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  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4382
Reputation: 245.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progressive Tory wrote:
I am in favour of a BC style revenue neutral carbon tax.

The way Trudeau is going about his carbon tax doesn't look too great on him though. Bringing in a national plan isn't easy though due to the differences in provincial economies. It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.


You may want to consider the effects before you start finding the 'middle way'.

Where I live, in rural South West Ontario, gas is about $1 a liter, actually a fraction of a cent over that, depending on where you go.

In Vancouver, it's commonly over $1.25 a liter. Just sayin'.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6727
Reputation: 239.8
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( brad wall has found a video from last election in which trudeau said very clearly he wouldn't impose a carbon tax on the provinces , guess he is following Dalton Mcguinty's example and these promises mean nothing )


'Keep your word': Sask. Premier Brad Wall posts video of PM Trudeau calling imposed climate change plan 'nonsensical'



Saskatoon StarPhoenix Saskatoon StarPhoenix
More from Saskatoon StarPhoenix

Published on: October 4, 2016 | Last Updated: October 4, 2016 2:29 PM CST




Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall is urging Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to follow through on a pledge made during last year’s federal election campaign, when Trudeau said the Liberal Party was “committed to working with the provinces” to reduce carbon emissions.

“During last year’s election debate, Prime Minister Trudeau said the federal government imposing a climate change plan on provinces would be ‘nonsensical.’ I supported that policy,” Wall said Tuesday in a Facebook post.

“Prime Minister Trudeau: Keep your word.”

Wall, an outspoken critic of any form of carbon tax, had strong words on Monday after Trudeau announced the government would be establishing a “floor price” of $10 a tonne on carbon pollution in 2018. That price will rise to $50 a tonne by 2022. Wall, in a statement, said “the level of disrespect shown by the Prime Minister and his government … is stunning.”

In his Facebook post on Tuesday, Wall included a video from a debate last year between Trudeau, Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Tom Mulcair.


“The idea of imposing a bureaucracy out of Ottawa, a cap-and-trade system on provinces like British Columbia that have already moved forward with a world-renowned carbon tax that is actually working for them is actually a completely nonsensical plan. We are committed to working with the provinces to reduce emissions, to encourage them to hit the targets needed so that we can contribute as a responsible country,” Trudeau said in the debate.

Wall also included in the video a recent clip in which he and Trudeau stood side-by-side.

“I’ve also noted publicly that the prime minister campaigned on a plan to allow provinces to meet targets in the way that suited their jurisdictions. I support it then. I support it now,” Wall said in the video. “The work will be very important.”

Monday’s announcement was made in Ottawa to kick off a debate to support climate goals the feds committed to in Paris. It also happened as the federal environment minister was set to meet with her provincial counterparts to hash out details of a carbon pricing plan.

“I cannot believe that while the country’s environment ministers were meeting on a so-called collaborative climate change plan, the Prime Minister stood in the House of Commons and announced a carbon tax unilaterally,” Wall’s said Monday in his statement. “This meeting is not worth the CO2 emissions it took for environment ministers to get there.”


http://thestarphoenix.com/news.....onsensical
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4382
Reputation: 245.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
“The idea of imposing a bureaucracy out of Ottawa, a cap-and-trade system on provinces like British Columbia that have already moved forward with a world-renowned carbon tax that is actually working for them is actually a completely nonsensical plan. We are committed to working with the provinces to reduce emissions, to encourage them to hit the targets needed so that we can contribute as a responsible country,” Trudeau said in the debate.


How could you tell a more bare-faced lie than that.

Believe me, Gerald Butts, the PM's right hand and campaign manager, and former head of the World Wildlife Federation, knew it was a lie. He was part and parcel of the ill-fated Ontario Green Energy program. The lie they told when they announced this $multi-billion disaster is that it would bring in a whole new economy and jobs galore.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6727
Reputation: 239.8
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Quote:
“The idea of imposing a bureaucracy out of Ottawa, a cap-and-trade system on provinces like British Columbia that have already moved forward with a world-renowned carbon tax that is actually working for them is actually a completely nonsensical plan. We are committed to working with the provinces to reduce emissions, to encourage them to hit the targets needed so that we can contribute as a responsible country,” Trudeau said in the debate.


How could you tell a more bare-faced lie than that.

Believe me, Gerald Butts, the PM's right hand and campaign manager, and former head of the World Wildlife Federation, knew it was a lie. He was part and parcel of the ill-fated Ontario Green Energy program. The lie they told when they announced this $multi-billion disaster is that it would bring in a whole new economy and jobs galore.



I don't think there is much doubt there was some lies told last election by the liberals , they've shown a pattern especially Gerald butts to say what is needed to win and beat a conservative government than do what they feel like once there in power . trudeau is following mcguinty's playbook exactly

did trudeau know this promise would be broken during the election ? maybe not but did they know they were planning a nationwide carbon tax I would imagine they already were planning it back then , as it had been talked about as early is 2008 when dion leader
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4382
Reputation: 245.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why do we think Trudeau knew much of anything about a future Liberal government?

I think one of the Liberal's advantages in the last election is that they came from third, and did not receive much media scrutiny as a result. They simply matched whatever Mulcair was offering, sometimes in more attractive form. For example, they offered ca$h instead of building a day-care bureaucracy that wouldn't be complete for a decade.

When the climactic moment came, and Mulcair had to 'cost out' his promises, he failed utterly, which is when the Trudeaucrats came in with the idea of a 'small deficit'. They didn't want to be caught in whopper the way Mulcair had been. They promised economic growth at the price of a small amount of deficit financing.

The amount of the deficit rises with every new challenge to government.

When Dalton McGoof won, he said he wouldn't decrease, taxes, but he wouldn't increase them either. It wasn't three months later than they inceased taxes, first calling it an medicare premium.

We wo0ld be best to think of Justin Trudeau as the hood ornament of a powerful political machine. It doesn't matter if he's a nice guy. He's at best one voice amongst a few. Gerald Butts is the new power behind the throne. And there's nothing that guy woiuldn't do.
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1185
Reputation: 113
votes: 1

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Progressive Tory wrote:
I am in favour of a BC style revenue neutral carbon tax.

The way Trudeau is going about his carbon tax doesn't look too great on him though. Bringing in a national plan isn't easy though due to the differences in provincial economies. It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.


You may want to consider the effects before you start finding the 'middle way'.

Where I live, in rural South West Ontario, gas is about $1 a liter, actually a fraction of a cent over that, depending on where you go.

In Vancouver, it's commonly over $1.25 a liter. Just sayin'.


Your point exactly?
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6727
Reputation: 239.8
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progressive Tory wrote:
I am in favour of a BC style revenue neutral carbon tax.

The way Trudeau is going about his carbon tax doesn't look too great on him though. Bringing in a national plan isn't easy though due to the differences in provincial economies. It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.



thing is he is also raising the price of carbon and I believe his price eventually will be a lot more than what BC is charging now so it wlll get a lot more expensive in the years ahead

he is going about it horribly , I honestly can't recall a PM or Premier ever going about such a major issue so arrogantly and with so little input from those involved . at this rate is there even going to be any point having provincial legislatures if trudeau and the PMO office is just going to dictate the law of the land across Canada from Ottawa
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4382
Reputation: 245.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progressive Tory wrote:
Bugs wrote:
Progressive Tory wrote:
I am in favour of a BC style revenue neutral carbon tax.

The way Trudeau is going about his carbon tax doesn't look too great on him though. Bringing in a national plan isn't easy though due to the differences in provincial economies. It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.


You may want to consider the effects before you start finding the 'middle way'.

Where I live, in rural South West Ontario, gas is about $1 a liter, actually a fraction of a cent over that, depending on where you go.

In Vancouver, it's commonly over $1.25 a liter. Just sayin'.


Your point exactly?


I don't know everything about this, just my experience as a visitor last year, but it seems likely that the price of gasoline in Ontario ought to be more than it is in Vancouver. But it's about $0.25 a liter higher.

My point exactly? Well, the biggest difference I can see is these so-called 'revenue neutral' carbon taxes. Based on that evidence, it adds about 25% to the cost of fuel. I just wondered if you had an actual number in mind when you pronounced it an acceptable compromise.

Absorbing a 25% increase in the cost of fuel, as we teeter on the edge of a recession (or worse), strikes me as inopportune. I don't think that's just me.

I don't know what they are doing with that extra quarter a liter, maybe they are spending it on alleviating carbon discharges. Or maybe they're building a public transportation system instead.

(I think the truth is that the urban roads of Britiish Columbia are already at capacity, and for every car that comes off the road, another will replace it.)

But is that what this is really about? Or are they creating another income stream for government to use on urban transportation projects? Is that the plan they have to stimulate the economy?

It isn't that this is automatically a bad idea, although it isn't clear to me why it's the drivers of cars and trucks that should pay to improve suburbanites' access to downtown.

Trudeau's latest tactic is to threaten the provinces' health-care subsidies if they don't fall in line on the carbon tax. It's kind of thuggish.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....e32044581/

If you don't think that's thuggish, just keep in mind that he's playing with OUR money!

He doesn't want a conference of all the provinces, where a deal is worked out. He doesn't seem to have the patience to negotiate. That's what it looks like to me.

http://thestarphoenix.com/news.....onsensical

Until now, the prevailing legal myth about Canada was that it was formed as a legal "confederation" of nominally equal 'colonies', each handling its own internal affairs, collecting its own taxes, etc. Each level of government had it's own rights and responsibilities. That has been undermined over time to accommodate the welfare state, but it looks like Justin means to complete the process by usurping the role of monarch.

Canada seems to be turning into command and control structure if you know what I mean. Justin admires China for precisely the wrong reasons -- it's ability to rule while ignoring its own population.

The reason you don't think he's handling things well is, perhaps, that he is forcing his own priorities on us -- without debate or a social consensus -- rather than trying to solve a problem.
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1185
Reputation: 113
votes: 1

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I haven't done any significant research in this but numerous reports on BCs carbon tax shows that it's revenue neutral or even slightly revenue negative. So yes their fuel prices are significantly higher than they were prior to the carbon price but their income taxes are lower to make up for it.

Personally I prefer having much lower income taxes and increasing consumption taxation, like a carbon tax. Let me keep my money and I'll decide how I want to spend it, seems a lot better than the gov't taking it before I ever see it.

The majority of Canadians can also change their habits so they're paying even lower taxes. There are people driving now who could be using public transit, if gas was more expensive they may decide to switch. Instead of driving a truck that you might not need you drive a car.

Personally I don't see why conservatives are really opposed to this, as long as it is at least revenue neutral.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4382
Reputation: 245.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My root problem is that I don't believe the CO2 hypothesis, that is I do not believe that the increase in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing hurricanes and all that other b.s.

The Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, which leaves 1% for argon (the biggest component) and trace amounts of carbon dioxide, neon, helium, methane, krypton, hydrogen, nitrous oxide, xenon, ozone, iodine, carbon monoxide, and ammonia. Lower altitudes also have quantities of water vapor. Whene they report CO2, the usually talk about its rate of increase, but you can have huge rates of increase with small numbers but it doesn't mean much.

Since 1960, the CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from about 320 parts per million (ppm) to just over 400 ppm in 2015.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

Just to help us visualize this, it would take 11days, 13 hours and 47 minutes for a million seconds to pass. If you got a one-second 'beep' at the 400 ppm rate, and they were evenly distributed throughout, you would hear a 'beep' every 41 minutes and 40 seconds. If it were at 320 ppm, you'd hear it every 52 minutes 5 seconds.

The difference in CO2 would be about one 12 minutes 25 seconds apart.

What I am trying to get at is that, on the scale of the earth, these are very small changes.

I accept that there is more CO2, but nobody has proven it is an important greenhouse gas. It's barely a greenhouse gas, and then only under certain conditions. The real greenhouse gas is water vapour, which is Venus's problem. But water vapour develops after the rise in temperatures, not before. In other words, it's an effect of global warming, not a cause.

That doesn't mean that a lot of hot carbon atoms coming out of millions of exhaust pipes is a good thing. We should be concerned. But we aren't, really. The more we keep chasing the dream of Kyoto -- which will never happen as long as there are Third World nations -- the less we do for our urban air, our waterways, and normal conservation.

Secondly, the science isn't good enough to start spending public money on. The argument, from the Suzuki side, is that there is no time to waste, it may be already too late. But the predictions aren't being borne out. Watch Al Gore's movie today, and you will have to admit -- none of it has happened.

My perspective is longer. I got a book called Limits to Growth bought about 1970, and it was lost amongst my other books until five years ago, when I moved. I re-read parts of it, and it was a joke. They were predicting all the oil on earth would be gone by 2000, there'd be mass starvation, and there would be methane fires in the atmosphere by 2010, rising oceans, all of that stuff.

And nobody had even heard of global warming in 1970! If anything, they thought the world would go cold. The threat was over-population!

Before we start re-shaping our whole economy, I think the other side has some proving to do. That's my point of view. Acting like we can come to a solution to a fictional framing of the question isn't too smart. We, in Ontario, know. In Chatham-Kent, alone (where I live) there are 650 wind turbines, and lots of solar arrays. It costs us $0.11/kwh, and we often sell it to Michigan for 0.02/kwh. It will cost Ontarians billions, and will cost jobs, all because of stupid idealism, and the cynical pandering of the Ontario Liberals. And when they brought this stuff in, they were fully of happy horseshit about all the jobs we'd get because the EU wanted goods from environmentally compliant nations. Yeah, as long as they were at Chinese prices.
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1185
Reputation: 113
votes: 1

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2016 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the idea of shifting taxation away from income taxes. I think Harper should have reduced income taxes rather than cut the GST by 2 percentage points.

I am not someone who thinks about CO2 emissions and green house gasses etc. etc. but I do like the idea of shifting our taxation to a revenue neutral carbon tax. Whether you agree that climate change is real and what not I don't think anyone could argue that polluting less would be a bad thing. I think a carbon tax will give be the incentive to make changes.

I find it kinda funny that the Conservatives solution to reducing emissions is to bring in more regulations on polluters. How is bringing in more regulations, which will lead to the gov't being more complex and bigger a conservative solution?


Last edited by Progressive Tory on Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6727
Reputation: 239.8
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progressive Tory wrote:
I haven't done any significant research in this but numerous reports on BCs carbon tax shows that it's revenue neutral or even slightly revenue negative. So yes their fuel prices are significantly higher than they were prior to the carbon price but their income taxes are lower to make up for it.

Personally I prefer having much lower income taxes and increasing consumption taxation, like a carbon tax. Let me keep my money and I'll decide how I want to spend it, seems a lot better than the gov't taking it before I ever see it.

The majority of Canadians can also change their habits so they're paying even lower taxes. There are people driving now who could be using public transit, if gas was more expensive they may decide to switch. Instead of driving a truck that you might not need you drive a car.

Personally I don't see why conservatives are really opposed to this, as long as it is at least revenue neutral.


but its never going to be revenue neutral for the average Canadian , its a tax on everything and the price of everything will go up . and many rural Canadians don't have the option of public transit so must pay higher fuel prices , and even if 100 less people drive vehicles in rural Ontario cause of this tax that is going to do nothing to help the environment , its a tiny amount of carbon when compared to the global usage .

the only reason wynne was so in favour of this carbon price was that she was desperate for new revenue as her government was running out of money , that's why she was one of the first to sign up for the idea . its not about helping the environment its about creating another massive source of revenue for her government .

if she wanted to help the environment and reduce carbon , why not just plant more trees in southern Ontario ? there is room along the roads and suburbia to plant 1000's of trees that could capture carbon . I don't see wynne doing that , I just see her creating a new tax
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7523
Reputation: 301Reputation: 301
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progressive Tory wrote:

Personally I prefer having much lower income taxes and increasing consumption taxation, like a carbon tax. Let me keep my money and I'll decide how I want to spend it, seems a lot better than the gov't taking it before I ever see it.


That I can get behind;
However with an asterisk.

Lower all the income tax on all brackets, not just the first tier and remove sin taxes off "clean" energy options.

If the Provinces wants me off of gasoline cars then don't put HST on electricity.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7523
Reputation: 301Reputation: 301
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carbon Tax Aside for a moment;
This is an example of overreach from the Federal Government.

This is a discussion you have with the Provinces, not one you dictate at them.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4382
Reputation: 245.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progressive Tory wrote:
I like the idea of shifting taxation away from income taxes. I think Harper should have reduced income taxes rather than cut the GST by 2 percentage points.

I am not someone who thinks about CO2 emissions and green house gasses etc. etc. but I do like the idea of shifting our taxation to a revenue neutral carbon tax. Whether you agree that climate change is real and what not I don't think anyone could argue that polluting less would be a good thing. I think a carbon tax will give be the incentive to make changes.

I find it kinda funny that the Conservatives solution to reducing emissions is to bring in more regulations on polluters. How is bringing in more regulations, which will lead to the gov't being more complex and bigger a conservative solution?


Where do you find people who are in favour of polluting? I feel that all the concentration on Kyoto and the dreams of China and India voluntarily limiting their use of coal, has meant that we have neglected conservation. 'Conservation,' in the old sense of the word, and 'Environmentalism' are opposed. Environmentalism doesn't care about local problems. They are about saving the world. Conservation is about concrete things people want to fix.

This has become a political issue. If you aren't careful, huge amounts of public money will be misspent, as has already happened in 'progressive' Ontario. Wind doesn't work, and neither does solar, except in special applications. Why? Because you have to maintain the backup capacity anyway! And not in mothballs -- you have to keep the boilers on 'simmer' for when it gets cloudy or the wind drops.

Am I wrong here? This is irrationality in politics. The answer, of course, is nuclear energy. But the schools have frightened the kids and some can get upset because "you don't know what will happen!" But the record of nuclear power is excellent, and the CANDU reactor relies more on heavy water than enriched uranium. (If the Fukushima people had used CANDUs, the reaction would simply have stopped when the heavy water drained away.)

From my point of view, and with respect, I don't see how you find a 'middle way' with a hoax. I respect the instinct, but I think the best thing Conservatives could do is make the environmentalists prove their case, and show the engineering. It's far from proven at present.

I don't mean to be stupidly contentious, as is the style in politics. I mean to be open to the possiibility that they are right.

And, meanwhile, clean up urban air in the bad spots, protect wildlife, keep the rivers clean, and so on. Some of that is happening now, of course, and has big community support. Not the urban air. (The air quality in Toronto, where tobacco is a dangerous substance, is estimated by different people to cause somewhere between 1600 and 6000 deaths a year. That's 30 to 100 a week! I don't know how they get these figures, but there you are. Conservation would find ways to address the problem. Environentalism would look for a global solution run through the United Nations. ;)
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
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