HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2019, 2:29 AM
pappcam pappcam is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Regina
Posts: 603
Carbon Tax Discussions

Quote:
Originally Posted by djforsberg View Post
With all due respect Stormer, screw off. The debate about the consequences of climate change is settled, so enough with your belittling of what is the most pressing issue of our time. People like you who can’t take your oil coated glasses off are the exception. People like me who are still mulling over starting a family are considering climate change above short term economics for our major life decisions because we are already seeing how economies across the world are being negatively effected by climate change. Either Saskatchewan gets on board with the inevitable or we keep betting on a boom that human society depends on not happening.
Please don't
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2019, 2:48 AM
djforsberg's Avatar
djforsberg djforsberg is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Posts: 2,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappcam View Post
Please don't
That’s a compliment from someone like you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2019, 8:11 PM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is online now
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 25,831
keep it civil guys
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2019, 9:29 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,440
Thanks for making this a new thread.

I don’t understand how climate change is a politically partisan discussion. What is it about Conservative voters that makes them disagree with science?

I understand it if you believe there are better solutions. So then let’s hear them and talk about where they have worked before.

I do not understand believing you are qualified to contradict 99.9% of the scientists on earth. How is that a Conservative ideal? I don’t get it. What else do you think you know better than qualified scientists?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2019, 10:11 PM
blueandgoldguy blueandgoldguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
Thanks for making this a new thread.

I don’t understand how climate change is a politically partisan discussion. What is it about Conservative voters that makes them disagree with science?

I understand it if you believe there are better solutions. So then let’s hear them and talk about where they have worked before.

I do not understand believing you are qualified to contradict 99.9% of the scientists on earth. How is that a Conservative ideal? I don’t get it. What else do you think you know better than qualified scientists?
I notice on the main Canada board some forum members frequently post studies/stats that appear to contradict global warming and its consequences. One example that comes to mind is a graph with statistics of forest fires in North America - more acreage burned in the early 20th Century then the present - which appears to contradict evidence that forest fires are increasing in intensity and are the worst we have ever experienced in recorded history.

Alternative facts became a popular phrase a few years ago. Maybe certain parties will start touting alternative science.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2019, 10:13 PM
blueandgoldguy blueandgoldguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
Thanks for making this a new thread.

I don’t understand how climate change is a politically partisan discussion. What is it about Conservative voters that makes them disagree with science?

I understand it if you believe there are better solutions. So then let’s hear them and talk about where they have worked before.

I do not understand believing you are qualified to contradict 99.9% of the scientists on earth. How is that a Conservative ideal? I don’t get it. What else do you think you know better than qualified scientists?
They are all on the take! Funded by George Soros!

Haha just kidding of course. It is worth noting conspiracy theorists tend to lean to the hard right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2019, 10:39 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,440
Whenever I engage in this discussion with a Conservative voter I tell them I agree with their right to oppose the carbon tax, as long as they can tell me what their solution is.

Inevitably the answer is the government should regulate the heavy polluters.

I then ask them as a Conservative you really oppose the free market solution and prefer the government tell you what kind of engine you can put in your F150?

The response is always, well no. Only the major polluters.

Then I tell them by far the largest source of emissions in Manitoba is vehicles. Second is buildings, most of which are houses, so any government regulation strategy will restrict the kind of car you can buy, or the type of furnace you can have in your house.

The response is always something about Trudeau being a drama teacher.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2019, 11:03 PM
Tacheguy Tacheguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
Whenever I engage in this discussion with a Conservative voter I tell them I agree with their right to oppose the carbon tax, as long as they can tell me what their solution is.

Inevitably the answer is the government should regulate the heavy polluters.

I then ask them as a Conservative you really oppose the free market solution and prefer the government tell you what kind of engine you can put in your F150?

The response is always, well no. Only the major polluters.

Then I tell them by far the largest source of emissions in Manitoba is vehicles. Second is buildings, most of which are houses, so any government regulation strategy will restrict the kind of car you can buy, or the type of furnace you can have in your house.

The response is always something about Trudeau being a drama teacher.
The current policy is conservative, but mixed with a bit of populism (think small businesses). A conservative purist, backed into a corner to reduce pollution, would likely prefer a voucher system, where a fixed amount of pollution is allowed and permits/vouchers are distributed to the public and then traded in a commodity market of sorts. It has some positive features for sure, but you can see how monied interests would dominate this process.

At least this is the system the Chicago boys were peddling back in the day..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2019, 11:06 PM
djforsberg's Avatar
djforsberg djforsberg is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Posts: 2,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
...
Yup. No amount of facts will change primitive people who base their opinions 100% on their feelings. Their criticisms of people like Trudeau are usually a projection of their own shortcomings. Sadly we are full of people like this on the prairies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2019, 11:32 PM
headhorse headhorse is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,743
the ruling class wants a carbon tax but they should be getting their wealth and businesses expropriated to pay for the mess they profited off of and their mismanagement of resources.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2019, 11:52 PM
VANRIDERFAN's Avatar
VANRIDERFAN VANRIDERFAN is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 5,149
I don't understand why the feds are insisting on rebates? If they are serious about changing our ways, then instead of another level of bureaucracy to send out the cheques, why aren't they using that money for infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions?
I hate the government putting their hands in my wallet for more, but if they are going to take that money, do something useful with it instead just giving it back!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2019, 3:03 AM
djforsberg's Avatar
djforsberg djforsberg is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Posts: 2,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN View Post
I don't understand why the feds are insisting on rebates? If they are serious about changing our ways, then instead of another level of bureaucracy to send out the cheques, why aren't they using that money for infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions?
I hate the government putting their hands in my wallet for more, but if they are going to take that money, do something useful with it instead just giving it back!
The answer is already out there and has been discussed much. The provinces were given the opportunity to apply their own carbon tax and do what they wish with it. Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick chose not to do it. The only reasonable thing the federal government could do is refund most of the money back to everyone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2019, 3:49 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN View Post
I don't understand why the feds are insisting on rebates? If they are serious about changing our ways, then instead of another level of bureaucracy to send out the cheques, why aren't they using that money for infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions?
I hate the government putting their hands in my wallet for more, but if they are going to take that money, do something useful with it instead just giving it back!
How would you feel if they reduced income taxes instead, or sales taxes, or something else? Ultimately, the government needs to raise revenue somehow, so it would be better they taxed something we don't want people to produce (CO2) and reduced taxes on something we do want them to produce (work). Really, a tax rebate is equivalent to reducing income tax (my preferred option), just in a more obvious way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2019, 5:08 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN View Post
I don't understand why the feds are insisting on rebates? If they are serious about changing our ways, then instead of another level of bureaucracy to send out the cheques, why aren't they using that money for infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions?
I hate the government putting their hands in my wallet for more, but if they are going to take that money, do something useful with it instead just giving it back!
I agree. But the only way to get it through politically was to make it revenue neutral. If it wasn’t, the idea that they are putting their hands in your wallet for more would be true.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2019, 1:26 AM
DLLB DLLB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Penticton, BC
Posts: 2,581
Here is an interesting fact about what the carbon tax has done to heating your house in BC and the difference will only grow as the carbon tax increases over the next few years.

We now have a tax that EXCEEDS THE PRICE OF THE ACTUAL PRODUCT. Yes I know about storage, transport etc, but I am talking about the actual product.

I have been checking my natural gas bills lately and the carbon tax now exceeds the cost of the gas, you know the actual product we are buying. The carbon tax was 112% of the actual cost of gas. The tax is more than the actual product.

Even better, when you take all the taxes into account, the municipal operating fee, carbon tax, clean energy levy (what the heck is this?) and the GST, they are 170%, almost 2 times, the actual cost of gas.

I guess we should be glad there are only 4 of them. Oops, I hope I didn't give them any ideas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2019, 3:26 AM
ywgwalk ywgwalk is offline
Formerly rypinion
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Exchange District, Winnipeg
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLLB View Post
We now have a tax that EXCEEDS THE PRICE OF THE ACTUAL PRODUCT. Yes I know about storage, transport etc, but I am talking about the actual product.
Which seems completely reasonable and expected for something that is plentiful and very cheap, yet very damaging to the future, and the government has put a price on that damage.

Just think how expensive single use plastic and other hard to recycle or expensive-to-dispose-of-properly items should be if we all properly paid for the full lifecycle of the product. Instead we have oceans filled with plastic, and people dumping mattresses, batteries, electronics, etc into garbage dumps. <-- a much more direct and visual impact, but one that pales in seriousness to what's happening due to excess carbon in the atmosphere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2019, 5:29 PM
StNorberter StNorberter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
The issue for conservatives isn't really one of science or if we need to do something about climate change.

conservatives are really only the wealthy elites. That they have convinced so many to follow them blindly and vote against their own interests is shocking.

conservativism is based on one premise - greed. It's the wealthy elites that refuse to give up any of their privilege or wealth. They oppose a carbon tax because they disagree with any form of taxation, and they disagree with any concept of government that includes taxation. So they go off the entire concept that taxes are bad, and since a carbon tax is a tax, it must be bad.

Now, I'm also of the opinion that there should never be rebates, but rather the income from the CT should be used to develop and support green infrastructure ( e.g. nationwide EV charging grid, high speed maglev trains, etc)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2019, 6:05 PM
pspeid's Avatar
pspeid pspeid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by StNorberter View Post

conservativism is based on one premise - greed.
I agree...greed, and control. When I think of modern conservatives I think about a scene from the movie Key Largo (you'll have to do the voices yourselves).

Lionel Barrymore was asking gangster Edward G. Robinson what he wanted by returning to the States at Key Largo after having been deported. Humphrey Bogart pipes up and answers "I'll tell you what he wants.....he wants more.". Robinson happily agrees, saying "Yeah....that's it....i want more!"

To me this perfectly explains modern conservatism and the people they work for. They want "more", and nothing will ever satisfy them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2019, 7:06 PM
NotToScale NotToScale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by StNorberter View Post
The issue for conservatives isn't really one of science or if we need to do something about climate change.

conservatives are really only the wealthy elites. That they have convinced so many to follow them blindly and vote against their own interests is shocking.

conservativism is based on one premise - greed. It's the wealthy elites that refuse to give up any of their privilege or wealth. They oppose a carbon tax because they disagree with any form of taxation, and they disagree with any concept of government that includes taxation. So they go off the entire concept that taxes are bad, and since a carbon tax is a tax, it must be bad.

Now, I'm also of the opinion that there should never be rebates, but rather the income from the CT should be used to develop and support green infrastructure ( e.g. nationwide EV charging grid, high speed maglev trains, etc)
What an over exaggeration and broad generalization.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2019, 6:28 PM
Curmudgeon Curmudgeon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 935
Whether or not you believe that implementing a carbon tax at this time is good public policy for Canada, I don't think there's anyone who can reasonably conclude that a carbon tax will be effective, it will have ZERO effect on lowering global CO2 emissions. Many argue that implementation of carbon taxes in relatively efficient western nations will increase global emissions as production shifts to locations where a carbon tax is not imposed.

Increase in total fossil CO2 emissions 1990-2017:

Top four western economies

United States 0.4%
Japan 15.0%
Germany -21.8%
United Kingdom -35.7%

Canada (7th) 35.0%

China 353.7%
India 305.1%

At the moment people are simply moaning as the sting is yet to be felt. The top roughly 20% will virtue signal as the tax will not be a significant impediment to that demographic's living standards, they will simply direct their consumption habits to increased efficiencies. The bottom 20%, those who are generally renters and do not own private transport will likely not be affected to any great degree and may come out slightly ahead due to the rebates. These are the people on this forum who insist, despite much evidence to the contrary, that the tax is completely revenue neutral. They have "drunk the kool-aid". It is the middle 60%, the working class and the broad middle class who will feel a palpable decline in living standards, as many are already struggling to make ends meet and are unable to afford the expenditures necessary for increased efficiency in the home and for transportation. Also, many in this group are also likely to suffer negative financial consequences from real estate asset depreciation that is occurring and expected to continue in several major Canadian markets in the near future. The carbon tax will also be very detrimental to rural and small town economies, particularly outside of the southern Ontario/southwestern Quebec heartland.

By 2022 the carbon tax is planned to rise to $50 per tonne from the current $20 per tonne, a 150% in just three years. Unless there are significant increases in wages, and that is very unlikely given expected economic performance (Canada is in a per capita recession...but you won't hear that on the sycophantic CBC) the decline in living standards felt by the majority will result in incredible political pressure either to alleviate the burden on the majority (increased rebates and sector subsidization) or to scrap the tax altogether as was done in Australia. Canadians are very sensitive to the country's economic performance, currency value, standard of living and prices vis-a-vis the U.S.

Canada can reduce carbon emissions and maintain economic growth by encouraging increased efficiencies in transportation, agriculture, residential usage and industry over the long term and by following a sensible population strategy, one that reflects the needs of the Canadian economy. An investment rather than a punitive focus.

Last edited by Curmudgeon; Apr 15, 2019 at 8:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:32 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.