Ottawa hides its carbon tax math while Saskatchewan crunches the numbers

[Ghostsof1915]

How about instead of buying pipelines, we invest in wind, solar, tidal, algae fuel, and sustainable industries that don't pollute as much? 

 

Provide more jobs in growing industries, instead of looking to resources to grow our economy. 

[JM_]

20 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Jimmy, the footprint totally belongs to those that make it but it needs to have a balance to the approach.   Further, wouldn't you agree that the overall global footprint has to be considered as well?   In that context, shipping Alberta oil to Asia has LESS overall GHG impact than Asia using middle east oil.....don't we owe that to the global issue too?

 

Canadian's should contribute a lot to the world but political pandering isn't in that list.   Curbing emissions is best addressed by improved technology on the emissions, more humans per vehicle mile (transit) and life-cycle considerations to energy that is used.   A carbon tax does not help any of those - in particular when the collecting agent (in this case, the Federal Government) obfuscates the cost-benefit evaluation.    

 

I don't view this as a "pro or anti" Liberal thing at all.  I would be one of the last people to vote NDP, for example, and it is an NDP government in Sask that is raising the most logical resistance to this.   It was a Liberal government in BC that pushed harder than even the Federal Liberals until the Climate champion lady showed up in Cabinet.   

 

Canada can contribute a lot to the global stage and indeed punch above its weight but blindly following some rhetoric that only taxes people but does not have real benefit to the actual issue is not how to lead on this file IMHO.   

totally agree on using AB oil, its ridiculous that Canada imports any oil at all for climate and political and social reasons. No argument there.

 

my issue with what you posted was a reaction to how the author presented and framed his points - he's trying to use red herrings like redaction as "evidence" there's some messed-up conspiracy going on in Ottawa and only the resistance in Sask is going to save us. I mean come on, how can you have a discussion or reach a compromise with that? I probably over-reacted but I really dislike presentations like that (its a lot like the far left misrepresents things sometimes, like an article in the Tyee that talks about sinister meetings between gov't and business leaders when thats just how things are done any given Tuesday).

 

My personal preference would be a system that incentivizes vs. just raises taxes and I'm not really upset that Trudeau is going to have to hit the reset button on his climate plan, I just hope that means we don't end up doing nothing. 

 

 

 

[JM_]

10 hours ago, Violator said:

They dont mind taxes just not ones that arent gonna change anything.

thats a good point. 

[Rob_Zepp]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

totally agree on using AB oil, its ridiculous that Canada imports any oil at all for climate and political and social reasons. No argument there.

 

my issue with what you posted was a reaction to how the author presented and framed his points - he's trying to use red herrings like redaction as "evidence" there's some messed-up conspiracy going on in Ottawa and only the resistance in Sask is going to save us. I mean come on, how can you have a discussion or reach a compromise with that? I probably over-reacted but I really dislike presentations like that (its a lot like the far left misrepresents things sometimes, like an article in the Tyee that talks about sinister meetings between gov't and business leaders when thats just Tuesday).

 

My personal preference would be a system that incentivizes vs. just raises taxes and I'm not really upset that Trudeau is going to have to hit the reset button on his climate plan, I just hope that means we don't end up doing nothing. 

 

 

I didn't read the article in same way you did but I agree on incentives but those have to be based in some logical construct and not blind mantra of "carbon bad, taxes needed" that seems to embraced a few of the politically susceptible.   When I see "save us" I think of better solutions - I don't see that coming from Sask - I see Sask simply trying to sort out the cost benefit and I don't see that leadership, yet, coming from Ottawa...that is where the redaction concerns me as such should be very transparent and apparently that isn't the case.   I don't see it as a conspiracy, I see it as a political mess that was not based on anything approaching logic.....but, why should this file be any different in these current times we live in (we only need look to your south).

 

Cheers 

[Rob_Zepp]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

thats a good point. 

That's the KEY Point. 

[Ghostsof1915]

That's the difference between high taxes in Sweden and Canada. You actually get services, and things that you pay for with your tax dollars. 

In Canada we keep getting taxed and is it just to pay debt? Or to try to maintain what we have? 

[JM_]

10 hours ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

Rob, I believe you'd be making a very huge mistake if you think Jimmy's opinions and the way he presents them represents Canada. I'd like to believe that people here try to reach out to the other side and engage in reasonable discourse.

If you have an issue with something I've said, start a new thread and I'll happily back it up, or be open to you changing my mind if you can present a good argument. 

[Rob_Zepp]

8 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

How about instead of buying pipelines, we invest in wind, solar, tidal, algae fuel, and sustainable industries that don't pollute as much? 

 

Provide more jobs in growing industries, instead of looking to resources to grow our economy. 

Well, that is a good idea to a point but some of those things actually do impact the environment as much, or more, than efficient use of fossil fuels if you look at the life-cycle impacts and the energy input per energy unit provided.  Further, someone has to fund those developments/jobs and if you want that to be the government...fine, then give the government the revenue to do so.   What is the best way for the Canadian government to get revenue?   A strong resource economy.   

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

That's the KEY Point. 

sure but if we take a step back a number of decades, we see that our oil industry did get a lot of state support to get going. If we do think there is a future in green tech on a large scale, that deserves similar support. Where else but taxation and/or debt will the money come from? 

[Rob_Zepp]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

sure but if we take a step back a number of decades, we see that our oil industry did get a lot of state support to get going. If we do think there is a future in green tech on a large scale, that deserves similar support. Where else but taxation and/or debt will the money come from? 

All industries get government support for sure but to pin one industries support on another when the two don't necessarily have different environmental outcomes seems pretty disingenuous.   I think instead if the government changed this to incentives that were funded from resource development versus putting this into another tax at end user then it could then be a cost-benefit calculation based on a transparent environmental value impact statement.    Further, looking at how Canada can assist the global environmental mission by having countries that need imported energy have access to that energy from environmentally responsible regions can be a big part of the solution that adds lots of revenue to Canada which can, in turn, but used to further emission control R&D and alternative energy developments.

[Ghostsof1915]

3 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Well, that is a good idea to a point but some of those things actually do impact the environment as much, or more, than efficient use of fossil fuels if you look at the life-cycle impacts and the energy input per energy unit provided.  Further, someone has to fund those developments/jobs and if you want that to be the government...fine, then give the government the revenue to do so.   What is the best way for the Canadian government to get revenue?   A strong resource economy.   

But we've always relied on resources as the major focus. Look at places in Asia that lack resources, and their economies are some of the strongest in the world. 

Why export raw wood, when we can make products with them first, and sell off surplus. We have 19th century robber barons in a 21st century world. 

[Ghostsof1915]

10 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Well, that is a good idea to a point but some of those things actually do impact the environment as much, or more, than efficient use of fossil fuels if you look at the life-cycle impacts and the energy input per energy unit provided.  Further, someone has to fund those developments/jobs and if you want that to be the government...fine, then give the government the revenue to do so.   What is the best way for the Canadian government to get revenue?   A strong resource economy.   

There's also a finite amount of oil/tar sands in the world. When we run out of ancient swamp goo (that's basically what oil is) what then? It's it better to be ahead of the curve than flying off the corner and crashing? 

[Rob_Zepp]

4 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

But we've always relied on resources as the major focus. Look at places in Asia that lack resources, and their economies are some of the strongest in the world. 

Why export raw wood, when we can make products with them first, and sell off surplus. We have 19th century robber barons in a 21st century world. 

Asia would have very little to export without energy.   They import a LOT of energy and raw materials.

 

Why has Canada stopped manufacturing?   That is another discussion entirely but if you think that taxing the resource sector out of existence and removing access to energy is going to solve that, I would be surprised to find many that would agree with that approach.  

[Rob_Zepp]

1 minute ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

There's also a finite amount of oil/tar sands in the world. When we run out of ancient swamp goo (that's basically what oil is) what then? It's it better to be ahead of the curve than flying off the corner and crashing? 

There are several hundred to about 1000 years of easily accessible fossil fuels (oil shales may extend that considerably).   That is indeed finite and alternatives need to be developed and that is happening but so are ever increasing efficiencies with carbon to the point where IF the world had the level of carbon burn efficiency from 1900 until today, there would have been less than 1/4 of the fuel used over that period needed.    I see no reason the even better efficiencies can come as technological advances don't tend to stop.

[Ghostsof1915]

2 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

There are several hundred to about 1000 years of easily accessible fossil fuels (oil shales may extend that considerably).   That is indeed finite and alternatives need to be developed and that is happening but so are ever increasing efficiencies with carbon to the point where IF the world had the level of carbon burn efficiency from 1900 until today, there would have been less than 1/4 of the fuel used over that period needed.    I see no reason the even better efficiencies can come as technological advances don't tend to stop.

There's a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you cheap too. 

[Rob_Zepp]

Just now, Ghostsof1915 said:

There's a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you cheap too. 

Uh, ok.   Not sure what that would do to assist with energy efficiency but if you say so.

[Russ]

17 hours ago, hlinkas wrister said:

I'm all for Canada being a leader in energy conservation but where is all this money going? Where is the evidence that this tax (or that ridiculous cap and trade bs) actually lowers carbon emitting? The only thing I see happening is provincial governments already planning on putting the excess money into general revenues when they start collecting $50 per ton in 5 years. These same criminals will use the revenue to finance rebates or reductions in corporate taxes- in essence just pulling more money out of the average Canadian's pocket and giving it straight to big corporations in order to stimulate economies and meanwhile emissions will keep rising. 

The idea is you are going to force people to switch over to electric rather than use gas.  

 

I have read a few articles stating it'll cost the average BCer an extra $1000 a year since we already have a carbon tax, while some places it will cost an extra $2000+ that don't have any tax currently.  My biggest beef with it is there is no idea where or what the money is going too... All I have heard was "it'll go back to the province to do what they want with it" when listening to some of the council meetings online.  What good is that?  Is there an actual benefit to it?  Where exactly does ours go now to reduce carbon emissions exactly and what will this federal one go exactly to reducing it also?  Theres just to many questions with not enough answers being answered.

[Toews]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

If you have an issue with something I've said, start a new thread and I'll happily back it up, or be open to you changing my mind if you can present a good argument. 

Jimmy, I believe you'd be making a very huge mistake if you think vinny's posturing is a desire for sincere debate. I am assuming he just got his knickers in a twist because you attacked an article that reinforced his position. 

[canuckster19]

3 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

That's the difference between high taxes in Sweden and Canada. You actually get services, and things that you pay for with your tax dollars. 

In Canada we keep getting taxed and is it just to pay debt? Or to try to maintain what we have? 

Yep, in Sweden they subsidized installing solar panel's on people's homes where excess power goes back into the grid. 

[Kragar]

3 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

How about instead of in addition to buying pipelines, we invest in wind, solar, tidal, algae fuel, and sustainable industries that don't pollute as much? 

 

Provide more jobs in growing industries, instead of looking to resources to grow our economy. 

Fixed.  The economy is fossil fueled, and will be for a long time.  Along the way, let's prep for the future.

 

3 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Asia would have very little to export without energy.   They import a LOT of energy and raw materials.

 

Why has Canada stopped manufacturing?   That is another discussion entirely but if you think that taxing the resource sector out of existence and removing access to energy is going to solve that, I would be surprised to find many that would agree with that approach.  

3 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

But we've always relied on resources as the major focus. Look at places in Asia that lack resources, and their economies are some of the strongest in the world. 

Why export raw wood, when we can make products with them first, and sell off surplus. We have 19th century robber barons in a 21st century world. 

We've (US, Canada) decreased manufacturing in large part because of labor costs, but environmental costs are part of it too.  Asian economies as a result have benefited, and unsurprisingly, their carbon footprints jumped up along the way.  Western impacts have dropped due to improved awareness and decreased manufacturing.  We can only pat ourselves on the back for so much here, if we are ultimately paying someone else to pollute on our behalf.

 

Interesting site.  The numbers here seem to jive with others I have seen, and allows you to see a number of countries in what appears to be apple-to-apple comparisons on carbon output.

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/