The Environment Journal

By Natalie Yelton When the carbon dioxide (CO2) we emit costs money, we generally produce less of it. Economists worldwide point to carbon pricing as the most effective way to reduce emissions. Why? Because carbon pricing reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the lowest cost possible, where...

environmentjournal.ca

Since I've routinely heard that it's not an actual tax, I did go with that assumption.

So you're right, it sort of is, sort of isn't a tax.

As for it being hidden, why do you say that? I know that the 'tax' is determined differently by each province.

Carbon pollution pricing systems across Canada - Canada.ca

Each province and territory will have its own unique way of pricing carbon pollution.

www.canada.ca

Carbon pricing in Canada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

10 Myths about Carbon Pricing in Canada | Ecofiscal

Myths and misleading statements continue to damage the debate over carbon pricing. The facts are out there. Let’s use them.

ecofiscal.ca

I don't see 'hidden' - so what do you mean by that?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

But. . . but. . . the COSTS are passed on to the consumer!

Duh. Like all corporate costs aren't passed on to the consumer.

 

[Ron in Regina]

If you didn’t care about reducing Canada’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions to save the planet — as the Liberals would allege whenever anyone criticized their policy — what kind of a climate-denying, planet-destroying dinosaur were you?

GOLDSTEIN: How global warming fried the Trudeau Liberals — Toronto Sun

Ever since coming to power in 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals have fervently believed their climate change and carbon tax policies would make the Conservatives unelectable, as long as Canada’s official opposition party refused to come up with its own plan. For a time they...

apple.news

But what the Liberals didn’t anticipate was that their absurd justification of their climate policies — that Canadians paying higher taxes for gasoline and heating their homes in winter would prevent flooding and hurricanes not just in Canada, but globally — would eventually collapse under its own weight.

Reducing (ostensibly) Canada's puny 750Mt of CO2 eq isn't going to change anything when China is blasting out something like 14,000Mt.

Oh FFS...

That’s because at 1.5% of global emissions nothing Canada does can materially impact climate change. We could reduce our emissions to net zero tomorrow and it would have no effect, while countries like China and India continue to drive up global emissions primarily by burning coal — the most carbon intensive fossil fuel — to produce electricity.

Given a choice between not having a climate policy and having one with no discernible impact on climate change, while making life more expensive for everyone and throwing into doubt the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Canadians employed in Canada’s oil and gas sector, a growing number of Canadians have chosen option “a”.

So question; when PP and his weenies get into power, will they not only scrap all this, but reframe it so that it actually does what you would think it should do? Or will they just scrap it and forget 'bout it?

I'm hoping, scrap it and forget about it. There are other, more cost effective ways of producing the same results. Some of this also overlaps provincial programs, doubling the bureaucracy. Step1 must be a clear delineation of responsibilities between all levels of government.
There are at least 4 levels of government with taxing authority, all looking to expand their area of control, but only 1 level of taxpayer to finance it all.

While some reject the science of climate change, a much larger group simply believes that paying more in taxes is not going to save the planet, a view bolstered by a report released by federal environment commissioner Jerry DeMarco last week that audited the Liberals’ Canadian Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act.

It concluded that the Liberal government’s lack of transparency…

…in implementing this legislation makes it impossible for the average citizen to understand, much less believe, the Trudeau government’s claim it will reduce Canada’s emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, on the way to net zero by 2050.

The government says that the 149 measures contained in its approach to addressing climate change will achieve a 36.2% reduction in emissions compared to 2005 levels by 2030, implying that all that is needed is a final push to reach at least 40%…BUT….

But this claim is nonsense based on DeMarco’s finding that to achieve the 40% minimum target will require huge increases in annual emission cuts in the next six years, which the government has come nowhere close to achieving in the past nine years.

A carbon tax is a fee that fossil fuel burning corporations pay as a result of government regulations. By fossil fuels, we mean oil, coal, natural gas, and gasoline. When these carbon-filled fuels are burned, they produce greenhouse gas emissions. These gases, such as methane and carbon dioxide, cause global warming by raising the atmosphere’s temperature.

But what the Liberals didn’t anticipate was that their absurd justification of their climate policies — that Canadians paying higher taxes for gasoline and heating their homes in winter would prevent flooding and hurricanes not just in Canada, but globally — would eventually collapse under its own weight.

Flooding, heat waves, droughts, and blizzards, along with other extreme weather events, are a result of global warming.

As of 2022, the latest year for which government data are available, Canada’s emission were 7.1% below 2005 levels, meaning it has achieved 17.8% of its minimum target in nine years and now has six to achieve the remaining 82.8%.

DeMarco said while reaching the 40% to 45% reduction target is still achievable and should be pursued, his own findings indicate why it is all but impossible to believe this will happen.

Its doesnt impact the climate. ITS A TAX NOT A TITHE TO GAIA.

One sure fire way to pay for scrapping the tax would be to gut the civil service but of course can’t touch any union employees .

For example, when DeMarco’s auditors examined 20 of the government’s 149 measures to reduce emissions, it found only nine were on track to achieve their goals, while nine others were faced with challenges and two had encountered significant barriers, such as delays in setting and meeting milestone targets.

When the audit examined 32 additional reduction measures which the government claimed will help boost emission reductions from 36.2% to at least 40% by 2030, it found only seven were new, while 22 were existing measures that had already been reported. The remaining three were enhancements of existing measures.

The audit found examples where two different government programs were funding the same projects and reporting the same expected emission reductions, raising the possibility of double counting actual reductions.

It'd be a balance though between amalgamating all the departments and potentially firing people, or having it all spread out and wasting money. But overall, yeah, there's only so much that can be taken out of the taxpayer, especially if wages aren't going up nearly enough to cover.

DeMarco also had concerns about the computer modelling used to estimate emission reductions of various government programs, noting they weren’t updated in 2023 compared to 2022 and that some of the initial calculations were overly optimistic.

In addition, “recent decreases to projected 2030 emissions were not due to climate action taken by governments, but were instead because of revisions to the data used in modelling.”

What has it bought that reduced climate?

DeMarco was also surprised by the lack of transparency and consistency across the government in assessing whether taxpayers were getting good value for money spent in reducing emissions, the costs of which it has previously reported at more than $200 billion for federal taxpayers alone.

On the issue of value for money, DeMarco found that Canada was the worst performer at lowering emissions among the G7 nations to which it belongs, including the U.S., which, unlike Canada, has never imposed a national carbon tax on its citizens.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

If you didn’t care about reducing Canada’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions to save the planet — as the Liberals would allege whenever anyone criticized their policy — what kind of a climate-denying, planet-destroying dinosaur were you?

Can I be a climate-denying, planet-destroying triceratops?

They're SO cool!