Opposition to carbon taxes in Canada is growing by the day. There was a time when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's advocacy for the issue went largely unchecked and conservative politicians such as former Ontario PC leader Patrick Brown were on board.
Things have changed. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall has called the federal carbon tax a "ransom note" and Canadians now broadly oppose the plan to punish consumers for their use of gas, home heating and other goods.
A new poll from Ipsos commissioned by Global News shows [size=150]72% of Ontarians believe it's just a tax grab while 68% discount it as a purely symbolic gesture.[/size]
We agree.
The most interesting part is the opinion of average people has evolved over time. This wasn't a knee-jerk reaction to a new policy. The more Canadians learn about the carbon tax, the less they like it.
Sun columnist Lorrie Goldstein has been pointing out for years that this isn't just a tax on, say, evil polluters who disobey completely reasonable environmental protection laws. Quite the opposite. It puts a price on all carbon emissions. This means the price of all consumer goods will soon increase.
As columnist Anthony Furey recently noted, even the experts struggle with this issue. They bicker over how to calculate the total cost of the tax and dodge tough questions about its impacts.
Meanwhile, columnist Candice Malcolm has argued this is really the policy fight of our time. No kidding.
While the federal government refuses to release a report that discloses how much a national carbon tax is expected to cost the average family on a yearly basis, there are various estimates floating around.
Once the full price of $50 per tonne is set by 2022, it looks like the minimum average cost will be around $600 per household. It could go higher. Much higher. And there are academics and activists who argue for just that.
Since Canadians are increasingly opposing the tax though, it's becoming clear imposing it will be politically toxic.
Moving forward, the national conversation should shift to the pragmatic things businesses and communities can do to be better stewards for the environment, ones that don't focus on regressive and punitive taxes.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-its-time-to-start-talking-about-a-post-carbon-tax-canada
It will shave a half percentage point off of our GDP, kill jobs and drive lower income families into poverty. And for what? It won't slow climate change.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph, explains, "Any policy to achieve our Paris Agreement on climate change emission targets will be expensive, with or without a 'carbon tax.' The Conservatives will likely propose regulations alone; the Liberals are proposing regulations plus taxes. Economic theory says taxes alone (which no one is offering) could be cheapest but it doesn't tell us which of the others will be costliest."
Canadians are justified to wonder what will actually be accomplished by such plans?
Environment and Climate Change Canada estimates that the adoption of carbon pricing (taxes plus emissions trading), if done in all provinces and territories, will reduce national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80-90 million tonnes below the levels that would otherwise apply in 2022. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Director of the Center for the Study of Science at The Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based public policy research organization, explained that, using the model employed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a 90 million tonne per year reduction will result in between 0.001 and 0.002 degress Celsius less global warming by 2100 than would otherwise occur, depending on the assumed sensitivity of the atmosphere to changes in GHG.
If asked about this by the Conservatives, the government would likely ignore the question and assert that Canada must set an example for the world to follow in the fight to 'save the climate.' Indeed, that was the approach of former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy when she was asked in Congressional hearings about the climatic impact of the U.S. Clean Power Plan. The Institute for Energy Research speculated after her 2014 hearing, "The likely reason McCarthy is reticent to discuss the actual effect on climate is because the impact is very small. It turns out that if you use EPA's MAGICC model, the impact of this rule would reduce the rise in global temperatures by only 0.137 degrees Celsius by 2100."
Setting a good example would make sense if a man-made climate crisis was known to be imminent and developing nations, the source of most of the world's emissions, were likely to follow our lead.
But many scientists question man's role in climate change, and developing countries clearly have no intention of limiting their development for 'climate protection' purposes. Besides the fact that, under the Paris Agreement, China, for example, can increase its emissions until 2030, developing nations may never have to restrict their emissions.
Article 4 in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the foundation of Paris, states: "Economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties." This stipulation does not apply to developed nations.
Actions to significantly reduce GHG emissions in developing countries would usually require cutting back on the use of coal. However, as coal is typically the least expensive source of power, reducing emissions by restricting coal use would undoubtedly interfere with development priorities. So, developing countries almost certainly won't do it, citing UNFCCC Article 4 as their excuse.
Thus, no matter what one believes about the causes of climate change, Canada's actions will have negligible impact. Why will no one bring this up in the House of Commons?
http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-column-canadas-climate-change-plans-all-pain-no-gain
The Paris Agreement, carbon taxes, cap and trade are all expensive exercises in futility.
Some inconvenient truths in your articles Seoul that Premier Notley and Prime Minister Trudeau don't want to admit.
We dumped ours.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Most provinces have either a carbon tax or cap and trade. True Dope wants to force a punitive $50/tonne confiscation tax on the entire country. The people are saying no, but he isn't listening.
Idiot Politician - "We're going to introduce a carbon tax"
Sheeple - "Why?"
Idiot Politician - "To save the planet from global warm...er...I mean climate change"
Sheeple - "How will a tax save the planet"
Idiot Politician - "It will reduce emissions"
Sheeple - "How?"
Idiot Politician - "By forcing people to use renewable energy"
Sheeple - "How much will that reduce global warming?"
Idiot Politician - "Do you like my new car. Its green".
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Sheeple - "Why?"
Idiot Politician - "To save the planet from global warm...er...I mean climate change"
Sheeple - "How will a tax save the planet"
Idiot Politician - "It will reduce emissions"
Sheeple - "How?"
Idiot Politician - "By forcing people to use renewable energy"
Sheeple - "How much will that reduce global warming?"
Idiot Politician - "Do you like my new car. Its green".
Sheeple: How much will it cost the average family and how much will it slow climate change?
Sleazy Politician: YOU'RE A DENIER!!!
Bingo!
Quote from: "Bricktop"
You and SL know how the scam works.
As polling across Canada shows support for carbon pricing plummeting now that it's a reality as opposed to an idea, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau must be wondering what went wrong?
Ditto Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.
Last year, with great, self-congratulatory fanfare, she imposed a cap and trade scheme, another name for a carbon tax, on Ontarians. That's one reason she's poised to lose her job in the province's June 7 election, her Liberal government trailing both the Progressive Conservatives and NDP in the polls.
An Ipsos/Global poll released Monday found more than seven in 10 eligible Ontario voters — 72% — believe carbon taxes are just an excuse by government to grab more money from them, with 68% calling them mere symbolism.
A similar fate appears to await Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, whose NDP government introduced a carbon tax last year and is now trailing far behind Jason Kenney's United Conservative Party in public support.
A poll released last month by Janet Brown Opinion Research and Trend Research for the CBC, found almost seven in 10 Albertans surveyed — 66% — want Notley's carbon tax scrapped.
An Angus Reid Institute poll released in July, 2017 found most Canadians — 56% — oppose Trudeau's national carbon price, with majorities against it in every province surveyed except Quebec, (55% support) and B.C. (50% support).
Meanwhile, 59% were opposed in Ontario; 68% opposed in Alberta; 71% opposed in Saskatchewan; 60% opposed in Manitoba; 67% opposed in New Brunswick; 62% opposed in Newfoundland and Labrador and 57% opposed in Nova Scotia.
It's all evidence of growing skepticism about carbon pricing as Canadians increasingly realize that when Trudeau and Co. talk about "making polluters pay" for carbon emissions, they really mean making us pay.
Having followed polling on carbon pricing and climate change for more than a decade, my rule of thumb is this: Ask people if they support efforts to combat man-made climate change and most say yes. Ask them if they support having to pay for it and most say no.
While the Canadian intelligentsia mock the public for holding these seemingly contradictory views, the reality is the public's skepticism about carbon pricing is justified.
That's because no government in Canada has instituted the most effective, open and transparent form of carbon pricing — a 100%, revenue neutral carbon tax in which all the money is returned to the public in broad-based income tax cuts — verified by the federal and provincial auditors general.
The reason no government in Canada is doing this is that no government in Canada wants to reduce industrial carbon dioxide emissions linked to climate change in the most effective way possible, which has nothing to do with raising government revenues.
The fact is that to significantly reduce emissions, carbon taxes would have to be set so high today (hundreds of dollars per tonne of emissions, as opposed to Trudeau's price of $50 per tonne by 2022) that, without revenue neutrality, the only reason emissions would drop would be due to a massive national recession.
So instead, what Trudeau and Co. are doing, is to nickel-and-dime Canadians to death through carbon pricing, putting a permanent drag on our economy without provoking a full recession, while hoping Canadians won't notice as the costs increase over time, with little impact on emissions.
What the polling on carbon taxes shows is that Canadians are coming to the correct conclusion that our carbon emperors have no clothes.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-and-co-losing-the-fight-on-carbon-taxes
Canadians are right, carbon pricing is a cash grab and mere symbolism.
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Ditto Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.
Last year, with great, self-congratulatory fanfare, she imposed a cap and trade scheme, another name for a carbon tax, on Ontarians. That's one reason she's poised to lose her job in the province's June 7 election, her Liberal government trailing both the Progressive Conservatives and NDP in the polls.
An Ipsos/Global poll released Monday found more than seven in 10 eligible Ontario voters — 72% — believe carbon taxes are just an excuse by government to grab more money from them, with 68% calling them mere symbolism.
A similar fate appears to await Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, whose NDP government introduced a carbon tax last year and is now trailing far behind Jason Kenney's United Conservative Party in public support.
A poll released last month by Janet Brown Opinion Research and Trend Research for the CBC, found almost seven in 10 Albertans surveyed — 66% — want Notley's carbon tax scrapped.
An Angus Reid Institute poll released in July, 2017 found most Canadians — 56% — oppose Trudeau's national carbon price, with majorities against it in every province surveyed except Quebec, (55% support) and B.C. (50% support).
Meanwhile, 59% were opposed in Ontario; 68% opposed in Alberta; 71% opposed in Saskatchewan; 60% opposed in Manitoba; 67% opposed in New Brunswick; 62% opposed in Newfoundland and Labrador and 57% opposed in Nova Scotia.
It's all evidence of growing skepticism about carbon pricing as Canadians increasingly realize that when Trudeau and Co. talk about "making polluters pay" for carbon emissions, they really mean making us pay.
Having followed polling on carbon pricing and climate change for more than a decade, my rule of thumb is this: Ask people if they support efforts to combat man-made climate change and most say yes. Ask them if they support having to pay for it and most say no.
While the Canadian intelligentsia mock the public for holding these seemingly contradictory views, the reality is the public's skepticism about carbon pricing is justified.
That's because no government in Canada has instituted the most effective, open and transparent form of carbon pricing — a 100%, revenue neutral carbon tax in which all the money is returned to the public in broad-based income tax cuts — verified by the federal and provincial auditors general.
The reason no government in Canada is doing this is that no government in Canada wants to reduce industrial carbon dioxide emissions linked to climate change in the most effective way possible, which has nothing to do with raising government revenues.
The fact is that to significantly reduce emissions, carbon taxes would have to be set so high today (hundreds of dollars per tonne of emissions, as opposed to Trudeau's price of $50 per tonne by 2022) that, without revenue neutrality, the only reason emissions would drop would be due to a massive national recession.
So instead, what Trudeau and Co. are doing, is to nickel-and-dime Canadians to death through carbon pricing, putting a permanent drag on our economy without provoking a full recession, while hoping Canadians won't notice as the costs increase over time, with little impact on emissions.
What the polling on carbon taxes shows is that Canadians are coming to the correct conclusion that our carbon emperors have no clothes.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-and-co-losing-the-fight-on-carbon-taxes
Canadians are right, carbon pricing is a cash grab and mere symbolism.
Living in a province with a punitive carbon tax, I'm not surprised by Canadians cynicism.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Ditto Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.
Last year, with great, self-congratulatory fanfare, she imposed a cap and trade scheme, another name for a carbon tax, on Ontarians. That's one reason she's poised to lose her job in the province's June 7 election, her Liberal government trailing both the Progressive Conservatives and NDP in the polls.
An Ipsos/Global poll released Monday found more than seven in 10 eligible Ontario voters — 72% — believe carbon taxes are just an excuse by government to grab more money from them, with 68% calling them mere symbolism.
A similar fate appears to await Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, whose NDP government introduced a carbon tax last year and is now trailing far behind Jason Kenney's United Conservative Party in public support.
A poll released last month by Janet Brown Opinion Research and Trend Research for the CBC, found almost seven in 10 Albertans surveyed — 66% — want Notley's carbon tax scrapped.
An Angus Reid Institute poll released in July, 2017 found most Canadians — 56% — oppose Trudeau's national carbon price, with majorities against it in every province surveyed except Quebec, (55% support) and B.C. (50% support).
Meanwhile, 59% were opposed in Ontario; 68% opposed in Alberta; 71% opposed in Saskatchewan; 60% opposed in Manitoba; 67% opposed in New Brunswick; 62% opposed in Newfoundland and Labrador and 57% opposed in Nova Scotia.
It's all evidence of growing skepticism about carbon pricing as Canadians increasingly realize that when Trudeau and Co. talk about "making polluters pay" for carbon emissions, they really mean making us pay.
Having followed polling on carbon pricing and climate change for more than a decade, my rule of thumb is this: Ask people if they support efforts to combat man-made climate change and most say yes. Ask them if they support having to pay for it and most say no.
While the Canadian intelligentsia mock the public for holding these seemingly contradictory views, the reality is the public's skepticism about carbon pricing is justified.
That's because no government in Canada has instituted the most effective, open and transparent form of carbon pricing — a 100%, revenue neutral carbon tax in which all the money is returned to the public in broad-based income tax cuts — verified by the federal and provincial auditors general.
The reason no government in Canada is doing this is that no government in Canada wants to reduce industrial carbon dioxide emissions linked to climate change in the most effective way possible, which has nothing to do with raising government revenues.
The fact is that to significantly reduce emissions, carbon taxes would have to be set so high today (hundreds of dollars per tonne of emissions, as opposed to Trudeau's price of $50 per tonne by 2022) that, without revenue neutrality, the only reason emissions would drop would be due to a massive national recession.
So instead, what Trudeau and Co. are doing, is to nickel-and-dime Canadians to death through carbon pricing, putting a permanent drag on our economy without provoking a full recession, while hoping Canadians won't notice as the costs increase over time, with little impact on emissions.
What the polling on carbon taxes shows is that Canadians are coming to the correct conclusion that our carbon emperors have no clothes.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-and-co-losing-the-fight-on-carbon-taxes
Canadians are right, carbon pricing is a cash grab and mere symbolism.
Living in a province with a punitive carbon tax, I'm not surprised by Canadians cynicism.
Governments that implement carbon pricing are counting on collective ignorance and fear.
Apparently the last two years have only NOT gotten warmer, they cooled down.
[size=150]Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling[/size]
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/
I'm sure the climate "scientists" will find a way to "fix" these numbers just like they fixed the 15 year hiatus.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
if another ice age comes it's climate change. They got all their bases covered. Only kneecapping the West's economy with crippling new costs will save mother earth.
Trudeau's climate of intolerance
PM likens disbelief in manmade climate change to belief in FGM
TORONTO — If any more proof is needed that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's brain is an irony-free zone, he provided it in his speech to the graduating class of New York University at Yankee Stadium last week.
Trudeau, awarded an honorary doctor of laws by NYU, was at his grandiose best, or worst, in his commencement address.
The whole affair was tailor-made for Trudeau's ego.
He was introduced to the students with gushing praise from university officials that sounded as if it had come straight out of the Prime Minister's Office.
Given how much Trudeau likes to dress up, he was clothed in the official robes of the university.
To satisfy his theatrical bent, he had before him an adoring audience of young people, who hung on his every word.
Ever the actor, Trudeau played his part to the hilt.
He smiled and half-bowed before the cheering and applauding students, mouthed the words "thank you" in appreciation, employed the familiar "hand on heart" gesture he uses when he wants to show he's being really, really sincere.
Then Trudeau revealed his superficial understanding of the theme that ran throughout his address on the importance of listening to and respecting the views of people you disagree with, if you hope to bring them around to your way of thinking.
Because in the middle of his stirring speech about respecting diversity of opinion, Trudeau compared people who don't believe in human-influenced climate change to people who do believe in female genital mutilation.
Having gone on for 20 minutes about being open to the views of others, Trudeau said in a voice rising with indignation, complete with dramatic arm-waving and hand gestures for effect:
"Now let me be very clear, this is not an endorsement of moral relativism, or a declaration that all points of view are valid.
"Female genital mutilation is wrong, no matter how many generations have practised it.
"Anthropogenic climate change is real, no matter how much some folks want to deny it," he thundered. Think about that. [size=150]FGM is a crime in Canada and Trudeau's comparing it to not believing in man-made climate change.
[/size]
A recent Abacus Data poll found 21 per cent of Canadians surveyed don't believe in man-made climate change. They believe climate changes due to natural causes.
So [size=150]Trudeau is saying that more than one in five Canadians are in the same league as people who believe in female genital mutilation.
[/size]
How can we take a PM who says something that ridiculous seriously?
FGM is an illegal assault on a woman in Canada, so of course we don't debate whether it's a valid idea.
Not believing in manmade climate change isn't endorsing a crime, it's expressing an opinion.
That Trudeau doesn't seem to understand the difference is appalling.
Indeed, a cynic might suggest Trudeau has more tolerance for believing in FGM than he does for not believing in anthropogenic climate change.
Recall that in opposition, Trudeau chastised the then Conservative government for calling FGM a "barbaric" practice in its citizenship guide, because, Trudeau said, this did not demonstrate "responsible neutrality".
This before Trudeau had to promptly apologize in the face of outrage expressed by Canadians across the country.
Today, Trudeau's government, belatedly, calls FGM, "abhorrent".
What's truly abhorrent is his linking of people who disagree with him about climate change, to supporters of an illegal, barbaric, practice that mutilates women.
That Trudeau doesn't know the difference, is appalling.
I don't support any of the so called solutions being offered by Western governments to address climate change. I guess Trudeau would lump me in with people who practice FGM.
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Ditto Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.
Last year, with great, self-congratulatory fanfare, she imposed a cap and trade scheme, another name for a carbon tax, on Ontarians. That's one reason she's poised to lose her job in the province's June 7 election, her Liberal government trailing both the Progressive Conservatives and NDP in the polls.
An Ipsos/Global poll released Monday found more than seven in 10 eligible Ontario voters — 72% — believe carbon taxes are just an excuse by government to grab more money from them, with 68% calling them mere symbolism.
A similar fate appears to await Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, whose NDP government introduced a carbon tax last year and is now trailing far behind Jason Kenney's United Conservative Party in public support.
A poll released last month by Janet Brown Opinion Research and Trend Research for the CBC, found almost seven in 10 Albertans surveyed — 66% — want Notley's carbon tax scrapped.
An Angus Reid Institute poll released in July, 2017 found most Canadians — 56% — oppose Trudeau's national carbon price, with majorities against it in every province surveyed except Quebec, (55% support) and B.C. (50% support).
Meanwhile, 59% were opposed in Ontario; 68% opposed in Alberta; 71% opposed in Saskatchewan; 60% opposed in Manitoba; 67% opposed in New Brunswick; 62% opposed in Newfoundland and Labrador and 57% opposed in Nova Scotia.
It's all evidence of growing skepticism about carbon pricing as Canadians increasingly realize that when Trudeau and Co. talk about "making polluters pay" for carbon emissions, they really mean making us pay.
Having followed polling on carbon pricing and climate change for more than a decade, my rule of thumb is this: Ask people if they support efforts to combat man-made climate change and most say yes. Ask them if they support having to pay for it and most say no.
While the Canadian intelligentsia mock the public for holding these seemingly contradictory views, the reality is the public's skepticism about carbon pricing is justified.
That's because no government in Canada has instituted the most effective, open and transparent form of carbon pricing — a 100%, revenue neutral carbon tax in which all the money is returned to the public in broad-based income tax cuts — verified by the federal and provincial auditors general.
The reason no government in Canada is doing this is that no government in Canada wants to reduce industrial carbon dioxide emissions linked to climate change in the most effective way possible, which has nothing to do with raising government revenues.
The fact is that to significantly reduce emissions, carbon taxes would have to be set so high today (hundreds of dollars per tonne of emissions, as opposed to Trudeau's price of $50 per tonne by 2022) that, without revenue neutrality, the only reason emissions would drop would be due to a massive national recession.
So instead, what Trudeau and Co. are doing, is to nickel-and-dime Canadians to death through carbon pricing, putting a permanent drag on our economy without provoking a full recession, while hoping Canadians won't notice as the costs increase over time, with little impact on emissions.
What the polling on carbon taxes shows is that Canadians are coming to the correct conclusion that our carbon emperors have no clothes.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-and-co-losing-the-fight-on-carbon-taxes
Canadians are right, carbon pricing is a cash grab and mere symbolism.
Living in a province with a punitive carbon tax, I'm not surprised by Canadians cynicism.
Governments that implement carbon pricing are counting on collective ignorance and fear.
Anyone that attacks carbon taxes gets labelled a denier by the prime minister and Catherine McKenna.
It's not just leftists that see C02 taxation for the cash cow that it is. Our premier, Brian Palliser is a Conservative and implemented carbon pricing. He can blame it on Trudeau.
OTTAWA - The Conservatives say they will force the House of Commons to sit all night tonight if the government doesn't agree to produce an analysis of how much its carbon price is going to cost Canadian families.
Finance critic Pierre Poilievre says it's his goal to make the government feel "as uncomfortable as possible."
OTTAWA - The Conservatives say they will force the House of Commons to sit all night tonight if the government doesn't agree to produce an analysis of how much its carbon price is going to cost Canadian families.
Finance critic Pierre Poilievre says it's his goal to make the government feel "as uncomfortable as possible."
The Liberals are requiring every province to have a price on carbon of $20 per tonne by next year, rising to $50 per tonne by 2022. Legislation to establish a federal carbon price that will be imposed on provinces that don't comply is part of the spring budget implementation bill.
Environment Minister Catherine McKenna has argued the costs to families will change, depending on how provinces decide to use revenues from the carbon tax — but she hasn't yet explicitly said how Ottawa will return the revenues to people who live in a province where Ottawa imposes its price.
"We will make the government as uncomfortable as possible until they tell the truth," Poilievre said.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/poilievre-warns-of-late-night-carbon-fight/ar-AAyD0RU?li=AAggFp5&ocid=mailsignout
Canadians don't want it, the Trudeau regime won't tell us how much it will cost families or the tens of thousands of jobs it will impact. But they are determined to double down on stupid.
One major problem with the carbon tax in Canada are the lack of results.
We have seen very little action by governments and few projects after years of collecting the tax.
Contrast this with nations like Germany or Chile, where real green energy infrastructure and projects actually get built and implemented.
Chile built a huge solar collection station in the middle of a desert.
Germany has been so successful that many villages actually sell electricity back to the state.
The Philippines are building wind farms off its coast.
What has Canada done? ie - Vancouver, Canada's supposedly 'greenest city' shows very few visible results of all this talk and collection of these environmentally friendly taxes.
So in one respect I agree with the critics. Governments can't just collect tax and show no results.
All over the industrialized world, voters are getting donor fatigue about climate change and Canada is no exception.
Quote
https://globalnews.ca/news/4232296/darrell-bricker-climate-change-ontario-election/
Europeans are tiring of paying for white elephants too.
Quote
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/europe-slashes-subsidies-for-renewables-as-energy-prices-rise/news-story/5f929493208755c5402709aac5a24d16
Climate Barbie is full of shit. True Dope's useless carbon tax will shave a half point off of GDP and put families in poverty.
Quote
In their latest economic and fiscal outlook, the fiscal watchdog has run the numbers and found that Trudeau's troubled carbon tax is expected to pull $10 billion per year out of the economy starting in 2022. That amounts to 0.5% of GDP.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-carbon-taxes-come-with-a-price-who-knew
This appeared in today's Sun.
Quote
Finance critic Pierre Poilievre said his goal is to make the government feel "as uncomfortable as possible until they tell the truth" about how much more Canadians will pay because of the carbon price.
The Conservatives had lined up more than 200 votes on the government's main spending plan and threatened to proceed with them late Thursday if the government opposed a Tory motion calling on it to table by June 22 how much the proposed $50-per-tonne carbon price will cost Canadian families.
Environment Minister Catherine Mckenna said the government has already released its cost analysis, pointing to a report released in April that said its plan could cut emissions by up to 90 million tonnes a year by the time the carbon price hits $50 a tonne in 2022, at a cost to the economy of about $2 billion. That is equivalent to less than 0.1 per cent of the GDP.
"The Conservative Party is going to make people vote all night in relation to this when we have released this information," Mckenna said. as for the specific impacts on families, Mckenna said it will depend on how each province chooses to use revenues from the carbon price.
What Poilievre wants, however, is a document done by the department of finance in 2015 which looks at the potential impact of a carbon price based on household consumption data across different income levels. He says he knows it exists because it was mentioned in documents he obtained through access-to-information legislation, although the actual analysis was blacked out.
Indians cost Canada a billion dollars per year. How else can we continue helping the Indians without an increase in taxes?
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
I do agree that a carbon tax will be used for a lot of different things that have nothing to do with climate as it is here in Alberta.
That happens with everything. Here we have ICBC, which is a public sector insurer of motor vehicles, and is mandatory to use for basic vehicle insurance...
What do you think happened when ICBC had some good years and posted nice profits? Give the customers a break? No. Save the funds for a rainy day? No. They flowed the profits into general revenue, surprise surprise...
Quote from: "Angry White Male"
What do you think happened when ICBC had some good years and posted nice profits? Give the customers a break? No. Save the funds for a rainy day? No. They flowed the profits into general revenue, surprise surprise...
Insurance is still all private here.....for now anyway.
Justine's refusal to release carbon tax costs is a big help to Ford.
From the Sun
Hear that sound? It's the death knell of carbon taxes in Canada. Two death knells, actually.
The first came at 10:41 p.m. on Thursday night. That was the official time the Conservative motion calling on the Liberals to release redacted documents on the federal carbon tax was defeated.
There were 71 "yeas" backing the idea that the Liberals should fess up and disclose the figures calculated by the Department of Finance that tell us how much the carbon tax is expected to cost the average family, whereas there were 184 MPS who thought it was wise to vote "nay" against this.
The Conservatives have a winner on their hands with this issue. Carbon taxes are one of those things that people think sounds OK from afar, but the more they learn about it, the less they like it.
This was the case in Australia, where one government snuck it in, only to have public outrage see it be removed two years later. Meanwhile, Washington state didn't even get that far before its mostly left-leaning politicians saw fit to abandon the idea.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, though, and his increasingly moody band of climate warriors, seems to be digging in his heels in defiance over the issue. The public will not appreciate learning that there is data out there from a 2015 document that they could be reading, but the Liberals are blocking its release.
This will only further suspicions about the tax. It'll also help provincial leaders who want to free themselves from the yoke of Trudeau's federally mandated carbon tax. Like Ontario Premier-designate Doug Ford, which brings us to death knell number two.
On Friday, Ford announced that his first priority is to eliminate the Liberals' cap-andtrade carbon-pricing scheme. He plans to do it right away, when he reconvenes the legislature in a few weeks for a special summer session.
This is quite a remarkable turn of events, given that it was only a year ago that former leader Patrick Brown was a vocal champion of carbon taxes. The PCS under Brown even went so far in their wrongheadedness as to banish anti-carbon tax activist Jim Karahalios from the party over his advocacy.
Where it gets complicated is that Trudeau has told the provinces that they either enact their own carbon tax, or he'll force one upon them.
Now, common sense tells you it would be too politically damaging for Trudeau to fight Ford so soon after the latter has won a majority mandate, during which he repeatedly railed against the tax.
But within hours of Ford's announcement, Climate Change and Environment Minister Catherine Mckenna's office unleashed threats against the province: "Ontario's current pollution pricing system meets the federal standard. If the new government changes or eliminates its system, that assessment may change and the federal price on pollution would apply."
Whatever they try, Ford will have none of it. He's already said he's prepared to take this all the way up to the Supreme Court, and he'll have Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe to join him. Plus, by that time, Jason Kenney could well be premier of Alberta. The three carbon tax amigos.
In a recent column, I argued that one of the first things Ford needs to do is file a reference question with the courts to get instruction on the constitutionality of Trudeau's edict. Ford seems to be heading in this direction, as he said on Friday that he'll instruct his attorney general to look into combating the feds.
Tough call
It's a tough call to say how this will go as it winds its way up the court system. The question is one of jurisdiction, and whether the feds even have the right to do this. The Library of Parliament released a paper on this in 2013 that basically calls it a coin toss.
It explains that, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, "provinces have jurisdiction to regulate most types of buildings, businesses, industries and interprovincial transportation, and therefore they may also have jurisdiction to control the greenhouse gas emissions related to these matters." This reads like a win for Ford, but the report continues: "With regard to addressing climate change by establishing an overarching strategy or regime, note that both Parliament and the provincial legislatures have broad jurisdiction to impose taxes. Therefore, either or both levels of government could institute a carbon tax."
You'd think that if there was overlapping jurisdiction, the more local government (Ford) would get the final say on its affairs over the umbrella government (Trudeau). This particular issue has never been tested in court, though, since carbon taxes are a recent fad.
Ford is set to be a trailblazer on the matter. The question is whether Trudeau really wants to roll the dice and choose to stand in his way.
There are 184 MP's who think taxpayers don't deserve to know how much our pm's cash grab will cost them.
ac_wot
Quote from: "Fashionista"
ac_wot
All dipper and Bloc/Quebec debout voted with the Grits. I guess they too think you don't have the right to know how much this cash grab will cost you.
BTW, 25 Tory MP's didn't vote.
https://openparliament.ca/votes/42-1/761/
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
ac_wot
All dipper and Bloc/Quebec debout voted with the Grits. I guess they too think you don't have the right to know how much this cash grab will cost you.
BTW, 25 Tory MP's didn't vote.
https://openparliament.ca/votes/42-1/761/
No MP should've voted against releasing the cost information to the people who must pay for it.
[size=150]Carbon tax racket is coming to an end[/size]
It looks like the game is up and the Liberal carbon tax racket is coming apart at the seams.
As recently as early 2018, it seemed like a forgone conclusion that the Liberals would impose their carbon tax from coast to coast. The Trudeau government mandated the tax hike but ordered the provinces to impose and administer the tax.
It's crafty politics, since the provincial governments, not Trudeau and his team of climate zealots, would carry the burden of imposing the largest tax increase in a generation.
The governments of both Ontario (out-going Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne) and Alberta (the NDP'S Rachel Notley) won election victories without mentioning the tax, only to quickly impose it after being elected.
The sole glimmer of hope for Canadian taxpayers came from Saskatchewan. First, Premier Brad Wall firmly told the Trudeau government that he refused to impose the tax. If the feds wanted to force carbon taxes onto Saskatchewan, they'd have to do it in court.
Wall retired last year, and his successor Scott Moe has picked up right where Wall left off.
"The carbon tax plan is wrong for our province," said Moe in a recent speech. "As an economic plan, it's a total disaster. As an environmental plan, it's not worth the paper that David Suzuki's University of Alberta honorary degree is written on."
Meanwhile in Ontario, former PC Leader Patrick Brown included carbon taxes in his platform, despite the tax being deeply unpopular. After the ousting of Brown as leader, he was replaced by the outspoken carbon tax critic Doug Ford.
On June 7, Ford was elected in a landslide, and will become Ontario Premier on June 29th. He's pledged to scrap the $2 billion carbon pricing scheme and pull Ontario out of the notoriously fraudulent cap-and-trade system with Quebec and California.
We're also less than a year away from the provincial election in Alberta, where polls show that United Conservative leader Jason Kenney holds a commanding lead and is favoured to oust the NDP government.
Kenney is a fierce critic of carbon taxes, and has vowed to work with Ford and Moe to challenge the constitutionality of Trudeau's tax mandate.
Just like that, the tables have turned in Canada.
The Liberals aren't going down without a fight, and the usual green evangelists have ratcheted up their name-calling and fear-mongering campaign over climate change.
It doesn't help that Ford seems committed to reducing carbon emissions without having a specific alternative plan. The reality is that even with heavy-handed carbon taxes, Canada has no hope of reaching Trudeau's pie-in-the-sky pledges made in the Paris Climate agreement.
As my colleague Lorrie Goldstein put it in a recent column, "everyone who can add has concluded that hell will freeze over before Canada meets its 2020 and 2030 emission reduction promises Trudeau made to the UN."
Interestingly, a new study from researchers at Cambridge University predicts that new technology and changing attitudes will make fossil fuels increasingly undesirable and eventually, obsolete.
The study states that, "low-carbon technology diffusion, energy efficiency and climate policy may be substantially reducing global demand for fossil fuels."
This prompted far-left climate fanatic David Suzuki to conclude: "the carbon bubble will burst with or without government action."
If that's the case, why burden Canadian families with a regressive and punitive tax?
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Because carbon taxes were never about climate change.
Last week, incoming Ontario premier Doug Ford said his government will scrap the so-called "Greenon" program, which offers incentives to households to make their homes more energy efficient.
Scrapping this conservation program means consumers will no longer receive free "smart" thermostats or rebates potentially worth thousands of dollars for energy efficiency-enhancing purchases such as windows, insulation or equipment to capture solar power.
The program was only launched at the end of last year, so it's too early to assess its impact. However, the historical record of similar programs suggests the Greenon initiative was unlikely to produce positive results.
Many energy efficiency programs are justified on the basis they will save consumers money in the long run by encouraging them to make up-front investments in energy-saving upgrades to their homes.
In a 2016 Fraser Institute study, however, energy consultant Tom Adams and University of Guelph professor Ross Mckitrick examined claims that conservation programs save consumers money — and concluded the evidence suggests they likely do not.
For example, Adams and Mckitrick reviewed a 2015 University of Berkeley study that looked at participants in the largest U.S. energy efficiency program, the federal Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP).
The results were discouraging.
The study found that the savings produced by home retrofits were far less impressive than government planners expected. Specifically, the per-household cost of the program was approximately twice the value of resulting energy savings, even after accounting for the value of reduced emissions of air pollutants. To put it another way, the program spent two dollars of taxpayer money to save one dollar for households.
But why do demand-side management programs often fail so badly?
A primary reason is that individuals are actually better decision-makers than government planners seem to believe. Conservation programs are often borne out of planner frustration that consumers won't do the "rational" thing and invest in upgrades that would save them money. So the planners try to encourage them to make better decisions with an incentive. But the evidence suggests, like in the Berkeley study, that planners often overestimate the savings from such expenditures and that households are not in fact behaving as irrationally as governments assume.
Another fundamental problem with energy conservation programs is the so-called "rebound-effect," which means that when energy consumption becomes cheaper for people through government subsidies, people will most likely use more of it rather than less. For instance, a household that obtains a rebate to purchase an energy-efficient dishwasher that uses less energy may then opt to run the dishwasher when it's less full and therefore more often. This rebound effect frequently undermines the efficacy of demand-side management programs.
No doubt, some consumers who hoped to take advantage of the Greenon program's rebates and incentives will be disappointed by its cancellation. However, the history of such programs suggests that the end of Greenon is on the whole good news for taxpayers and ratepayers in Ontario.