Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 211
Reputation: 92.7Reputation: 92.7
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Taking carbon pricing off the table, how do we convince people to stop burning fossil fuel?
The best way would be to replace it with nuclear power. Candu reactors are capable of using thorium, but switching our infrastructure to nuclear takes a lot of initial investment.
Do we impose rationing?
I do not understand the urgency for using up our petroleum reserves at a time when the price is so low. If we wait until the Middle East, Russia and the U. S. run out of oil, our product will be worth a lot more. There will always be a need for petro-chemicals and lubricants. Coking coal will always be needed in the manufacture of steel. Why waste it by burning it for energy?
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6257
Reputation: 228.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know but I think the Sun columnist had a good point , considering trumps win and republican control of congress there isn't going to be a carbon tax or war on oil south of the border for the next 4 years . heck keystone XL might even get built .

it makes no logical sense for Canada to wage one here on our oil and gad industry , there only going to scare away more investment and jobs to places that don't have a carbon tax .
it makes no sense for Canada to have a carbon tax if the US who we border does not have one and our companies are less competitive cause of that .

this carbon tax is going to cost average Canadians $thousands of dollars and do very little for the environment if countries like China and the US don't cut there emissions much
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6257
Reputation: 228.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( trudeau is delusional , the carbon tax is just plain crazy if the US doesn't have one , our businesses will be at such a disadvantaged and jobs will flee the country , this tax will not save the environment it will destroy the economy )


Trump presidency doesn't change need for Canadian carbon price, says Trudeau

Justin Trudeau
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks in Sydney, N.S. on Thursday, Nov. 10, 2016. (Darren Calabrese/The Canadian Press)


Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press
Published Thursday, November 10, 2016 1:29PM EST
Last Updated Thursday, November 10, 2016 5:47PM EST


OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says it's full steam ahead for his government's environmental plan -- including a national carbon price -- despite a Donald Trump presidency that will likely recast America's climate-change priorities.

The Liberals have made the fight against climate change one of the motifs of their government since coming to power a year ago, and had a highly sympathetic Democratic partner in Washington under the administration of President Barack Obama.

The new American president-elect, by contrast, has suggested climate change is a hoax, wants the United States out of the Paris climate accord and plans to promote the exploration and development of fossil fuels, including coal.



Trump's campaign website includes a section on energy but nothing on environmental policy.

The Trump policy blueprint promises to "Unleash America's $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves" and to "rescind all job-destroying Obama executive actions" concerning energy policy.

Trudeau announced last month that he'd impose a national floor price on carbon dioxide emissions starting in 2018, rising to $50 per tonne by 2022.

Canada won't be altering course, the prime minister told a news conference Thursday in Sydney, N.S., when asked about Trump's potential impact.

"One of the things people in Canada and indeed around the world understand is that there is tremendous economic disadvantage from not acting in the fight against climate change; for not pushing towards cleaner jobs and reducing emissions; towards not showing leadership at time where the world is looking for leadership," Trudeau said.

"We know that putting a price on carbon pollution is a way to improve our response to economic challenges, to create good jobs going forward and to show leadership that quite frankly the entire world is looking for, along with the solutions that go with it."

It's clear, however, that a Trump presidency is going to complicate the Liberal government's plans.

"A carbon tax makes no sense anymore," Conservative interim leader Rona Ambrose said in Edmonton, calling it "complete insanity" for Canada to continue pricing carbon emissions given the new American political reality.

"What we've got now is a situation where we could be put at a huge competitive disadvantage compared to the United States."

Obama and Trudeau jointly announced major reductions in methane emissions last March during a state dinner at the White House, and later joined forces with Mexico on a broader North American climate and clean energy strategy.

Washington and Ottawa have also agreed to cut hydrofluorocarbons, stabilize commercial airline emissions, align emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles, integrate electricity grids and co-ordinate Arctic strategies.

No one seems to know how Trump will act on these policy fronts, but his choice of climate skeptic Myron Ebell to lead the transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency sends a powerful signal.

Energy expert Alan Ross, regional managing partner in Calgary for Borden Ladner Gervais, noted in an interview that the EPA is currently drafting regulations to reduce methane emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2012 levels by 2025.

"There was a movement towards integration, or at least further co-operation" between Canada and the U.S. on cutting carbon emissions, said Ross, who now predicts a "significant pivot" under Trump.

"There's going to be a bit of a dislocation between what's happening in Canada and what is likely to happen in the United States under a Trump administration."

Ross suggests Canadian governments should be watching Congress closely. The Republican-held Congress has legislated fossil fuel subsidies and lifted the 40-year ban on U.S. oil exports during the Obama presidency. It certainly won't stand in the way of Trump's "business-friendly" agenda -- which could further help U.S. producers, he said.

"Canada is a high-cost jurisdiction to begin with," said Ross, and any measures that further help America's low-cost producers will be felt competitively in Canada.

The U.S. doesn't have a carbon price and no one was expecting one anytime soon, Scott Vaughan of the Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development, said in an interview from Marrakech, Morocco.

Issues of competitiveness presumably were already taken into account when the carbon price plan was created, he said.

"I don't see this as being any reason to fundamentally change the course that the government has set."

The bigger questions, said Vaughan, relate to energy policy and Trump's readiness to roll back executive orders made by Obama.

Trump's stated position on reviving coal is "an absolute concern from a climate perspective."

Vaughan suggested that under Trump, "maybe the United States will look a little like Canada did" during the previous Conservative government, when cities, businesses and provinces led the policy push.

"Leadership means being able to take the lonely path sometimes."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics.....-1.3154766
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6257
Reputation: 228.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trudeau hails new climate change ‘framework’ agreement, but two provinces still not on board


The Canadian Press | December 9, 2016 8:54 PM ET
More from The Canadian Press
.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau takes part in the Meeting of First Ministers in Ottawa on Friday, Dec. 9, 2016.

.


OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared victory Friday in his campaign to craft a national “framework” agreement on climate change — even though Saskatchewan and Manitoba refused to sign on to the deal.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall’s full-throated opposition to the plan, which includes imposing a price on carbon, was fully expected going into today’s day-long first ministers meeting.

But surprise resistance from British Columbia’s Christy Clark and Manitoba’s Brian Pallister threatened throughout the day to upset Trudeau’s hopes for a triumphant finale to a year of federal-provincial climate negotiations.

Pallister, who has been pressing the federal government for concessions on health care funding, appeared to withhold his support solely for the purpose of extracting additional help from Ottawa in dealing with escalating health costs.

“As they rise, through demographic realities, we have to face that as team members and partners, as we have demonstrated we can do today,” Pallister told a group news conference late Friday.




“I have an obligation, because that’s the first concern of the people of my province, to raise the issue, and I will continue to raise the issue.”


.
The sticking point for Wall and Clark was Trudeau’s plan to set a national price on carbon — starting at $10 a tonne in 2018 and rising to $50 a tonne by 2022 — and impose it on provinces that do not implement their own carbon pricing plan.

Wall is ideologically opposed to the idea of a carbon tax; B.C. already has a carbon tax but Clark wanted — and got — assurances that Ontario and Quebec’s cap-and-trade carbon market would impose an equivalent carbon price.

“If there is a prima facie case for jobs to potentially be threatened in trade-exposed industries — and that’s what we have, in carbon-intense industries — then I am going to defend the interests of the province,” Wall said.

“We will be participants in the battle on climate change … no one ought mistake this for a lack of interest or will or desire to impact this issue. But if it’s a carbon tax and it’s imposed federally, we’re not signing on.”

At that point, Trudeau jumped in — seemingly to remind Wall and others that he wasn’t the only provincial leader being asked to make concessions.

“What animated all of us today —every single one of us on this stage — is a desire to do the right thing for our kids and grandkids, a desire to make sure that we have a protected environment for the future, and that we have good, clean jobs in the future,” the prime minister said.

“Every single person on this stage fought hard for their region, for their jurisdiction, for the region that they serve, as did I fight hard for Canadians, and we came together with a historic agreement, and that’s the thing that we really do need to focus on.”

As the talks appeared to be winding down Friday, a deal looked unlikely.


Clark emerged from the meeting to publicly kneecap the prime minister’s signature climate plan, but within minutes of her remarks, word began to emerge of a compromise.

Trudeau had initially and unilaterally imposed an escalating floor price on carbon dioxide emissions, starting at $10 in 2018 and topping out at $50 in 2022, when the policy would be reassessed.

Under the compromise deal, the carbon price would pause at B.C.’s existing $30 level in 2020, when an independent expert panel will look at how the plan is evolving.

It was a sudden and surprising about-face from Clark, who less than an hour earlier had was telling reporters that the talks were grinding along slowly, that the matter was hard slogging and that an agreement appeared a long way off.

Indeed, before talks even began, it was Clark herself who shoved a hockey stick in the Liberal spokes, citing the unresolved matter of comparing Quebec and Ontario’s cap-and-trade carbon market to a national floor price proposed for other provinces.

“It’s got to be a fair deal. And you have to have one price for all Canadians if it’s going to be a national price,” Clark — who faces the B.C. electorate in a May election — said earlier in the day.

Wall had already flatly stated he wouldn’t sign the proffered agreement and Clark was suggesting it might be prudent to “set aside clauses.”

Trudeau had already set the table when he opened the morning session with premiers, indigenous leaders and U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden by asserting, “We should not waver” in the fight against climate change.

Biden, just weeks away from the end of the Obama administration and the ascendency of Donald Trump’s Republicans, gave a rallying speech of sorts before departing the meeting.

“We’re always stronger when we’re working together,” said Biden.

But the promised show of pan-Canadian unity on climate policy was showing strains as the meeting began.

Wall said Ottawa has failed to provide an economic analysis of the biggest tax change in a generation, which he asserts will hammer Saskatchewan jobs and industry.

He brandished a heavily redacted Finance Department memo — obtained by a media outlet through an access-to-information request — that says a carbon tax would “cascade throughout the economy and prices would increase most for goods that make intensive use of carbon-based energy.”

And he made common cause with Clark, saying the federal plan will result in a competitive “imbalance” given emitters in central Canada, where cap-and-trade will mitigate emissions, face a lower carbon price than in western Canada.

Quebec’s carbon market is currently trading permits for about $8 per tonne, with a forecast the price will rise to $16 per tonne once Ontario’s market is fully up and running with Quebec and California in the Western Climate Initiative.


What we’re trying to do is meet our (emissions) target at the lowest possible cost, not the highest cost.
.
Paul Boothe, an economics professor at the Ivey Business School and member of the non-partisan Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission, said there’s no reason provinces must have identical tax rates, pointing to differing provincial sales and income taxes across Canada.

“I think this fairness discussion is a bit of a red herring,” Boothe, a former deputy finance minister in Saskatchewan, said in a telephone interview.

“What we’re trying to do is meet our (emissions) target at the lowest possible cost, not the highest cost.”

Ideally, B.C. and Alberta companies should be free to buy carbon credits from other jurisdictions instead of paying the carbon tax, which would ensure emissions reductions are achieved at the lowest price available.


http://news.nationalpost.com/n.....ot-onboard
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4132
Reputation: 238.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
Taking carbon pricing off the table, how do we convince people to stop burning fossil fuel?
The best way would be to replace it with nuclear power. Candu reactors are capable of using thorium, but switching our infrastructure to nuclear takes a lot of initial investment.
Do we impose rationing?
I do not understand the urgency for using up our petroleum reserves at a time when the price is so low. If we wait until the Middle East, Russia and the U. S. run out of oil, our product will be worth a lot more. There will always be a need for petro-chemicals and lubricants. Coking coal will always be needed in the manufacture of steel. Why waste it by burning it for energy?


Why would be do that when there is so little evidence that global warming is the catastrophe that low-watt environmental capitalists try to scare us with?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

A 'hiatus' is a misuse of words. The CO2 hypothesis is not happening, and has not happened for 20 years. It means that hypothesis is probably wrong! Al Gore said we'd be in a disaster by now. Are we?

When you are going to saddle your nation with a new tax with so much potential for unforeseen consequences (and you are doing not for the money, but as a social engineering exercise) wouldn't it be nice to know that it has some prospect of improving the crisis you are pretending to address?

(For that to happen, China and India would have to lose their EXEMPTION, even though they are the fastest growing pollution sources in the world!)

Maybe it would be perfectly OK to do nothing! Maybe it would even be better to do nothing?
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6257
Reputation: 228.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

environment

Trudeau Liberals’ national climate deal to have big price tag for Canadians


Shawn McCarthy


OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail


Published Sunday, Dec. 11, 2016 9:40PM EST


Canadians will pay billions of dollars more a year to fundamentally change the way the country produces and consumes energy as a result of the new pan-Canadian climate deal.

Both Ottawa and the provincial governments have laid out a portion of the costing for emission-reduction measures including carbon pricing, and the tally – through private and public spending – reaches in the multibillions of dollars per year.

In defending the agreement signed late Friday, federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna argues the higher costs represent an investment in the economy as the global economy transitions to a low-carbon future to combat climate change.


“Our perspective is that this makes us more competitive not less,” Ms. McKenna said Sunday on CTV’s Question Period. “That’s why businesses across Canada have said to put a price on [carbon] pollution – that will make us innovate, it will significantly reduce emissions and it will make us more competitive.”

She noted large economies such as China are moving aggressively to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions, creating a massive market for clean technology, which Canada can then sell to the world.

Ms. McKenna has also argued that Canada has an obligation to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions as part of the global effort to avert a climate catastrophe that would impose a terrible burden on future generations, both economical and environmental.

Federal, provincial and territorial leaders who signed onto the “pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change” endorsed the target of reducing GHGs by at least 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

At the core of the agreement is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s national carbon-pricing plan, which requires all provinces to have a carbon price in place by 2018, or face a federal levy of some kind. Provinces can either adopt a carbon tax that would rise to $50 per tonne by 2022, or a cap-and-trade system that would have to meet federal emission-reduction standards.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister refused to sign the deal. Mr. Wall rejects carbon pricing outright, while Mr. Pallister – who has promised a “made-in-Manitoba” carbon price – withheld support until he can get a better deal on federal health-care transfers.

Overshadowed by the spat over carbon pricing is that the governments agreed to a plethora of complementary measures to reduce emissions in the electricity sector, industry, transportation and buildings. They include: a plan to virtually phase out traditional coal-fired power by 2030; regulations requiring the oil and gas industry to cuts its methane emissions by up to 45 per cent by 2025; regulations and subsidies to encourage the use of electric vehicles, and tougher building codes by 2030 that will require all homes built to be energy self-sufficient.

The long-term goal is to achieve deep reductions in carbon emissions by 2050 through eliminating fossil-fuel use in the electricity system, dramatically improving energy efficiency in industry, transportation and buildings, and then using clean electricity to supply the energy that is needed.

Conservative environment critic Ed Fast complained the federal government has not released a full costing of the pan-Canadian framework, nor any analysis as to its impact on jobs. Mr. Fast said the carbon pricing will make the Canadian economy less competitive at a time when U.S. president-elect Donald Trump wants to ease regulatory burdens on industry and lower corporate taxes.

Canada’s proposed regulatory measures do not have any costs or benefits identified – they would generally result in higher upfront costs for homes and vehicles, for example, that would be paid for with energy savings over time.

But the governments have laid out some costing for emission-reduction measures. The federal government alone pledges to spend $3.7-billion over the next several years to support the adoption of emission-reduction technology in the resource sector; on grants and loans for the clean-technology startups, and on the revision of building codes. It also pledged $81-billion over 11 years in infrastructure spending for public transit, more efficient cities, rural and remote communities and green infrastructure.

Alberta’s New Democratic Party government says its carbon-pricing plan will raise $9.6-billion over five years, though $3.4-billion of that will be rebated to consumers. That price does not include the potential for higher electricity bills as it shifts off coal. Ontario has estimated that it will collect between $6-billion and $8-billion from its cap-and-trade plan over the next five years, much of it from higher costs for gasoline and natural gas for home heating.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....e33295125/
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4132
Reputation: 238.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So ... they are admitting that this is not 'revenue-neutral'. I think they are being dishonest, just the same.

Once the revenue stream is there, what government would not alter prices to get more rather than cut spending?
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6257
Reputation: 228.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Liberals know how much its carbon tax will cost consumers — but won’t tell you



David Akin | February 6, 2017 | Last Updated: Feb 7 8:22 AM ET
More from David Akin | @davidakin



OTTAWA — Federal finance department officials have calculated how much more Canadian households could pay each year as a result of a pending federal carbon tax but neither the department nor Finance Minister Bill Morneau will share those details.

Morneau is being challenged in Parliament by Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre to publish that information while Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, who, like Poilievre, is an opponent of a federal carbon tax, has been challenging Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to do the same.

Both men say they believe the Trudeau government should provide Canadians with information about the financial consequences to individual households of the pending carbon tax.

For his part, Poilievre, who served as a minister in Stephen Harper’s notoriously disclosure-averse cabinet, has been using federal access to information laws as well as his prerogative as a member of Parliament to compel the government to disclose the cost of carbon taxes to Canadian households.

In the House of Commons Monday, Poilievre pressed Morneau to table that information.

“The measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable. That is why I asked how it is this carbon tax will impact on the poorest Canadians,” Poilievre said during question period. “At first, the government said, ‘No such data exists’. Then it said, ‘It exists; we just don’t want to tell you what it is.’ That is the current position of the government, that it wants to keep secret from Canadians, the most vulnerable Canadians, those with the least, the impact of this heavy new carbon tax on heat, hydro, gas and electricity.”

Trudeau has told provinces that they must, by 2018, put a price on carbon at a level high enough that they can help Canada achieve its international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But he has also said on numerous occasions that he expects provinces to use whatever revenue they generate by pricing carbon to be turned back to the citizens of that province to help offset any increase in the prices of goods or services.

One of the documents Poilievre received under federal access-to-information laws is an internal finance department memo written on Oct. 20, 2015, in which the department tries to figure out the financial impact of a federal carbon tax on different kinds of voters.

The memo, titled “Impact of a carbon price on households’ consumption costs across the income distribution” was written by Jean-François Perreault. Perreault was then an assistant deputy minister at Finance Canada. He left the finance department in the spring of 2016 to join Scotiabank as its chief economist.

Much of Perreault’s memo, a copy of which was provided to the National Post by Poilievre’s office, has been heavily redacted by government censors.

But Perreault is crystal clear on this point: Pricing carbon, be it through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, will hit consumers in the pocketbook.

“These higher costs (which) would then cascade through the economy in the form of higher prices, thus leading all firms and consumers to pay more for good and services with higher carbon content.”


Related
Terence Corcoran: Trudeau Liberals just got struck by the first shot in Canada’s carbon-tax rebellion
Kevin Libin: Trudeau’s climate non-deal just kicked off a whole new era of carbon quarreling
Andrew Coyne: Liberals’ carbon price hardly a drastic measure
.
In the memo, Perreault prepared a table that laid out several different carbon pricing scenarios and, for each scenario, assessed how it would affect the value of all Canadian economic activity; how much revenue would be produced for governments; and how many fewer megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions would be genereated in each scenario. All the numbers, though, in that table were blacked out.

Poilievre tried to get the same information through a parliamentary procedure known as an Order Paper Question but, again, the data Poilievre was seeking was blacked out.

Wall, the Saskatchewan premier, said in December that Trudeau’s carbon tax could cost the average Canadian family as much as $1,250 a year in higher prices for everything from groceries to gasoline.

He, too, has asked the federal government to release its calculations and estimates of the costs of a federal carbon tax.

http://news.nationalpost.com/n.....t-tell-you
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


federal liberals planning nationwide carbon tax ?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB