Good point. The tax allows them to continue own doing what they are doing as long as they pay. The transfer of money from one's hand into another's hand is not going to reduce the acidity.
Government kills independent science body
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Good point. The tax allows them to continue own doing what they are doing as long as they pay. The transfer of money from one's hand into another's hand is not going to reduce the acidity.
Hmm, pretty sure anytime someone mentions tax increases there is an immediate reaction that it will drive down consumption and business investment. Does that behaviour exist or not?
Coal is already being displaced by natural gas for new power generation:
U.S. energy independence is no longer just a pipe dream
Coal is already being displaced by natural gas for new power generation:
U.S. energy independence is no longer just a pipe dream
Utilities' switchover to cheap natural gas from coal is lowering power bills. One utility switching to more gas plants, Georgia Power, has filed to cut Atlanta-area electricity rates 6%, citing a 19% drop in fuel costs.
A price on carbon would only widen the favourable conditions for non-coal power. Less emissions means less acidity.
Again, how will a carbon tax reduce this acidification?
We use very little coal in Canada.
By encouraging lower carbon alternatives, or greater energy efficiency.
So just so we're clear, do you deny that taxes induce behavioural changes?
There are no economical and viable alternatives that are readily available. A carbon tax would act simply to punish some and transfer wealth to others
Canadians voted against a carbon tax.
Carbon taxes have proven ineffective and unequal in the EU.
The end result of carbon taxes is, the rate payers pick up the tab.
The NRTEE was pushing something Canadians have made it known, they don't want. Its demise was brought on by democracy taking place.
If you believe in what they pushed, by all means, keep researching, write your MP.
This isn't the end of democracy. Just the end of the NRTEE.
Carbon taxes have proven ineffective and unequal in the EU.
The end result of carbon taxes is, the rate payers pick up the tab.
The NRTEE was pushing something Canadians have made it known, they don't want. Its demise was brought on by democracy taking place.
If you believe in what they pushed, by all means, keep researching, write your MP.
This isn't the end of democracy. Just the end of the NRTEE.
Last edited:
Canada uses a lot of coal. Alberta, for one, uses coal as its main power source. One coal plant in Ontario is the biggest source of pollution in the Province. Ontario is shutting that one down. Alberta is building another.
That brings us to the Harper government's phony regulations on coal plants. Old plants are exempt from the intensity reduction requirements. Plants built after 2015 are exempt until 2025 if they can show that Carbon, capture ans storage installations will achieve the reductions (in intensity) ater that date.
A joke, of course, since their is no indication that such a technology will work. To this point it is a fantasy of the CPC and an excuse for greater degradation of the climate.
Yep, and the rate payers will pick up a shiny new increase in their electric bills because of it.
There seems to be little understanding of the applocation of a carbon tax. Not surprising after the CPC spent millions to demonise Dion and mislead the public.
A carbon tax, as proposed, would not fall on the ratepayer. It would have been revenue neutral and a replacement for other taxes. Those taxes would have to be reimposed as the tax succeeded in its aim: revenues from the carbon tax would fall accordingly.
A carbon tax, as proposed, would not fall on the ratepayer. It would have been revenue neutral and a replacement for other taxes. Those taxes would have to be reimposed as the tax succeeded in its aim: revenues from the carbon tax would fall accordingly.
Toronto hydro to Toronto citizens...
Please reduce your hydro consumption. Be energy smart.
Toronto citizens to Toronto Hydro...
Not a problem.
Toronto citizens decrease their hydro consumption so well...
Toronto Hydro to Toronto citizens...
You guys did such a smashing job decreasing your hydro consumption. Here's an increase in your hydro bill, so we can make up the short fall it created.
I don't need to prove it's wasteful, the feds did that due diligence for me
That goes to show what a sheep you are,don't ask questions,just agree with the supreme leader,holy fk !!
That goes to show what a sheep you are,don't ask questions,just agree with the supreme leader,holy fk !!
National round tables are considered to be independent as they are made
up of people from various sectors of society and government funded to
ensure they are effective. There are round tables for everything from the
business world to agriculture.
While I don't agree with the governments position here, I do think some action
was necessary. The Round Table allowed itself to be influenced by some of
the special interests and that could constitute some intervention but cancellation
is not good. The reason is there are many businesses that can benefit from
such a group and in the interaction with other nations and they requirements for
the future. There is money to be made by Canadian companies and jobs for
Canadian workers at stake here.
Fix the problem or the imbalance but do not pull the plug on something that could
be of an advantage to our economy.
up of people from various sectors of society and government funded to
ensure they are effective. There are round tables for everything from the
business world to agriculture.
While I don't agree with the governments position here, I do think some action
was necessary. The Round Table allowed itself to be influenced by some of
the special interests and that could constitute some intervention but cancellation
is not good. The reason is there are many businesses that can benefit from
such a group and in the interaction with other nations and they requirements for
the future. There is money to be made by Canadian companies and jobs for
Canadian workers at stake here.
Fix the problem or the imbalance but do not pull the plug on something that could
be of an advantage to our economy.
Only about one sixth of our electricity comes from coal. Again, we don't use much coal.
Lack of money changes behaviour.
The round table produced this last gem before signing off. Pretty grating stuff for the gov.
Delays In Carbon Rules Mean Canada Is Locking In Emissions
OTTAWA - Delays in regulating greenhouse gas emissions mean Canada is quickly locking in old-fashioned infrastructure that will fill the air with carbon for decades to come, new research shows.
The longer the federal government waits to clamp down on emissions and business continues as usual, the more difficult and costly it becomes to meet environmental targets, the research concludes.
The new research comes from the soon-to-be-defunct National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the federally funded advisory group formed to give advice and research on sustainable development.
The Harper government is in the process of abolishing the agency.
It's likely the first time analysts have measured the country's shrinking room to manoeuvre as a result of investments made while businesses wait for governments to crack down on emissions.
The research also shows that electricity could be the salvation, as long as that sector can attract huge investment.
The research will be included in one of the advisory body's final reports to be published in a few weeks, but was presented by the round table's president, David McLaughlin, at a conference earlier this month. His slide presentation was obtained by The Canadian Press.
"We have said consistently that delay is costly," McLaughlin said.
Now, he says, the research shows just how costly.
His charts and graphs show that as Ottawa waits to implement regulations on emitters, investment in coal, oil, gas, electricity and buildings will be guided by the high-emission standards which have been the norm.
The effects could be felt for decades, since the life-span of much infrastructure is about 40 years — compounding the stock of emissions already in the atmosphere.
So any infrastructure built after the new regulations eventually come into place will have to be extra-efficient in order to make up for the delays of the past, McLaughlin said.
"The more and more of those (locked-in) investments that are made, the less and less options they (governments) have for actually finding emissions reductions in the economy," explained Alex Wood, senior director at Sustainable Prosperity, the think-tank that hosted the conference where McLaughlin presented his findings.
"And with less and less options available, they become more expensive."
The International Energy Agency has been sounding the alarm about locked-in global emissions for months now. In its November report, the IEA warned that on world scale, it will be impossible to meet climate-change targets unless radical changes are undertaken in the next five years.
The IEA said the world has a difficult task in limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius because existing infrastructure already produces 80 per cent of the carbon that would be consistent with such a target. That leaves little room to do anything else.
Canada faces a similar conundrum, the Round Table research shows.
There is a growing consensus that Ottawa's regulatory approach is moving too slowly to meet the government's 2020 target to reduce emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels. Last week, the federal environment commissioner's audit of the government's regulations confirmed that reaching the target would be "unlikely."
So far, Ottawa's regulations have tackled just one sector out of eight.
So the Round Table research focuses on how Canada can meet its 2050 targets instead. Canada and other G8 countries have committed to cutting emissions to 65 per cent below 2005 levels by that year.
It's possible that Canada could meet this target, McLaughlin said, but the longer Ottawa waits to put a clear price on carbon, the harder and more costly it will be.
The lack of clear details on what the federal government will expect has already caused casualties, added Wood.
Two major, emissions-friendly developments have recently collapsed, mainly because Ottawa has not put forward enough information about how its carbon regime will function, Wood said.
Investors pulled out of the Pioneer carbon-capture and storage project in Alberta, despite having $779 million in federal and provincial subsidies. Ottawa-based Iogen cancelled plans for a biofuel plant in Manitoba.
McLaughlin sees hope in electricity.
He says his research shows it will take massive investment — up to $16 billion annually — to meet the 2050 target. That money would be in addition to what is already invested in the carbon-producing sectors of Canada's economy.
Most of that would have to be in electricity, especially in hydro. His presentation showed that to meet the 2050 target, current investment of $12 billion a year in electricity would have to double.
But in order to attract that kind of money, McLaughlin said governments need to issue "strong, sustained, properly oriented price signals" that give policy certainty to investors.
Delays In Carbon Rules Mean Canada Is Locking In Emissions
Delays In Carbon Rules Mean Canada Is Locking In Emissions
OTTAWA - Delays in regulating greenhouse gas emissions mean Canada is quickly locking in old-fashioned infrastructure that will fill the air with carbon for decades to come, new research shows.
The longer the federal government waits to clamp down on emissions and business continues as usual, the more difficult and costly it becomes to meet environmental targets, the research concludes.
The new research comes from the soon-to-be-defunct National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the federally funded advisory group formed to give advice and research on sustainable development.
The Harper government is in the process of abolishing the agency.
It's likely the first time analysts have measured the country's shrinking room to manoeuvre as a result of investments made while businesses wait for governments to crack down on emissions.
The research also shows that electricity could be the salvation, as long as that sector can attract huge investment.
The research will be included in one of the advisory body's final reports to be published in a few weeks, but was presented by the round table's president, David McLaughlin, at a conference earlier this month. His slide presentation was obtained by The Canadian Press.
"We have said consistently that delay is costly," McLaughlin said.
Now, he says, the research shows just how costly.
His charts and graphs show that as Ottawa waits to implement regulations on emitters, investment in coal, oil, gas, electricity and buildings will be guided by the high-emission standards which have been the norm.
The effects could be felt for decades, since the life-span of much infrastructure is about 40 years — compounding the stock of emissions already in the atmosphere.
So any infrastructure built after the new regulations eventually come into place will have to be extra-efficient in order to make up for the delays of the past, McLaughlin said.
"The more and more of those (locked-in) investments that are made, the less and less options they (governments) have for actually finding emissions reductions in the economy," explained Alex Wood, senior director at Sustainable Prosperity, the think-tank that hosted the conference where McLaughlin presented his findings.
"And with less and less options available, they become more expensive."
The International Energy Agency has been sounding the alarm about locked-in global emissions for months now. In its November report, the IEA warned that on world scale, it will be impossible to meet climate-change targets unless radical changes are undertaken in the next five years.
The IEA said the world has a difficult task in limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius because existing infrastructure already produces 80 per cent of the carbon that would be consistent with such a target. That leaves little room to do anything else.
Canada faces a similar conundrum, the Round Table research shows.
There is a growing consensus that Ottawa's regulatory approach is moving too slowly to meet the government's 2020 target to reduce emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels. Last week, the federal environment commissioner's audit of the government's regulations confirmed that reaching the target would be "unlikely."
So far, Ottawa's regulations have tackled just one sector out of eight.
So the Round Table research focuses on how Canada can meet its 2050 targets instead. Canada and other G8 countries have committed to cutting emissions to 65 per cent below 2005 levels by that year.
It's possible that Canada could meet this target, McLaughlin said, but the longer Ottawa waits to put a clear price on carbon, the harder and more costly it will be.
The lack of clear details on what the federal government will expect has already caused casualties, added Wood.
Two major, emissions-friendly developments have recently collapsed, mainly because Ottawa has not put forward enough information about how its carbon regime will function, Wood said.
Investors pulled out of the Pioneer carbon-capture and storage project in Alberta, despite having $779 million in federal and provincial subsidies. Ottawa-based Iogen cancelled plans for a biofuel plant in Manitoba.
McLaughlin sees hope in electricity.
He says his research shows it will take massive investment — up to $16 billion annually — to meet the 2050 target. That money would be in addition to what is already invested in the carbon-producing sectors of Canada's economy.
Most of that would have to be in electricity, especially in hydro. His presentation showed that to meet the 2050 target, current investment of $12 billion a year in electricity would have to double.
But in order to attract that kind of money, McLaughlin said governments need to issue "strong, sustained, properly oriented price signals" that give policy certainty to investors.
Delays In Carbon Rules Mean Canada Is Locking In Emissions
And Newton's laws are from the seventeen hundreds. Don't apples still fall from trees in spite of this?