Trudeau roils out his carbon tax rebate gimmick

[Anonymous]

This tax shit is getting out of hand...we pay tax on our employment cheques, pay  tax when you purchase something, pay tax on gas ON TOP of the tax already implied in the cost..etc etc etc....too much double and triple dipping...

But, True Dope is saving the planet. ac_lmfao

[Anonymous]

This tax shit is getting out of hand...we pay tax on our employment cheques, pay  tax when you purchase something, pay tax on gas ON TOP of the tax already implied in the cost..etc etc etc....too much double and triple dipping...

Your carbon tax in BC has gone up under the NDP/Green coalition.

[Anonymous]

By Lorrie Goldstein



Trudeau's carbon plan won't work and Scheer doesn't have one



We saw a clear example last week of how political debate in Canada about man-made climate change has descended into fantasy.



On the one hand, the details Prime Minister Justin Trudeau released about his carbon tax don't add up.



On the other, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, if he has a plan, has thus far refused to tell Canadians what it is — other than attacking Trudeau.



Trudeau, in imposing a federal carbon tax on Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick, predicts his national carbon pricing plan will lower Canada's industrial greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 60 megatonnes (a megatonne, or Mt, is one million tonnes) by 2022.



Terrific. Aside from the fact Trudeau's predictions have been wrong before (see "modest deficits"), the latest report from the UN'S Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released Oct. 8, says Canada and the other 197 signatories to the 2015 Paris accord, must now reduce their emissions to 45% below 2010 levels by 2030, to avert catastrophic climate change.



To understand how unattainable this is, in 2016, the last year for which figures are available, Canada lowered its 2015 emissions by 1.4%, to 704 Mt from 714 Mt, both of which are higher than the 694 Mt Canada emitted in 2010.



This new IPCC target would mean lowering our emissions to 382 Mt annually, a drop of 322 Mt in 12 years.



To achieve that, Canada must shut down the equivalent of its entire oil and gas sector (189.5 Mt annually), plus 76.6% of its transportation sector (132.5 Mt annually), by 2030.



Even adding in whatever other strategies Trudeau has to reduce emissions aside from carbon pricing, that's not possible.



Trudeau isn't on track to meet the far less stringent targets (which used to be Stephen Harper's) he agreed to by signing the Paris accord in 2015, having abandoned its 2020 target.



The accord's target for 2030 means we must lower our annual emissions from 704 Mt to 512 Mt, a 192 Mt cut, again wiping out the equivalent of our oil and gas sector.



Even if Canada achieved any of these unattainable targets, it wouldn't do any practical good, because we're only responsible for 1.6% of global emissions and they're still rising, by 1.4% last year.



Those demanding immediate, dramatic government action constantly cite UN IPCC reports about the urgency of the issue, failing to mention that if they're accurate, catastrophic climate change is inevitable.



They believe inadequate targets are better than no targets, in the hopes technology and popular will eventually catch up with the enormity of the problem.



As for big business, it's hardly surprising they've climbed on board Trudeau's bandwagon, because [size=150]carbon pricing is really about who controls and profits from federal energy policy.

[/size]

Trudeau said during the 2015 election campaign his carbon price would give Canada the "social licence" to build pipelines and export our oil globally, giving a multi-billion-dollar boost to our economy because our land-locked oil resources are currently sold at a huge discount.



That hasn't happened so now he's changed his tune.



Now he's selling it to Canadians living in the four provinces refusing to implement his backstop carbon price of $20 per tonne of emissions in 2019, rising to $50 per tonne in 2022, by claiming 70% of them will be better off financially through rebates.



Even if true it means, according to Trudeau, that Canadians in provinces that didn't comply with his national carbon price will be better off financially than those in provinces that did, which doesn't make sense.



Trudeau should have created one, 100% revenue-neutral, national carbon tax — returning all the money raised directly to Canadians.



What he's done allows him to pose, for a while, as an international Boy Scout, as he loves to do, boasting about his good intentions, not that they'll have any practical impact on global emissions.



That said, Trudeau's plan is open to criticism because he has one.



Scheer and conservative premiers like Ontario's Doug Ford — who's joined a constitutional court challenge against Trudeau's carbon tax with Saskatchewan — haven't told us what they would do, even though they say they believe man-made climate change is real and must be addressed.



Perhaps their strategy, whatever they eventually propose, is really just to attack Trudeau's carbon tax as a cash grab, making common cause with those who believe man-made climate change is a hoax, or that nothing can be done without cratering the economy, or that new technology will eventually solve the problem, without carbon pricing.



If that's what they believe, they should say so, and Canadians can decide who they believe in next year's federal election.

[Anonymous]

By Lorrie Goldstein



Trudeau's carbon plan won't work and Scheer doesn't have one



We saw a clear example last week of how political debate in Canada about man-made climate change has descended into fantasy.



On the one hand, the details Prime Minister Justin Trudeau released about his carbon tax don't add up.



On the other, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, if he has a plan, has thus far refused to tell Canadians what it is — other than attacking Trudeau.



Trudeau, in imposing a federal carbon tax on Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick, predicts his national carbon pricing plan will lower Canada's industrial greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 60 megatonnes (a megatonne, or Mt, is one million tonnes) by 2022.



Terrific. Aside from the fact Trudeau's predictions have been wrong before (see "modest deficits"), the latest report from the UN'S Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released Oct. 8, says Canada and the other 197 signatories to the 2015 Paris accord, must now reduce their emissions to 45% below 2010 levels by 2030, to avert catastrophic climate change.



To understand how unattainable this is, in 2016, the last year for which figures are available, Canada lowered its 2015 emissions by 1.4%, to 704 Mt from 714 Mt, both of which are higher than the 694 Mt Canada emitted in 2010.



This new IPCC target would mean lowering our emissions to 382 Mt annually, a drop of 322 Mt in 12 years.



To achieve that, Canada must shut down the equivalent of its entire oil and gas sector (189.5 Mt annually), plus 76.6% of its transportation sector (132.5 Mt annually), by 2030.



Even adding in whatever other strategies Trudeau has to reduce emissions aside from carbon pricing, that's not possible.



Trudeau isn't on track to meet the far less stringent targets (which used to be Stephen Harper's) he agreed to by signing the Paris accord in 2015, having abandoned its 2020 target.



The accord's target for 2030 means we must lower our annual emissions from 704 Mt to 512 Mt, a 192 Mt cut, again wiping out the equivalent of our oil and gas sector.



Even if Canada achieved any of these unattainable targets, it wouldn't do any practical good, because we're only responsible for 1.6% of global emissions and they're still rising, by 1.4% last year.



Those demanding immediate, dramatic government action constantly cite UN IPCC reports about the urgency of the issue, failing to mention that if they're accurate, catastrophic climate change is inevitable.



They believe inadequate targets are better than no targets, in the hopes technology and popular will eventually catch up with the enormity of the problem.



As for big business, it's hardly surprising they've climbed on board Trudeau's bandwagon, because [size=150]carbon pricing is really about who controls and profits from federal energy policy.

[/size]

Trudeau said during the 2015 election campaign his carbon price would give Canada the "social licence" to build pipelines and export our oil globally, giving a multi-billion-dollar boost to our economy because our land-locked oil resources are currently sold at a huge discount.



That hasn't happened so now he's changed his tune.



Now he's selling it to Canadians living in the four provinces refusing to implement his backstop carbon price of $20 per tonne of emissions in 2019, rising to $50 per tonne in 2022, by claiming 70% of them will be better off financially through rebates.



Even if true it means, according to Trudeau, that Canadians in provinces that didn't comply with his national carbon price will be better off financially than those in provinces that did, which doesn't make sense.



Trudeau should have created one, 100% revenue-neutral, national carbon tax — returning all the money raised directly to Canadians.



What he's done allows him to pose, for a while, as an international Boy Scout, as he loves to do, boasting about his good intentions, not that they'll have any practical impact on global emissions.



That said, Trudeau's plan is open to criticism because he has one.



Scheer and conservative premiers like Ontario's Doug Ford — who's joined a constitutional court challenge against Trudeau's carbon tax with Saskatchewan — haven't told us what they would do, even though they say they believe man-made climate change is real and must be addressed.



Perhaps their strategy, whatever they eventually propose, is really just to attack Trudeau's carbon tax as a cash grab, making common cause with those who believe man-made climate change is a hoax, or that nothing can be done without cratering the economy, or that new technology will eventually solve the problem, without carbon pricing.



If that's what they believe, they should say so, and Canadians can decide who they believe in next year's federal election.

I don't know..



No plan seems preferable to more taxes.

[Anonymous]

Trudeau recently let the cat of the bag when he told a Montreal talk show: "Even if Canada stopped everything tomorrow, and the other countries didn't have any solutions, it wouldn't make a big difference."



So Trudeau is asking Canadians to lower our emissions as an example to the world, not that it will do any practical good.



Rest assured, it won't even meet our Paris commitments either.



So, the real choice will be between a Liberal plan with a carbon tax, or a Conservative plan without  a carbon tax, neither of which will significantly reduce emissions. And neither will move the climate needle.



Given the choice, I will opt for the latter.

[Anonymous]

Trudeau recently let the cat of the bag when he told a Montreal talk show: "Even if Canada stopped everything tomorrow, and the other countries didn't have any solutions, it wouldn't make a big difference."



So Trudeau is asking Canadians to lower our emissions as an example to the world, not that it will do any practical good.



Rest assured, it won't even meet our Paris commitments either.



So, the real choice will be between a Liberal plan with a carbon tax, or a Conservative plan without  a carbon tax, neither of which will significantly reduce emissions. And neither will move the climate needle.



Given the choice, I will opt for the latter.

People don't mind making sacrifices if it makes a difference..



But, our premier and prime minister are forcing us to make sacrifices that achieve nothing.

[Anonymous]

https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/44886046_4557708301224585_304513829826461696_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=03805c7baade296ac924a7f7ef31d502&oe=5C871986">

And

Step 4 - break the promise to return funds, instead sending it to UN overlords in the hopes of an international job once fired as PM

[Anonymous]

I don't trust the UN's alarmist predictions. But, why do we stick to this useless Paris agreements. Alarmists and the rational agree it won't stop the climate from changing.

Here's a United Nations climate report that environmentalists probably don't want anybody to read. It says that even if every country abides by the grand promises they made last year in Paris to reduce greenhouse gases, the planet would still be "doomed."



But it turns out that the Paris accord was little more than a sham that will do nothing to "save the planet."



According to the latest annual UN report on the "emissions gap," the Paris agreement will provide only a third of the cuts in greenhouse gas that environmentalists claim is needed to prevent catastrophic warming. If every country involved in those accords abides by their pledges between now and 2030 — which is a dubious proposition — temperatures will still rise by 3 degrees Celsius by 2100. The goal of the Paris agreement was to keep the global temperature increase to under 2 degrees.



Eric Solheim, head of the U.N. Environment Program, which produces the annual report, said this week that "One year after the Paris Agreement entered into force, we still find ourselves in a situation where we are not doing nearly enough to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable future. Governments, the private sector and civil society must bridge this catastrophic climate gap."



The report says unless global greenhouse gas emissions peak before 2020, the CO2 levels will be way above the goal set for 2030, which, it goes on, will make it "extremely unlikely that the goal of holding global warming to well below 2 degrees C can still be reached."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-un-admits-that-the-paris-climate-deal-was-a-fraud/?fbclid=IwAR1DTHD8MCb7Sd9-Y_uWY9zt6eERKPgJqP11iXhfB-A7dC7bSAbFEPwPpD8">https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... AbFEPwPpD8">https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-un-admits-that-the-paris-climate-deal-was-a-fraud/?fbclid=IwAR1DTHD8MCb7Sd9-Y_uWY9zt6eERKPgJqP11iXhfB-A7dC7bSAbFEPwPpD8

[Anonymous]

By Kenneth Green, analyst for the Frasier Institute



Carbon taxman is coming to our homes



Last Week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continued his fight against climate change with his escalating "pan-canadian" carbon price, which will kick in at $20 per tonne in 2019 and rise by $10 per year to reach $50/tonne by 2022.



In Orwellian speech, the prime minister has rebranded what he's doing, from punitively taxing energy production and consumption to "putting a price on pollution."



But have no fear, you'll get some of that money back, at least if the federal government imposes taxes on your province.



According to reports, "Ottawa estimates that the average Ontario household will pay $244 in direct and indirect costs next year, and will receive $300 under the 'climate-action incentive,' for a net benefit of $56.



In Saskatchewan, the average family would pay $403 in carbon-tax costs and receive $598 in rebates.



In Manitoba, the costs will be $232 and the rebate $336.



In New Brunswick, the breakdown is $202 and $248."



Of course, we don't know what it will be in Alberta, as the government may change hands and nix the Alberta carbon tax.



And of course, despite magical pledges that Canadians will get more back than they pay, in reality, that's silly.



[size=150]The businesses that provide us with goods and services must pay the tax, and won't receive a rebate.



They will pass their carbon taxes to you in the form of more expensive meat, daycare, gasoline and more expensive, well, everything.

[/size]

But wait, you say, Canada has pledged to limit emissions to meet the United Nations goal of limiting atmospheric heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius, a threshold, they tell us, that imperils human life.



But will the Trudeau tax do anything to avoid that nightmarish scenario?



Well, no.



Not even close.



The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently released a "special report" on climate change, which supports the contention that warming above 1.5 C is approaching rapidly (IPCC estimates that tipping point will hit in 2030), and will be catastrophic if exceeded.



But buried in the minutia of the report is an admission of just how high carbon taxes must rise to limit warming to the 1.5 C agreed to in the Paris Accord.



The UN report estimates that a pathway to below 1.5 C would require a carbon tax between US$135-$5,500 per tonne of CO2 equivalents in 2030, $245-$13,000 in 2050, $420-$17,500 in 2070, and $690-$27,000 in 2100.



(A tonne of CO2 equivalents is a standard metric that combines the impact and longevity of all greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.)



To simplify, the midpoint for the range of taxes listed above in 2030 is US$3,156 per tonne of greenhouse gases emitted (that's C$4,140/ tonne).



A[size=150]n analyst in the United States, Benjamin Zycher, calculates the midpoint tax would add US$29 per gallon to the price of gasoline (C$7.63 per litre).

[/size]

At current exchange values, that equates to roughly C$10 per litre of gasoline.



[size=150]As most cars have gas tanks that hold between 40-60 litres, you're looking at somewhere between C$400 to C$600 to fill your tank with gas.[/size]



Such taxes would be economically punishing (to put it mildly) and would be highly regressive on lower-income Canadians.



So for Canada, this is the reality — a $30/tonne carbon tax won't satisfy the UN.



Nor will the $50/tonne in the federal backstop plan for 2022. When it comes to carbon taxes, the sky is the limit.

[Anonymous]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=111&v=jSxY7K4bolM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... SxY7K4bolM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=111&v=jSxY7K4bolM

[Anonymous]

Parties' climate plans hot air



Liberal policy a fantasy, Conseratives don't have one



By Lorrie Goldstein



In next year's federal election, the issue of carbon pricing and climate change is going to play out like a fairy tale.



The two main opponents, the Trudeau Liberals and the Scheer Conservatives, will both be telling us fables.



We hear the Liberal fable practically every day from Environment Minister Catherine Mckenna, in the claim the Liberals' carbon tax/plan will work and that it would matter if it did.



No credible body — not the federal environmental commissioner, not nine of 10 provincial auditors general, not the United Nations, not the federal government's own studies — endorses the view Canada is going to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets Prime Minister Justin Trudeau agreed to in the Paris accord in 2015.



Not for 2020 — which has already been abandoned as unrealistic — and not for 2030.



We're not going to miss our targets by a little. We're going to miss them by a country mile, particularly under the latest UN targets, which are far more stringent than the already unattainable ones Trudeau agreed to in 2015, which used to be the Harper government's targets.



Even if we miraculously hit our unattainable targets, our contribution is insignificant given that we're responsible for 1.6% of industrial greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.



Emissions rising



Globally, emissions are still rising, by 1.4% last year — 1.7% in China, the world's largest emitter.



An exception is the U.S., no longer in the Paris accord, where emissions dropped 2.7% last year compared to 1.4% in Canada in 2016, the last year for which our numbers are available.



Trudeau's "revenue neutral carbon tax", in those provinces where he intends to impose it, is modelled after the internationally praised one implemented in British Columbia in 2008, which is no longer revenue neutral and where emissions have gone up in four of the last five years.



That's why, heading into next year's election, Trudeau and Co. have taken a new tack on their climate change scheme — not that it's going to work, but that most Canadians will make money from it through rebates.



More fables. Trudeau's carbon tax will create winners and losers — those who pay more subsidizing those who pay less — and ignores, among other things, the billions of tax dollars Canada is already sending to developing countries under the UN'S plan, ostensibly to help them lower emissions.



Trudeau's real argument is that doing something is better than doing nothing and that it gives us the moral authority to pressure other countries that are doing less or nothing to do something.



All this in the hope that eventually emission reduction technology will develop to the point where significant cuts can actually be achieved.



That contradicts Trudeau's position on the new North American free trade agreement, prior to its negotiation, that no deal was better than a bad deal.



Trudeau and Co. are actually trying to persuade us to act on the basis of guilt — Canada has a moral obligation because we are among the world's highest per capita emitters.



As if we're all out to kill the planet by running our personal oil wells in our backyards 24/7, when the reality is our level of emissions has nothing to do with our morality.



Canada's emissions are a direct function of the fact we're an industrialized, big, cold, northern, sparsely populated country with major oil and natural gas resources.



And the size of our emissions depends on how they're calculated.



Substitute land mass for population — another way the UN has measured emissions — and we become one of the world's smallest emitters per square kilometre, as opposed to one of the largest per capita.



The only valid point Trudeau makes is that Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, who says man-made climate change is real and we must address it, has no plan.



Scheer says the Conservatives will release it before next year's election and that it will effectively lower emissions, without a carbon tax.



More fantasy. The reality is for a carbon tax/price to be effective, it would have to be five to 10 times higher than it is now, in the provinces that have one.



Meanwhile, no one is talking about the serious debate we should be having.



That is, given that our expensive climate schemes aren't going to work, should we focus our efforts instead on pressing domestic environmental concerns, such as upgrading Canada's outdated water and sewage systems, so we're not dumping more than 200 billion litres of raw sewage and untreated waste water into our rivers, lakes and oceans every year.



Because that's not a fairy tale.



That's real.