Tax de Carbon

[sybian]

Well the rebate will NOT cover all your added costs, not even close. Companies that have to bear the brunt of the tax will have to increase prices to cover their increased costs of manufacturing and transportation as they pass this along to the consumer. Any increase in the price of gas hits those at the bottom of the income scale and those on fixed incomes the hardest and will drive them even deeper into poverty than they already are. The prices of everything will have to rise and the cost of basics like food, clothing and shelter are not covered by the rebate.

We saw this very thing happen a few years ago when gas prices spiked....everything went up, from groceries, to building a structure of any kind.
All of it was blamed on fuel prices...and now it's being implemented by a guy who could never hope to keep office, and has almost zero support from the very people who pay those taxes, and who put him there to begin with.

 

[overdone]

This is between highly unlikely and ridiculous.

what's ridiculous and highly unlikely is that the tax is going to actually reduce emissions substantially

most of Canada's emissions are from coal for power, oil industry in Alberta, coal, which can be eliminated easily with a switch to NG, which will reduce emissions by about 40% compared to coal

of which Alberta, cause we don't have hydro, (much like the rest of Canada), along with I believe New Brunswick or Nova Scotia who also uses coal for power

then there is our oil industry, which like it or not without, the country's economy will collapse

other than that we aren't a but a pimple on the ass of world emissions

just look at BC, which the delusional keep using as an example

already not revenue neutral anymore, emissions are going up

one little LNG plant and any hope of reductions are blown out of the water

and let's keep adding a small city of people from the 3rd world every yr, up to almost 500,000 cause of Zoolander the corrupt

that'll help




so while we're taxing our self to the poor house for basics

while the rest of the world, none of which are anywhere near 50/tonne, keep pumping out carbon

how do you think it's going to do anything?

you drink from a pool you only pissed in, while the other 6.99 billion shit in it

cause the world emissions are still going up, China/India, 1/3 of the worlds pop, in the top 5 of polluters already said they won't stop until they are living the same standards as fat Americans

you need to kill people, or make them so poor they can't afford to use anything

anything else is just symbolic

 

[80watts]

For wood burning stoves, I forgot about them...
But yes in the last 15 years, new home construction has certain restrictions on them. Insurance cost for your house goes up in the areas where you could use it the most, or the political sensitive (anal retentive) goody two shoes tree hugger places. Its a provincial law I do believe... But at the same time its a money maker for insurance companies.... just like earth quake insurance...

An outhouse boiler is awesome, I have a friend who has one, loves it... You need to know how it works and the flow of heat in piping etc. and how to do maintanance on it...

Ever see those loghomes with central fire places.... a small fire over time heats up all that stone, acting as a reservoir for the heat. Better yet a glass wall facing south heating up a stone wall (saw that on an earth house).

The problem is cleaning the chimney to prevent chimney fires... Alot of people dont do the maintainance on their fireplace...

I have electrical heat. Propane fireplace as back up.. Everyone should have a back up source of heat in their house. If you only have electrical, in the lower mainland, some parts of Van Island, you can get away with a candle, as long as the temp doesn't fall below zero... the wind storms last fall, many people were without electricity... If you live in the interior, a secondary source you should have....

An heat pump is awesome too, but it requires electricity to run. A back up carbon burning generator maybe needed....

Solar or wind energy with a source to store energy is good too...The problem I see still is new construction relying on electricity from the grid, there should be some sort or renewable to be included in new construction or solar panels
on a complex/apartment building to offset the electricity demand...

 

[sybian]

For wood burning stoves, I forgot about them...
But yes in the last 15 years, new home construction has certain restrictions on them. Insurance cost for your house goes up in the areas where you could use it the most, or the political sensitive (anal retentive) goody two shoes tree hugger places. Its a provincial law I do believe... But at the same time its a money maker for insurance companies.... just like earth quake insurance...

An outhouse boiler is awesome, I have a friend who has one, loves it... You need to know how it works and the flow of heat in piping etc. and how to do maintanance on it...

Ever see those loghomes with central fire places.... a small fire over time heats up all that stone, acting as a reservoir for the heat. Better yet a glass wall facing south heating up a stone wall (saw that on an earth house).

The problem is cleaning the chimney to prevent chimney fires... Alot of people dont do the maintainance on their fireplace...

I have electrical heat. Propane fireplace as back up.. Everyone should have a back up source of heat in their house. If you only have electrical, in the lower mainland, some parts of Van Island, you can get away with a candle, as long as the temp doesn't fall below zero... the wind storms last fall, many people were without electricity... If you live in the interior, a secondary source you should have....

An heat pump is awesome too, but it requires electricity to run. A back up carbon burning generator maybe needed....

Solar or wind energy with a source to store energy is good too...The problem I see still is new construction relying on electricity from the grid, there should be some sort or renewable to be included in new construction or solar panels
on a complex/apartment building to offset the electricity demand...

A central stone fireplace looks great, and yes it will radiat heat into your home for quite awhile, just like a thick concrete floor, with hot water heat will.
Here in the Interior we like log homes, and there are two different theories to heating them.
It's called thermal mass....If you build from Pine or Spruce you can take advantage of the air cells within the wood to help heat the structure.....Douglas Fir, once cured is another 35 % heavier....it has fewer air cells.
It is also twice as strong, as a matter of fact in stress tests it comes within 78% of untempered steel.
Being heavier than Spruce or Pine, it has more thermal mass.....once the logs warm, they will stay that way, as long as the space between the logs is 6" or more, and is insulated and sealed correctly, using a latex caulking like timber lock or Perma- Chink.
A wood stove needs to be the correct size for the home, and in the right location.
It's the size of fire, throwing heat that's important...radiating out and warming the logs....and the type or species of wood you burn. I cut Douglas Fir and Pine. At -25 I will burn the Fir. At -5 I switch to Pine or Spruce, a faster burning and dirtier burning wood ,that clogs the chimney faster, but has a shorter ,hot burn time.
Even in the coldest temps, I will fill the stove late at night, and cut down the air, and in the morning there are coals left to restart the fire.....I will judge the temperature in the morning at how close my dogs are laying next to the stove.
A wood stove in my opinion is the only way to go....a central fireplace is good with an insert kit installed....an open traditional fireplace is completely useless, as all the heat will go out a wide open chimney.
Because I will go through 5 to 6 cords of wood in 6 months I will clean the chimney every 6 weeks or so, as the insulated ,double walled stainless exhaust pipe may not let the heat out as good as old fashioned chimney pipe, but it carries the soot, and creosote out of the house better....
Then there is the feeling of absolute creature comfort.....when you see through your window it's a blowing blizzard outside, and your in a log home, with a fire radiating through the glass of the stove.
I have seen people move here from the Mainland, and build a big fancy log home up to building code, with forced air heating, and a traditional fireplace.....only too sell and move because it's to cold in the winter time...and telling everyone how much they hate them.
Then some Interior boy buys it.....throws in a wood stove , and lives so long in it he retires there.

 

[wetnose]

then there is our oil industry, which like it or not without, the country's economy will collapse

anything else is just symbolic

Sorry to burst your bubble but O&G accounts for less than 8% of Canada's GDP.

https://www.investorsfriend.com/canadian-GDP-canadian-imports-and-exports/

It's a significant player of Alberta's economy but Canada is not Saudi Arabia. We still produce more out of manufacturing than O&G and mining COMBINED.

I think a carbon tax is fine for modifying consumer behaviour so that consumers choose the more economical and environmentally friendly option. If a car with 30 mpg can ferry the kids equally as well as a 8 mpg truck, then why would a family buy the 8 mpg truck? Personally I think gas guzzlers (used daily for commuting) are purely for vanity and insecurity and should be taxed harshly.

 

[overdone]

Sorry to burst your bubble but O&G accounts for less than 8% of Canada's GDP.

https://www.investorsfriend.com/canadian-GDP-canadian-imports-and-exports/

It's a significant player of Alberta's economy but Canada is not Saudi Arabia. We still produce more out of manufacturing than O&G and mining COMBINED.

I think a carbon tax is fine for modifying consumer behaviour so that consumers choose the more economical and environmentally friendly option. If a car with 30 mpg can ferry the kids equally as well as a 8 mpg truck, then why would a family buy the 8 mpg truck? Personally I think gas guzzlers (used daily for commuting) are purely for vanity and insecurity and should be taxed harshly.

really? then why the BC gov't whine in court the other day that if we cut the poser enviromentalists off, that it would have a severe effect on their economy?

yes, cause no one uses oil and gas in Canada, lol

no one needs tax money from Alberta, go look at how much more AB has sent to the Feds than they got back in transfers, just in the last 10 yrs alone, oh Christ



if Alberta shut off the taps everywhere out of Alberta the price of oil would probably go over 100/bbl

you think between that and 8% of GDP the country wouldn't be in a recession? lol

you can't replace 3-4 billion barrels of oil in the world market tomorrow

you can't replace the taxes generated from oil/gas

I hope Kenney cuts BC off this summer, then the US, all exports out of AB, then we could see how long it takes to get some pipelines, LNG on the east coast

I'd say about 3-6 months

we should opt out of the CPP too, then the rest of you could double your amounts, while we reduce ours

then, don't know if we can, but we should get out of the EI too, we've been getting screwed forever on that too

it would be worth the pain to bitch slap all the posers into reality

 

[MissingOne]

...I'd say about 3-6 months ...

Those would be a pretty tough 3-6 months for Alberta. Sure the whole country would suffer, but the other provinces have more diversified sources of jobs and revenue. What would Alberta do while it waited 3-6 months for the rest of Canada to cave in?

Not that I disagree with Alberta's frustration. Horgan is being a total jerk about the pipeline. Quebec politicians are being mega-jerks about pipelines. However, Alberta doesn't have a very strong hand if it wants to hold the country for ransom. When people claim that they don't want your product, you're going to punish them by refusing to let them have it? That would be satisfying, for a while perhaps, but not a winning strategy.

 

[CanineCowboy]

I am continually shocked by the prevalence of the repeated baseless arguments denying climate change, the effect of carbon on that change and the effectiveness of carbon pricing... but then I remember that stormrider is unaware that combustion engines produced co2 ... and that the rest of you are probably of the school that good old common sense trumps the expertise of climatologists and economists. For ffs, even Shell Oil is onboard.

I am just waiting for one of you to start quoting Utah Sen. Mike Lee.

 

[nightswhisper]

I am continually shocked by the prevalence of the repeated baseless arguments denying climate change, the effect of carbon on that change and the effectiveness of carbon pricing... but then I remember that stormrider is unaware that combustion engines produced co2 ... and that the rest of you are probably of the school that good old common sense trumps the expertise of climatologists and economists. For ffs, even Shell Oil is onboard.

I am just waiting for one of you to start quoting Utah Sen. Mike Lee.

First, there are no climate change deniers in this thread. There are ANTHROPOGENIC climate change deniers. Learn the difference.

Second:

"Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 64 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing the 97% consensus, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors."

Here's that paper in reference: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

Third, here's 1350 scientific peer-reviewed papers written disavowing anthropogenic climate change, including scientists Cook et Al quoted. This list also include several nobel laureates and leading climatologists:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#list97%

Fourth, do you even know what the IPCC says about Climate Change or are you one of these new-age leftists embracing everything the media tells you about climate change?

"Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is "very likely" (greater than 90% probability, based on expert judgement) due to human activities."

Where does "very likely" become "absolutely" in your world? Do you even science, bruh?

Stop using this moralistic stance you have about climate science and trying to test other people with that Holier Than Thou crap.

 

[appleomac]

First, there are no climate change deniers in this thread. There are ANTHROPOGENIC climate change deniers. Learn the difference.

Second:

"Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 64 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing the 97% consensus, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors."

Here's that paper in reference: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

Third, here's 1350 scientific peer-reviewed papers written disavowing anthropogenic climate change, including scientists Cook et Al quoted. This list also include several nobel laureates and leading climatologists:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#list97%

Fourth, do you even know what the IPCC says about Climate Change or are you one of these new-age leftists embracing everything the media tells you about climate change?

"Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is "very likely" (greater than 90% probability, based on expert judgement) due to human activities."

Where does "very likely" become "absolutely" in your world? Do you even science, bruh?

Stop using this moralistic stance you have about climate science and trying to test other people with that Holier Than Thou crap.

Have you read the 2013 Legates paper? The link you provided is simply an abstract and paywall.

 

[nightswhisper]

Have you read the 2013 Legates paper? The link you provided is simply an abstract and paywall.

Yes I have. The link I posted discusses the validity of scientific consensus.

The Legates paper is here:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...erils_of_Consensus_Knowledge_Using_Agnotology

You can request a reading of it for free.

If you are interested, paying for scientific papers is a great way to support scientific research.

 

[overdone]

Sorry to burst your bubble but O&G accounts for less than 8% of Canada's GDP.

https://www.investorsfriend.com/canadian-GDP-canadian-imports-and-exports/

It's a significant player of Alberta's economy but Canada is not Saudi Arabia. We still produce more out of manufacturing than O&G and mining COMBINED.

I think a carbon tax is fine for modifying consumer behaviour so that consumers choose the more economical and environmentally friendly option. If a car with 30 mpg can ferry the kids equally as well as a 8 mpg truck, then why would a family buy the 8 mpg truck? Personally I think gas guzzlers (used daily for commuting) are purely for vanity and insecurity and should be taxed harshly.

you need to stop listening those while riding the short bus

Weaver was saying it was only 2%

Oil and Gas by itself might only be what you say, but when you add in the "manufacturing" that is related to O and G, the financial services, the service sector, ect...

it's probably in at least the teens

Those would be a pretty tough 3-6 months for Alberta. Sure the whole country would suffer, but the other provinces have more diversified sources of jobs and revenue. What would Alberta do while it waited 3-6 months for the rest of Canada to cave in?

Not that I disagree with Alberta's frustration. Horgan is being a total jerk about the pipeline. Quebec politicians are being mega-jerks about pipelines. However, Alberta doesn't have a very strong hand if it wants to hold the country for ransom. When people claim that they don't want your product, you're going to punish them by refusing to let them have it? That would be satisfying, for a while perhaps, but not a winning strategy.

like we haven't already had 4yrs of hard times, not to mention a shorter spell in 08-09

we've been losing growth for 10+ yrs

3-6 months would be a cakewalk

the country wouldn't hurt, sure, the 200 billion we sent to Ottawa last 10 yrs, that's nothing, the CCP we send, nothing, the EI we send, nothing, the taxes from exports, haven't you heard about our trade deficit

what do you think it would go to if we shut off oil exports? lol

you hurt people when you stick your hand in their pocket

the price of oil would dramatically increase if AB took it's 3-4bbday off the market

and if nothing else, then fine, lets see how the rest get by without it, should be fun watching BC grind to a halt first, then Trudeau stammering about this and that

I am continually shocked by the prevalence of the repeated baseless arguments denying climate change, the effect of carbon on that change and the effectiveness of carbon pricing... but then I remember that stormrider is unaware that combustion engines produced co2 ... and that the rest of you are probably of the school that good old common sense trumps the expertise of climatologists and economists. For ffs, even Shell Oil is onboard.

I am just waiting for one of you to start quoting Utah Sen. Mike Lee.

you mean like the fact that China/India/US who account for most of the emissions don't have a carbon price, aren't reducing their emissions

China and India have already stated that they won't reduce until they have standards of living similar to the west

they have half the worlds pop

or don't you believe in Man made climate change?

Canada can be wiped off the map and our total climate contributions wouldn't make a bit of difference

the worlds emissions rose by the Canadian total last yr

no other county has a 50/tonne price

it hasn't changed anyone's behaviour significantly, carbon tax

no one can show it's reducing, significantly, emissions, it's symbolic

you either have to restrict peoples ability to emit or bankrupt them

cause the tech isn't there yet, not on a scale needed for everyone to live like a fat American

 

[storm rider]

you need to stop listening those while riding the short bus

Weaver was saying it was only 2%

Oil and Gas by itself might only be what you say, but when you add in the "manufacturing" that is related to O and G, the financial services, the service sector, ect...

it's probably in at least the teens






like we haven't already had 4yrs of hard times, not to mention a shorter spell in 08-09

we've been losing growth for 10+ yrs

3-6 months would be a cakewalk

the country wouldn't hurt, sure, the 200 billion we sent to Ottawa last 10 yrs, that's nothing, the CCP we send, nothing, the EI we send, nothing, the taxes from exports, haven't you heard about our trade deficit

what do you think it would go to if we shut off oil exports? lol

you hurt people when you stick your hand in their pocket

the price of oil would dramatically increase if AB took it's 3-4bbday off the market

and if nothing else, then fine, lets see how the rest get by without it, should be fun watching BC grind to a halt first, then Trudeau stammering about this and that





you mean like the fact that China/India/US who account for most of the emissions don't have a carbon price, aren't reducing their emissions

China and India have already stated that they won't reduce until they have standards of living similar to the west

they have half the worlds pop

or don't you believe in Man made climate change?

Canada can be wiped off the map and our total climate contributions wouldn't make a bit of difference

the worlds emissions rose by the Canadian total last yr

no other county has a 50/tonne price

it hasn't changed anyone's behaviour significantly, carbon tax

no one can show it's reducing, significantly, emissions, it's symbolic

you either have to restrict peoples ability to emit or bankrupt them

cause the tech isn't there yet, not on a scale needed for everyone to live like a fat American

The sickest most disgusting FACT is that CHINA does not have to start reducing Carbon Emissions under the Paris Accord until 2030.....leading up to when China hosted the Olympics China was bringing online a new coal fired power plant every day.

What is even more disgusting and hypocritical are the actual meetings of the UNIPCC.Last big one was in Morocco with the venue in the fucking desert.A small temporary town was erected complete with air conditioning and the whole time of the conference the fleet of buses and limos sat with the engines running as those precious un-elected bureaucrats simply could not deal with a hot bus/limo after being in the confines of the air conditioned confines of the venue.

Tack on the costs of air travel and hotels as well as meals and booze and it cost Canadian Tax Payers 30 MILLION to send the delegation to Paris for the Paris Accord....Elizabeth May went along for the Green Party even though she does not represent Government as the LONE elected Green MP.....cant pass up a free vacation on the public dime....she "green washed" her flight buy buying "carbon off-sets"....pretty much like planting a few trees but lord knows she would not get her hands dirty doing menial labour.

The Carbon Tax does not reduce emissions it just makes life more expensive for Canadians both directly because of it such as heating your home and driving as well as indirectly because every supplier of the staples of life is going to pass it on to the consumer.

When my furnace burns natural gas to keep me warm it does not produce CO2....it produces Carbon Monoxide....same goes for my truck when I drive it.I DO produce CO2 by breathing life giving oxygen and I expel CO2 which feeds ALL plant life....be it trees/shrubs/grass and so forth.....everything that grows from the earth sucks in CO2 as a fuel to grow....it is the most perfect symbiotic relationship.

Climate Change is a sham.It is called "climate change" because "global warming" got debunked and then exposed as a hoax when thousands of emails got leaked via "climate gate".This whole agenda is being driven by the UN with the intention of world wide Socialism and it is a wealth transfer from the rich developed west to the poor shithole countries of the world.....countries that have a history of despotic leaders who have enriched themselves at the expense of their own people.

The term 97% of scientists agree about climate change is just another sham.Yes 97% do agree that climate change is real and is happening is correct.Of that 97% MOST scientists are not on the frequency with regards to "man made" Climate Change.The majority of peer reviewed research if it conflicts with the views of the small percentage who feed off the trough like pigs from government grants are ignored and dismissed and if the authors get vocal they are labelled as "deniers".

Take a look on youtube and watch say Lord Chrisopher Mockton and his presentations.....neither Al Gore nor David Suzuki will actually DEBATE with him as he will beat the living shit out of them with actual FACTS.....instead he is called a "denier" which is always what the LEFT does when they cant win a debate.....they get down to name calling and slinging the mud as well as fear mongering.

SR

 

[CanineCowboy]

The sickest most disgusting FACT is that CHINA does not have to start reducing Carbon Emissions under the Paris Accord until 2030.....leading up to when China hosted the Olympics China was bringing online a new coal fired power plant every day.

What is even more disgusting and hypocritical are the actual meetings of the UNIPCC.Last big one was in Morocco with the venue in the fucking desert.A small temporary town was erected complete with air conditioning and the whole time of the conference the fleet of buses and limos sat with the engines running as those precious un-elected bureaucrats simply could not deal with a hot bus/limo after being in the confines of the air conditioned confines of the venue.

Tack on the costs of air travel and hotels as well as meals and booze and it cost Canadian Tax Payers 30 MILLION to send the delegation to Paris for the Paris Accord....Elizabeth May went along for the Green Party even though she does not represent Government as the LONE elected Green MP.....cant pass up a free vacation on the public dime....she "green washed" her flight buy buying "carbon off-sets"....pretty much like planting a few trees but lord knows she would not get her hands dirty doing menial labour.

The Carbon Tax does not reduce emissions it just makes life more expensive for Canadians both directly because of it such as heating your home and driving as well as indirectly because every supplier of the staples of life is going to pass it on to the consumer.

When my furnace burns natural gas to keep me warm it does not produce CO2....it produces Carbon Monoxide....same goes for my truck when I drive it.I DO produce CO2 by breathing life giving oxygen and I expel CO2 which feeds ALL plant life....be it trees/shrubs/grass and so forth.....everything that grows from the earth sucks in CO2 as a fuel to grow....it is the most perfect symbiotic relationship.

Climate Change is a sham.It is called "climate change" because "global warming" got debunked and then exposed as a hoax when thousands of emails got leaked via "climate gate".This whole agenda is being driven by the UN with the intention of world wide Socialism and it is a wealth transfer from the rich developed west to the poor shithole countries of the world.....countries that have a history of despotic leaders who have enriched themselves at the expense of their own people.

The term 97% of scientists agree about climate change is just another sham.Yes 97% do agree that climate change is real and is happening is correct.Of that 97% MOST scientists are not on the frequency with regards to "man made" Climate Change.The majority of peer reviewed research if it conflicts with the views of the small percentage who feed off the trough like pigs from government grants are ignored and dismissed and if the authors get vocal they are labelled as "deniers".

Take a look on youtube and watch say Lord Chrisopher Mockton and his presentations.....neither Al Gore nor David Suzuki will actually DEBATE with him as he will beat the living shit out of them with actual FACTS.....instead he is called a "denier" which is always what the LEFT does when they cant win a debate.....they get down to name calling and slinging the mud as well as fear mongering.

SR

As per usual, you are continuing to deny that burning gas creates co2 which clearly demonstrates that you have no grasp of basic science and therefore no ability to comprehend any scientific evidence. You also continually cite 'climategate' which was debunked in 2009.

You and your denier buddies are so invested in your false belief that you are beyond considering the prolific evidence supporting climate change. And as far as the effectiveness of carbon pricing, Nobel didn't give out its prize to Romer and Nordhaus for nothing.

 

[nightswhisper]

And as far as the effectiveness of carbon pricing, Nobel didn't give out its prize to Romer and Nordhaus for nothing.

Have you actually read their papers? It's not about increasing carbon taxes. It's about finding alternative ways for people to use energy by increasing carbon taxes. The pretext for their study was that there were available alternative sources to use, therefore allowing people to transition by implementing a carbon tax.

Except we don't have many alternative sources and our credits for green-energy is nearly non-existent.

It's not that carbon tax is bad. It's that it's not the time.

 

[Lo-ki]

Have you actually read their papers? It's not about increasing carbon taxes. It's about finding alternative ways for people to use energy by increasing carbon taxes. The pretext for their study was that there were available alternative sources to use, therefore allowing people to transition by implementing a carbon tax.

Except we don't have many alternative sources and our credits for green-energy is nearly non-existent.

It's not that carbon tax is bad. It's that it's not the time.

You mean implementing a cash grab........no go under the rock you crawled out....the sun will warm the rock for the summer then you'll die freezing in the winter.

 

[nightswhisper]

You mean implementing a cash grab........no go under the rock you crawled out....the sun will warm the rock for the summer then you'll die freezing in the winter.

I don't support the carbon tax because it's a tax on productivity that doesn't work for Canada unlike Scandinavia. I am not partisan about its cash grabbing nature considering we live in fucking Canada where everything is a cash grab.

 

[appleomac]

I don't support the carbon tax because it's a tax on productivity that doesn't work for Canada unlike Scandinavia. I am not partisan about its cash grabbing nature considering we live in fucking Canada where everything is a cash grab.

What exactly is the definition of a productivity tax?

 

[sybian]

What exactly is the definition of a productivity tax?

If you raise the taxes....people have to work more to pay for everything, increasing their productivity through necessity.
It's very simply an old idea called Trust Fund Baby Justinism, adapted from Pierreism .....
I just totally made that up.....but I'm standing by my theory.

 

[nightswhisper]

What exactly is the definition of a productivity tax?

I don't know how much more explanation you need in addition to the face value of the words, but here's a more detailed breakdown.

1. Most vehicles and almost all industry require cheap and effective power. Most cars require carbon based fuel.
2. Carbon-based fuel provides cheap and effective power. It is available abundantly and can be used to power most modern industries and conveyances (planes, trains and plantains)
3. Carbon-based fuel is an inelastic good. Change in price does not change consumer demand significantly, compared to elastic goods like luxury items (higher price = less demand)

Therefore:

Taxing carbon means that you are increasing the price on a basic input on all industry and most consumers. Since taxing this particular good results in little change in consumer habits, and it is a necessary part of industrial capacity, it is therefore a tax on productivity.

The Egg Farmer who sold his eggs for $5 a dozen needs to have the eggs transported to the store, where the consumer then purchase and transport home. Both of these procedures require fuel. If fuel is free, the egg farmer makes $5 in pure profit. If the fuel is $5, the egg farmer therefore must increase his price to offset the fuel price. The consumer who purchase these must also expend extra money to purchase said eggs, increasing the hidden cost of the eggs by additional $5, which they must work to make. Therefore, this same dozen of eggs sold under a carbon tax must cause both the producer and the purchaser to both recoup the costs of fuel.

The end result of a carbon tax is that everything becomes more expensive, which is fine if:

1. There were reinvestments into reusable energy source
2. Government took measures to reduce inflation caused by the carbon tax.

In France, Holland, England, and Scandinavia, cities are small, condensed and public transport is reliable. Increasing carbon tax is often not a significant factor for tax on productivity because

1. People bike, a lot, in places like Holland and France
2. Public transport is cheap and cars are considered an item related to affluence rather than neccessity.

Therefore, a productivity tax is a in which the more productive you are (industrial output), the more you are taxed. It's a terrible thing to inflict upon Canadians (especially British Colombians) who must rely on carbon-based fuel to travel vast swaths of uninhabited land to get to and from work. It also stifles people who need to work more to pay for the carbon taxes and recoup the sunk costs associated with high energy input cost. The end result is:

1. People must work and drive more to offset carbon tax, offsetting what benefits the carbon tax is supposed do (reduce fuel usage)
2. People must drive less and do less with their lives because they can't afford it (making people less happy)

I hope that provides you with an adequate explanation. Many Canadians now fill up south of the border. Therefore, carbon tax and high fuel excise taxes is now creating a net outflow of capital to the US.