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 3 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6249
Reputation: 228.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
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.


the way trudeau is implementing this program is absolutely horrible , I can't recall a federal government ever doing something so massive and then dictate to provinces they must follow or else . its really over the top and outrageous . they did have a vote in the house of commons on the paris accord but mp's weren't even given any time to go home to riding to consult with constituents or provincial governments about the plan . it was just done so quickly no one was given any time to think about the plan .

its truly horrible and not the way government in Ottawa should be run , Canadians expect more provincial authority over there own province and how it chooses to govern itself . were not looking for a dictator in Ottawa to tell us what to do , which is what trudeau is becoming
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1178
Reputation: 110.8
votes: 1

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:
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


BC brought in further tax relief for people who live in rural areas who would be impacted by their carbon tax more.

And Wynne's proposal was stupid. That doesn't mean all plans to price carbon are. The British Columbia model adopted by Gordon Campbell seems to be the right approach to me.

As well the idea that we shouldn't do anything because we don't produce much carbon doesn't make sense to me.
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1178
Reputation: 110.8
votes: 1

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
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. ;)


I typed good instead of bad.

I agree with need to do more with regard to conservation but I don't know enough about the other points you're making.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6249
Reputation: 228.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progressive Tory wrote:
RCO wrote:
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


BC brought in further tax relief for people who live in rural areas who would be impacted by their carbon tax more.

And Wynne's proposal was stupid. That doesn't mean all plans to price carbon are. The British Columbia model adopted by Gordon Campbell seems to be the right approach to me.

As well the idea that we shouldn't do anything because we don't produce much carbon doesn't make sense to me.


I'm really not familiar enough with the BC carbon tax to have a strong opinion on it . I've just felt it was obvious wynne just wanted the tax dollars and that's why she was so in favour of a carbon tax for Ontario .

I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing anything to try and help out the environment , I just don't see the liberals here doing much other than creating new taxes that won't create any new jobs and will harm the jobs we already have . the energy sector in Canada especially out west has already lost 1000's of jobs , this tax is just going to make things worse

if we want to reduce carbon in southern Ontario where there is sometimes air quality issues , I don't understand why we don't plant more trees . the land is already there and 1000's could be planted rather easily all over Ontario . it seems like a simple enough way to help out the environment here but I don't see wynne doing this I just see her raising taxes so she has more money to spend on her re-election effort
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4127
Reputation: 238.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO, my question hangs there: Why does it make sense to meet a hoax half way?

OK, let's concede that, just to be safe, we should do something anyway. If it makes a difference. All these hot carbon atoms in the atmosphere can't be a good thing.

But what?

There's no thought out, costed out, ground-ready solution. Check out this 2 minute video by someone who has some bona fides on these questions.

http://business.financialpost......s-expected

Instead, they make products that seem to address the problem. Like wind generators and electric cars and curly light bulbs. In some of these cases, these apparent 'solutions' may even add to the carbon problem. (Electric cars fall into this category.) And electricity seems to be 'clean' to people, but it too has to be generated, which often involves carbon.

The scientists who were keeping record of the pace of temperature change in the atmosphere destroyed their data, which de-frocks them as scientists. (Reproducability of results is a more central part of science than peer review!)

There was no global temperature collection that depended on thermometers until 1880ies. All the rest of it is based on tree rings and glacier cores.

And on top of that, NASA reports that there has been no global warming for 20 years. Nobody knows why. The actual climate scientists call it a 'hiatus'.

So at the heart of the swindle is the question of time. We are being stampeded into action. But there is time, and in any case, we don't really know what to do. We have a lot more to do to find a way out of the problem than educators, politicians, and activists want to pretend is at our very doorstep.

It's worthy of study, and long-range planning of possible 'solutions'. But we shouldn't be spending $billions on wind-generators -- not yet. It's important, because people can easily be manipulated with fear, which is what Suzuki and his gang specialize in. And when we need it, those $billions will have already been spent.


Last edited by Bugs on Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6249
Reputation: 228.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn't say the whole thing is a hoax , well there is definitely a need to do more to help out the environment . I just don't really see why liberal politicians feel higher taxes are the only answer to this problem .

there is clearly other things that could be done to reduce or capture carbon , first off would be to plant more trees and protect more existing areas that contain large amounts of trees as they capture carbon . there is lots of land and places in southern Ontario where they could plant new trees , I don't see wynne out there digging holes and doing this . I just see her raising taxes and such .

it just seems the liberals have come out and said higher taxes are the solution and not doing much to actually protect the environment itself .

there putting a lot of the burden on average people and families , so what if an average family decides to drive there car twice a week instead of 5 days a week . the reduction in carbon is tiny and will do nothing to help the environment but they've made life that much more difficult for someone who can't afford to fill up there car cause gas costs so much more .

I'm also not happy with Patrick Brown on this issue I like just about everything else about him so far except this issue . the ont pc's position is stuiped and makes no sense . everyone is upset about these new carbon taxes and there not even taking a stand against them so far . this is a huge mistake especially when there making higher hydro bills such an issue , the carbon tax is obviously going to raise hydro rates further and cost Ontario families a lot of money . I don't know what it take to get the pc caucus to wake up and see the light on this one ?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4127
Reputation: 238.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Would you concede that at least the 'rush' part of it is a hoax? You should review Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and compare his predictions for today with what has actually happened, and judge accordingly.

Or alternatively, watch Hillary blame climate change for Hurricane Matthew, realizing she is consciously telling lies. (If politicians really believed in global warming, would they charter 747's for their campaigns?)

These fantasies about 'climate change' have already led to huge malinvestments all over western Europe and North America. They will probably do more damage, as long as politicians can capitalize on them. This is the point at which there have to be some hard questions.

===================

As I see it, the McGuinty gang signed onto Green Energy as a way to stimulate economic growth in the province! Boy, were they taken to the cleaners! Wynne is stuck with it, and the hard part is closing down the program -- which recruits farmers to give long-term leases on land in return for an ample rent. They can't get out of those contracts. And closing it down is an admission of incompetence.

What's Brown to do? Is he going to re-educate Ontario on the science of this? Or wait in the bushes until Wynne takes her position. I suspect there's a certain amount of wisdom in letting the government go on record before his criticism starts.

He should, however, be making statements that help the media to ask more pointed questions, and calling out to hear the government's solution to the cost of electricity in Ontario.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6249
Reputation: 228.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't have enough stats or info to go as far as to say its all a hoax , I do think the environment is in need of some help , maybe I'm just not one to see new taxes as the solution .

the idea of a national carbon tax is not new , Dion and liberals proposed one as early is 2008 but it was rejected by voters , now with a majority and a personally popular leader they have simply decided to impose one without even bothering to consult with anyone or sell the idea .

Ontario's push for green energy is a total disaster , tory senator Bob Runciman had a good editioral a while back about the need for a large and in depth inquiry into Ontario's green energy mess , such as who got the contracts and why ? who were they connected to in the government ? why have rates gone up so much ? there is a lot to look into .
well the pc's are going after the liberals over hydro rates they haven't yet called for the inquiry suggested by this senator , maybe they will eventually I don't know

as for wynne's carbon tax or cap and trade whatever she is calling it , the opposition needs to take a stronger stand on it . its the oppositions job to question and look into further what the government is doing . even if there claiming something needs to be done about climate change that is not a reason to not look into her plan further to try and determine if it will have any effect or not on Ontario's environment . and if her plan to raise taxes will do anything other than raise taxes and the cost of everything ?

guess what I'm saying is its the opposition's job to look into this plan further and criticise it where needs be , they shouldn't be giving her a free pass on this one ,
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4127
Reputation: 238.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, the idea of a carbon tax is not new, but it goes back further than you suggest.

The UN is a hungry organization. It is like a state apparatus with no tax base. I speak now of the General Assembly of the UN, and the happy land where the NGOs frolic.

The idea of a 'carbon tax' grew out of the UN idea of taxing currency trades. When the idea failed, they were looking for some other way to justify a tax on the world. The idea of 'carbon tax' just floated to the surface when the Iraqis were so eager to sell their oil, after the Kuwaiti invasion. It was there when Iraqi oil was embargoed. You will recall how that collapsed in a rubble of corruption when it was revealed that UN officials were taking bribes. (No surprise there.)

The idea behind a tax being attached to 'carbon', and used to finance the UN independent of the big powers, came out of these struggles. A carbon tax is a way to get the industrial west to provide what would, in effect, a permanent income for the UN. The UN would have made a giant step towards becoming a state itself. It would first pay itself, and then pay for 'development' in the third world, mostly in Africa.

The Liberal government signed on in the early 1980ies, and did nothing. They were fully prepared to deal with the issue by writing a check, like an annual contribution to the United Appeal. The Chretien-Martin people did nothing to prepare for Kyoto's requirements -- no new restrictions, no carbon tax, no cap-ane-trade, just write them a check. Tell the voters we're paying to pollute, they'll be OK with that.

It isn't just Ontario where the Green Energy idea has been revealed to be such an expensive flop. Germany has come to the same realization. There are thousands of wind-generators in the US that are standing idle because the owners can't afford the maintenance. The whole thing is revealed to be a massive failure, which -- in Trudeau's La-la land, that means we can expect them to double down!
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4127
Reputation: 238.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another way of addressing the problem ...

Quote:
While Europe Gets Gouged, Americans Enjoy Cheap Power

We told you yesterday that spot prices for German electricity jumped more than 17 percent in one day due to constricted supplies from renewable producers and French nuclear reactors, but as green-crazed Germany continues to wrangle with some of Europe’s highest (and most volatile) electricity prices, American households are about to see the first annual drop in average electricity prices in 14 years. The WSJ reports:

Quote:
In the first six months of 2016, American residential consumers paid 12.4 cents a kilowatt hour, on average, a 0.7% drop over the same period of last year. If the trend continues, it would mark the first annual decline in home power prices since 2002. Prices for industrial and commercial customers already had been dropping for a couple of years.

There are several forces working in favor of the drop, including low prices for natural gas, which is an increasingly important fuel used to generate electricity. Overall U.S. electricity demand slumped 1.6% between January and July of this year versus a year ago, according to Energy Department data.


Plentiful—and therefore cheap—natural gas is one of the biggest drivers behind this drop in average American electricity prices, and this bounty comes to us courtesy of none other than the shale boom. Thanks to fracking, U.S. natural gas production is up more than 37 percent over the past decade, and at this point the hydrocarbon has gotten so cheap that it’s doing something very few other energy sources have ever done: it’s outcompeting coal on price.

Shale gas’s ascendance is undoubtedly a boon for Americans, who as we can see are paying less on their power bills every month. That’s especially helpful for poorer households, for whom these bills take up a larger slice of a monthly budget. Just as expensive energy can be seen as a kind of regressive tax that disproportionately harms the poor, so too can we consider cheap power as especially welcome for lower-income families.
http://www.the-american-intere.....eap-power/


Gas is a far more benign fuel than coal. It's the 'green' energy sources that cause the high prices. It's the Green Energy stuff.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6249
Reputation: 228.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( it looks like saskatchewan will try and fight the tax )


Brad Wall suggests Saskatchewan may resort to legal action to stop Liberal government’s carbon pricing plan


D.C. Fraser, Postmedia News | October 8, 2016 1:25 PM ET
More from Postmedia News
.
Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall arrives for a meeting of provincial premiers in Whitehorse, Yukon, Thursday, July 21, 2016.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall arrives for a meeting of provincial premiers in Whitehorse, Yukon, Thursday, July 21, 2016. .


Premier Brad Wall is a strong opponent of carbon pricing and now he may have to accept such a system is coming to Saskatchewan.

Wall spoke to reporters on Friday for the first time since the federal government announced a carbon pricing scheme, arguing it would hurt Saskatchewan people.

That plan will establish a “floor price” of $10 a tonne on carbon pollution in 2018 and by 2022 the number will rise to $50.

Such a plan has long been on the horizon and Wall’s anger over it was no surprise. The province’s Ministry of Justice is, according to Wall, reviewing its options for a constitutional challenge of the tax.



Justin Trudeau explains $10 per tonne carbon pricing 1:12


The premier has argued more than once it is not the right time to put a price on carbon; lines which have been repeated by the premier even as the Liberals signalled carbon pricing was inevitable.



In 2008, during his first term as premier, Wall responded to then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion’s push for a carbon tax by saying it would “kneecap” the economy.

At the time, Saskatchewan’s energy sector was booming as the price of a barrel of crude oil peaked at more than $150.

Wall has used the same language repeatedly, particularly over the past year, as the Liberals’ flirted with the idea of carbon pricing.

During the spring 2010 session, Wall’s government passed environmental legislation requiring large carbon emitters to pay into a fund that would be used to invest in low emission technologies.


AP Photo / Rob Griffith

AP Photo / Rob GriffithBrad Wall has been vocally opposed to a carbon pricing plan for years. .
.
That legislation was never enforced.

In March 2014 — with oil going for more than $100 a barrel — former opposition NDP leader Cam Broten blasted Wall’s government for “dragging their feet on having a carbon pricing mechanism in place for large emitters.”

Wall responded by charging the timing was not right and he wanted to wait for related regulations from the federal government before finalizing its carbon levy plans.

“It’s very prudent for us to wait,” Wall told reporters in 2014. “If we know these regulations are coming, we ought to wait for them and design our own levies for high emitters once we’re understanding what the federal rules are.”

With this week’s carbon pricing announcement, Wall now has a much better understanding of federal rules – plus more, as the Liberals are setting the price.


The energy sector has shed thousands of jobs and so we’ve said now is not the time, even for our plan
.
Now oil hovers, after a significant decline since the latter part of 2014, around $50 a barrel.

Wall suggested again Friday the timing for carbon pricing is just not right.

“The energy sector has shed thousands of jobs and so we’ve said now is not the time, even for our plan,” he said.

NDP Opposition leader Trent Wotherspoon criticized Wall on Friday for delaying a climate change plan over the years.


Related
Andrew Coyne: Liberals’ carbon price hardly a drastic measure
Tory leadership race 2017: Where all the declared and expected candidates fall on carbon pricing
Terence Corcoran: Carbon pricing is just another enviro con game (and we’re falling for it again)
.
“We have a premier that hasn’t taken this issue seriously, and now we’re in a position where Ottawa may be imposing a plan,” said Wotherspoon, who added he is not a fan of the federal government trying to force a plan on Saskatchewan.

Rather than put in a carbon levy, which Wall suggests may not even reduce emissions, he proposes a different approach to tackling climate change.

That includes investing in technology such as SaskPower’s $1.5 billion carbon-capture project at Boundary Dam 3, which according to the province is providing electricity to about 100,000 homes 10 times cleaner than other coal units. It has been in operation since 2014.

Adapting to the changing climate and boosting renewable energy sources are other areas of focus for Wall, who has tasked SaskPower to be using 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030.

All of those, he thinks, would serve the province better than the federal carbon levy plan.

The premier and the prime minister have had several back-and-forth exchanges online and in the media over the issue.

When Wall spoke to reporters, that continued.

Saskatchewan industries, particularly the agricultural, mining and energy sectors would be hurt by a carbon tax, said Wall.

He also took issue with the federal government’s lack of an economic impact assessment regarding its carbon pricing plan.

“It’s not there. The bottom line is, they haven’t done it,” said Wall.

Greenhouse gas emissions in Saskatchewan went up from 74.8 million tonnes in 2013 to 75 million tonnes in 2014.


http://news.nationalpost.com/n.....icing-plan
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6249
Reputation: 228.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

'We're going to continue to fight this fight': Premier Wall remains defiant towards Trudeau's carbon pricing plan


Dave Deibert, Saskatoon StarPhoenix
More from Dave Deibert, Saskatoon StarPhoenix

Published on: October 11, 2016 | Last Updated: October 11, 2016 12:10 PM CST



Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall continues to question the legality and constitutionality of the federal government’s proposed carbon pricing plan.

Wall remained defiant on Tuesday, speaking publicly for the second time since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the Liberal government’s plan to impose carbon pricing on provinces that don’t match the tax or implement a cap-and-trade system on emissions. Wall again wondered aloud how the federal government could “develop and impose a tax on one or two provinces? How is that constitutional? We’ll at least ask that question.”

Wall said officials with the Ministry of Justice are looking into all legal options or constitutional challenges should the Liberal government move forward with the pricing plan.

“I’m not sure how much company we’ll have but I don’t care,” Wall said Tuesday during a brief media scrum in Saskatoon. “We’re going to continue to fight this fight.”

Here are a few more sound bites from Wall’s scrum …

Wall, on his government next week presenting a white paper on climate change, proposing some of what he has talked about in recent days:



“It will form the foundation of some specific ideas,” he said, adding that “it’s never been like Saskatchewan” to criticize something without proposing an alternative idea. “We’ll build on that a week from now and the weeks to follow that.”

Wall, on those who say farmers affected by a potential carbon tax can just pass the added expense on down the line. Wall noted that farmers would be hit hard by such a tax, on everything from fertilizer to fuel to dealing with competition on a global scale:

“You think the Russian or the Belarusians will ever have a $50 carbon tax? They won’t.”

Wall, on how a high percentage of those who would be impacted by a carbon tax are working in “trade-exposed industries” and rely on global pricing. The federal government has insisted that all money generated from a carbon tax will go right back to the provinces:

“Then what is the point? It sounds like a bureaucratic merry-go-round.”

Wall, on using the “considerable talents” of people in the industry to “find ways to clean up energy consumption,” rather than implementing a new tax or shifting carbon around through cap-and-trade:

“I would argue we’ve been leading the fight … In our province, years ago when the economy was stronger, we chose through SaskPower to make the investment in carbon-mitigation technology.” Wall insisted the billion-dollar Boundary Dam Power Station carbon capture project in Estevan burns coal four times cleaner than natural gas, and 10 times cleaner than other coal plants. “We have been doing that. We’ve led in that, in fact.”

Wall, on how Canada is responsible for 1.6 per cent of global emissions — and Saskatchewan is responsible for 10 per cent of that 1.6 per cent. He questions “exactly how” the Liberal government’s proposal is fair to the people of the province:

“We take this issue seriously but a carbon tax … will disproportionately hurt our economy in Saskatchewan. That’s not a solution.”

Wall, last week, said in a statement that “the level of disrespect shown by the Prime Minister and his government … is stunning.” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced last Monday that 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. Trudeau made his announcement at the same time the federal environment minister was meeting with her provincial counterparts to hash out details of a carbon pricing plan.

Trudeau has said carbon pricing will be imposed on provinces that don’t match the tax or implement a cap-and-trade system on emissions.



Wall says it’s not clear how Ottawa’s plan will take effect if Saskatchewan or other provinces say they’re not implementing a price on carbon.

Last week, Wall said the pricing plan would “siphon” more than $2.5 billion out of the province, though the accuracy of that number has been questioned. Wall on Friday said he spoke to Trudeau this week after the carbon pricing plan was announced and asked several times for the federal government’s economic assessment into the pricing plan.

Wall stressed his position again on Tuesday that a significant tax on the agriculture, mining and oil and gas industries would mean fewer jobs or people making less money. He added that Canadians need to address climate change, but said that can be done through technological solutions and adaptation

http://thestarphoenix.com/news.....icing-plan
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6249
Reputation: 228.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( were very bad actors ? cause we have to use gasoline to drive our cars to work and hydro to heat our homes ? what other choices did we have ? is wynne losing it ? )


Wynne calls Ontarians 'very bad actors' when it comes to greenhouse gas produced



Premier Kathleen Wynne says her government is introducing a cap-and-trade system next year because Ontarians are "very bad actors" when it comes to per capita creation of greenhouse gases.



Hamilton Spectator

NIAGARA FALLS, Ont. - Premier Kathleen Wynne says her government is introducing a cap-and-trade system next year because Ontarians are "very bad actors" when it comes to per capita creation of greenhouse gases.

Wynne says Ontario led the way in fighting climate change by shutting down all its coal-fired electrical generation stations, and admits it is responsible for a only small percentage of global greenhouse gas emissions.

But she says the province must "play a role" in Canada's fight against climate change because of the amount of emissions that are produced.

The Liberal government predicts cap-and-trade will add about $5 a month to home heating bills and about four cents a litre to the price of gasoline at the pumps when it kicks in Jan. 1.

The premier told the Niagara Chamber of Commerce she knows there is "some anxiety" in the business community about cap-and-trade, which allows polluters to buy emission credits that they can sell if they come in under their limit.

Wynne said the Liberals choose cap-and-trade over a carbon tax because the money raised from emission auctions will be used to help businesses reduce their greenhouse gases and to develop new, cleaner technologies.

"It's not just a financial burden," she said. "They actually get money back in order to innovate, so that's how they will reduce their emissions and be supported by the system."

http://www.thespec.com/news-st.....-produced/
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4127
Reputation: 238.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, no. no, RCO, we don't have to use gasoline ... we don't even have to have cars. You say you don't have enough ''proof' to stand up to the hoax. These people are zealots, they don't care what the facts are, while you cautiously weigh whether or not you have enough evidence to just say that you don't believe the pseudo-science.

But you have more evidence of the hypothesis failing than you do of it succeeding. Where are the rising oceans? Where are the methane fires in the atmosphere? Is there a single one of the climate crowd's predictions that have actually come true?

Why is it that people who claim to be 'conservative' ... which surely means you proceed with change with prudence ... are all mixed up, half-believing it even as they shake their heads at the waste? Why can't Canadian conservatives ever take a stand?
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6249
Reputation: 228.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trudeau’s carbon price idiotic, given Trump’s election


lorrie-goldstein
By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun
First posted: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 04:41 PM EST | Updated: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 04:46 PM EST


Unlike Justin Trudeau, Stephen Harper understood why it was reckless to impose a national carbon pricing scheme on Canada, unless the U.S. did the same.

The surprise victory of President-elect Donald Trump Tuesday has driven home the wisdom of Harper’s policy and the foolishness of Trudeau’s.

That’s because it’s going to cost Canadians billions of dollars more than they were already going to have to pay for a national carbon pricing scheme, that is essentially nothing more than a cash grab by the provinces.

Why? Because Trump, who has called man-made climate change a hoax, not only becomes U.S. president in 71 days, the Republicans also retained control of Congress.

That means a national carbon pricing program in the U.S., which would have been on life support even if Hillary Clinton had won, is dead on arrival.

Indeed, the UN’s 2015 Paris climate treaty itself is in critical condition.

News of Trump’s victory must have hit the ongoing, annual UN global warming gabfest in Marrakesh, Morocco like an earthquake.

That’s because Trump will soon have the power, backed by Congress, to wipe out Obama’s entire legacy on climate change.

That includes Obama’s subsidization of renewable energy, his Clean Power Plan, his ratification of the Paris treaty, and his side deal with China to reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.

Given that the U.S. is the planet’s second-largest emitter after China, and the leader of the developed world, if Trump pulls the U.S. out of the Paris treaty, and there’s no reason to think he won’t, the deal will be as good as dead.

The problem in Canada is that Trudeau, working hand-in-glove with premiers like Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne and Alberta’s Rachel Notley, is imposing a new cost of doing business on our industries through his national carbon pricing scheme, that doesn’t exist in the U.S.

That means Canadian industries will have to pay this new cost, not shared by their competitors in the U.S., our largest trading partner, which they will then pass along to us.

It also means the public subsidies our governments are already going to pay to Canadian industries to keep them from bolting to countries that don’t have a national carbon price -- like the U.S. -- will have to increase.

Industries fleeing from countries that have national carbon pricing schemes to ones that don’t is called “leakage”.

Preventing leakage is the reason Wynne’s government is giving away free carbon allowances to major industries under its cap-and-trade scheme starting next year, which essentially means giving them free public money.

Similarly, Notley is giving multi-billion-dollar subsidies to industries in Alberta not to flee that province when she introduces a carbon tax next year.

Unlike Trudeau, Harper understood the economic folly of imposing a national carbon price on our industries unless the U.S. did the same.

The only time Harper supported a national cap-and-trade scheme was in the 2008 election, when it looked like Obama was about to get a similar plan approved in the U.S., before it died in Congress.

Given Trump’s victory, proceeding with a national carbon price in Canada is ludicrous and will hurt our economy even more.

The question is, how much more money will Canadians have to pay in higher prices and taxes on almost all goods and services -- which is what carbon pricing does -- to satisfy Trudeau’s political ego on the world stage?

http://www.torontosun.com/2016.....s-election
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 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