Ottawa hides its carbon tax math while Saskatchewan crunches the numbers

[Vinny in Vancouver]

5 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. 

But I already did. You said the article is an "one guys unsubstantiated opinion piece". I asked for which parts are unsubstantiated. I even pointed out that the writer referred to university research. So which parts are unsubstantiated?

[JM_]

1 hour ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

But I already did. You said the article is an "one guys unsubstantiated opinion piece". I asked for which parts are unsubstantiated. I even pointed out that the writer referred to university research. So which parts are unsubstantiated?

which research specifically? the one being slammed for having bloated numbers? https://globalnews.ca/news/4320811/critics-saskatchewan-carbon-tax-study-credible/

 

and also the idea that redaction is something unusual. Its disingenuous. Anyone thats worked for government knows how ridiculous that idea is, and the authour is trying to use that to make readers unfamiliar with FOI requests think the U of R report has extra credibility. No credible report needs to try to do a bait and switch like that. 

 

 

[JM_]

4 hours ago, Toews said:

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. 

yah. I think he's still upset over some things I said about TWU. 

[JM_]

7 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

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.

thats a good idea. 

 

what I'm tired of is all the BS around the topic. I don't want to be told by Al Gore to crap my pants and I don't want bloated numbers out of the U of R either. Lets pick a sound way of tackling the issue like you suggested and get to it. 

[Gnarcore]

19 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Lmao this has never existed in Canada. You know in Canada we vote for least ridiculous party but the one that wins is usually still ridiculous.

The first half of that sentence isn't always true....but the 2nd half sure &^@#ing is

[Vinny in Vancouver]

42 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

which research specifically? the one being slammed for having bloated numbers? https://globalnews.ca/news/4320811/critics-saskatchewan-carbon-tax-study-credible/

 

and also the idea that redaction is something unusual. Its disingenuous. Anyone thats worked for government knows how ridiculous that idea is, and the authour is trying to use that to make readers unfamiliar with FOI requests think the U of R report has extra credibility. No credible report needs to try to do a bait and switch like that. 

 

 

That's actually more like it. Do note that there were 2 studies mentioned.

My own take on it is that carbon tax is going to be bad for a lot of economies, and in the world of free trade, anybody that doesn't play by the rules will be able to take advantage of those who do play by the rules. So when I see articles that point out the negative economic impact of carbon tax, I personally don't find it surprising. It sounds like you did though. To me personally, I look at this whole issue as short-term personal gain versus world survival, and imho, that should be an easy choice for all of us. Based on my experience, I've never seen anybody get convinced to go for carbon tax by telling them that it will be good for them economically. 

[Vinny in Vancouver]

48 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yah. I think he's still upset over some things I said about TWU. 

You may think so - except that I upvoted you on a few of your hockey posts since then. Hockey is hockey, and it's ok to be opinionated about those. But things that I think really matter need to be talked about: world survival or discrimination (regardless of whether it's religious or sexual orientation or race or ...). In this case, the author put forward the viewpoint of a province which was criticizing the economics of carbon tax - I personally found that unsurprising, but you did. When I asked for your opinion, you didn't give it at first and just went back to one-liners that didn't convince anyone. If we all keep doing that, then we become like Trump.

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

That's actually more like it. Do note that there were 2 studies mentioned.

My own take on it is that carbon tax is going to be bad for a lot of economies, and in the world of free trade, anybody that doesn't play by the rules will be able to take advantage of those who do play by the rules. So when I see articles that point out the negative economic impact of carbon tax, I personally don't find it surprising. It sounds like you did though. To me personally, I look at this whole issue as short-term personal gain versus world survival, and imho, that should be an easy choice for all of us. Based on my experience, I've never seen anybody get convinced to go for carbon tax by telling them that it will be good for them economically. 

you can argue every single tax has a "negative" impact of some kind, its very easy to spin new ones that way. Doesn't mean its the wrong thing to do. 

[Vinny in Vancouver]

48 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

thats a good idea. 

 

what I'm tired of is all the BS around the topic. I don't want to be told by Al Gore to crap my pants and I don't want bloated numbers out of the U of R either. Lets pick a sound way of tackling the issue like you suggested and get to it. 

When big countries like China or even the United States are killing their environment for economic gain while our beautiful worry about the environment, it will be hard to compete economically. I have friends from mainland China who have told me how their city has prospered at the expense of polluted rivers, and so they took their money and left the country. They longingly tell me about their long-lost childhood where they were swimming in the rivers.

[Vinny in Vancouver]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

you can argue every single tax has a "negative" impact of some kind, its very easy to spin new ones that way. Doesn't mean its the wrong thing to do. 

I completely agree. But imho, the sales pitch can't be something like: with this carbon tax, we will not only improve the environment but also benefit you guys economically. In the case of carbon tax (and most every tax), that's a hard point to defend. I'd much rather hear: if we don't do this, your children's going to suffer, and if there's economic benefit, then even better.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

When big countries like China or even the United States are killing their environment for economic gain while our beautiful worry about the environment, it will be hard to compete economically. I have friends from mainland China who have told me how their city has prospered at the expense of polluted rivers, and so they took their money and left the country. They longingly tell me about their long-lost childhood where they were swimming in the rivers.

So then we make a little less. You can always find excuses to not do the right things, kind of like Trump don't you think?

 

Who cares what China does? thats no excuse for us not acting responsibly in our own country. 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

I completely agree. But imho, the sales pitch can't be something like: with this carbon tax, we will not only improve the environment but also benefit you guys economically. In the case of carbon tax (and most every tax), that's a hard point to defend. I'd much rather hear: if we don't do this, your children's going to suffer, and if there's economic benefit, then even better.

then you have to come up with something else more effective for incentivizing new green investments. Also, the idea that 11 cents in gas prices is going to crush the prairie economy is ridiculous, they should try our prices for a while. 

[Vinny in Vancouver]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So then we make a little less. You can always find excuses to not do the right things, kind of like Trump don't you think?

 

Who cares what China does? thats no excuse for us not acting responsibly in our own country. 

Unfortunately, in a free trade economy, what every country does matters. If there is the same product of the same quality from but one is a lot cheaper because that country took shortcuts (e.g., deforested its mountains), non-conscientious companies will always opt for the cheaper good. They will excuse it as: if I don't buy the cheaper item, it will put my company's viability at risk. So then, our government will need to subsidize. But then, we have Trump complaining about unfair practices and so on.

[Vinny in Vancouver]

12 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

then you have to come up with something else more effective for incentivizing new green investments. Also, the idea that 11 cents in gas prices is going to crush the prairie economy is ridiculous, they should try our prices for a while. 

Different job opportunities and competition there, though. With tariffs, they stand to lose more of their existing customers. I really think it's a tough problem.

[otherwise]

 

19 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Many industries in BC don't support a carbon tax. Why you keep picking on Alberta and Saskatchewan? Ontario overwhelming voted in a guy who staunchly opposes a carbon tax. Ontario industries will also be hurt. I can't even understand how you or anyone actually can support a carbon tax. It fixes nothing and hurts Canadians and the Canadian economy.

 

You do realize investment is down in Canada and this will only make it worse and has the potential to kill our farming industry. How on earth can Canadian farmers compete with American farmers?

In AB farm fuel is exempt from any carbon pricing, it could easily be done in other places too.  Also it would be great to stop dealing with a country that doesn't follow wto rules.

 

8 hours 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.   

We have an NDP gov't???

 

[Rob_Zepp]

53 minutes ago, otherwise said:

 

In AB farm fuel is exempt from any carbon pricing, it could easily be done in other places too.  Also it would be great to stop dealing with a country that doesn't follow wto rules.

 

We have an NDP gov't???

 

Did for almost ever didn't you or is that only BC and Alberta.   Hard to keep up with all your goings on.

[Ryan Strome]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So then we make a little less. You can always find excuses to not do the right things, kind of like Trump don't you think?

 

Who cares what China does? thats no excuse for us not acting responsibly in our own country. 

Are you suggesting a carbon tax is the right thing?

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Did for almost ever didn't you or is that only BC and Alberta.   Hard to keep up with all your goings on.

Saskatchewan had the ndp for half a century but the sask party has been in since 2007. The sask party is a right wing party. BC and Alberta haven't had ndp for almost forever, in fact this is Alberta's first ndp government. BC has had like 3 or 4 and you can't really count this one, they didn't even win an election.

 

 

[otherwise]

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Did for almost ever didn't you or is that only BC and Alberta.   Hard to keep up with all your goings on.

well not since 2007... and AB this is the first gov't that's not PC since 1971. idk about BC.

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, otherwise said:

well not since 2007... and AB this is the first gov't that's not PC since 1971. idk about BC.

BC hasn't had many either. Barrett in like 72 and 91 to 2001 I believe. Maybe 3 or 4 ndp governments. The ndp stronghold was Saskatchewan forever but now they are hated there and most other places as well.