New BC Political Discussion - POST BC Election 2017

[misher]

https://biv.com/article/2019/03/claim-lng-no-greener-coal-gets-new-scrutiny

Claim that LNG is no greener than coal gets new scrutiny

One of the biggest bites ever taken out of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in any developed country is one that environmentalists and renewable energy advocates never seem to mention.

Since 2005, energy-related GHG emissions in the U.S. have fallen by 14%.

While some of those lower emissions can be attributed to renewable energy investments, the emissions decrease was “mainly” due to natural gas displacing coal power, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

When burned for power, natural gas produces 50% to 60% fewer carbon dioxide emissions than coal does.



Proponents of B.C.’s nascent liquefied natural gas (LNG) sector, including the BC NDP government, have therefore promoted the environmental advantage of LNG, since the biggest market is Asia, where LNG would presumably replace coal power and backstop intermittent renewable energy.

But environmentalists opposed to fossil fuels claim that “fracked gas” is as bad as coal or even worse, in terms of its global warming potential, due to fugitive methane emissions.

David Suzuki recently made the claim, accusing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of hypocrisy in committing to climate change targets while supporting the $40 billion LNG Canada project.

“He proudly announced approval of a $40 billion facility to liquefy fracked gas, calling it a transition fuel to help China reduce coal dependence, even though fracked gas has a carbon footprint at least as bad as coal (because of fugitive methane release),” Suzuki recently wrote.

So are natural gas and LNG really worse than coal?

“I don’t know,” said John Werring, senior science and policy adviser for the David Suzuki Foundation, who was co-author of a study that estimated fugitive methane emissions in the Montney play of B.C. to be 2.5 times higher than those reported by industry and government.

“There’s not enough information to make that determination,” Werring said.

Measuring and monitoring of methane from the oil and gas sector in B.C., and elsewhere, is still inadequate, according to a recent report for the C.D. Howe Institute.

And until there is better baseline data, the LNG industry will remain vulnerable to the claim that it’s no better than coal. It will also be impossible to apply carbon taxes to upstream methane emissions, or properly report on whether it is meeting a 45% reduction target.

“The magnitude of these emissions is unresolved,” says the C.D. Howe Institute report, written by Sarah Jordaan at Johns Hopkins University and Kate Konschnik at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University. “Policy-makers are thus left without defensible evidence describing the trends in methane emissions from the oil and gas value chain over time.”

The claim that natural gas may be as bad as, if not worse than, coal, from a global warming perspective, appears to be based largely on a 2011 study by Cornell University ecologist Robert Howarth, who concluded that, due to methane emissions, the GHG footprint of natural gas from shale production could be 20% to 50% higher than that of coal.

[whatnext]

More proof the NDP is governing for the majority of British Columbians, rather than just the 1% who the BC Liberals cater to:

Since the NDP assumed power in B.C. in the summer of 2017, there's a perception that it's been jacking up taxes in a multitude of ways.

There are new housing taxes, a new health-care tax on employers, a higher carbon tax, a higher tobacco tax, and new revenues from taxing the sale of cannabis.

But according to a policy note by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, most B.C. households are seeing their taxes fall.

And it's the top one percent of income earners who are paying more..

https://www.straight.com/news/1218851/ta...dp-rule-according-canadian-centre-policy

[misher]

Originally Posted by whatnext

More proof the NDP is governing for the majority of British Columbians, rather than just the 1% who the BC Liberals cater to:

Since the NDP assumed power in B.C. in the summer of 2017, there's a perception that it's been jacking up taxes in a multitude of ways.

There are new housing taxes, a new health-care tax on employers, a higher carbon tax, a higher tobacco tax, and new revenues from taxing the sale of cannabis.

But according to a policy note by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, most B.C. households are seeing their taxes fall.

And it's the top one percent of income earners who are paying more..

https://www.straight.com/news/1218851/ta...dp-rule-according-canadian-centre-policy

Well when you transfer a tax from an individual to business of course people will end up paying less taxes and of course they will also see less wages increases. Its hard to use this as a measure for success as its just roundabout taxation. But yes I would agree that taxes on the 1% have definitely increased.

[bluefox]

Originally Posted by misher

Well when you transfer a tax from an individual to business of course people will end up paying less taxes and of course they will also see less wages increases. Its hard to use this as a measure for success as its just roundabout taxation. But yes I would agree that taxes on the 1% have definitely increased.

Roundabout taxation? That's a new one.

I'll just borrow a term from the business community and call it "tax rationalization". Or why not "tax optimization"?

[Migrant_Coconut]

See, misher sees it as robbing Peter to pay Paul, with no efficiency increase.

Even if true though, there has never been a case where a corporation has gone "Woohoo, tax break! Raises for everybody!"

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

See, misher sees it as robbing Peter to pay Paul, with no efficiency increase.

Even if true though, there has never been a case where a corporation has gone "Woohoo, tax break! Raises for everybody!"

Actually Amazon did so in America after the new tax break came in.

Doesn’t it make sense though that if a company is suddenly making less money it won’t be giving out its usual annual raises/bonuses?

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by misher

Well when you transfer a tax from an individual to business of course people will end up paying less taxes and of course they will also see less wages increases. Its hard to use this as a measure for success as its just roundabout taxation. But yes I would agree that taxes on the 1% have definitely increased.

Problem with your logic there Misher is that wage increases in BC have averaged over 4% in the past year and the past 3 years it's been the highest in Canada.

NDP tax policies have done no damage to wage gains and economic growth. Which should be expected since the NDP haven't done anything radical, what they've done is common sense and centrist.

[WarrenC12]

The math is painfully obvious if you run a business. "If I spend X more money on people/capital/equipment/etc., can I make at least X+1 more dollars?" If yes, then you do it.

An obvious oversimplification. Nowhere in there does it talk about taxes on business.

I'm not a huge fan of the EHT, but it's a step up from MSP, which was a joke. It's too bad the NDP did take the report they commissioned more directly. This stuff should be funded from general revenue and existing sales/income taxes.

More specifically, the HST probably would have helped.... Too bad that chemtrail-conspiracy idiot convinced the uneducated voters to reject it.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Problem with your logic there Misher is that wage increases in BC have averaged over 4% in the past year and the past 3 years it's been the highest in Canada.

NDP tax policies have done no damage to wage gains and economic growth. Which should be expected since the NDP haven't done anything radical, what they've done is common sense and centrist.

Um, any policy takes years to show it’s not like companies are going to immediately give wage deductions, they will just choose to slow increases and reduce bonuses over time.

And the tax only just came in so past 3 year data isn’t useful.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

Um, any policy takes years to show it’s not like companies are going to immediately give wage deductions, they will just choose to slow increases and reduce bonuses over time.

And the tax only just came in so past 3 year data isn’t useful.

WTF are you talking about.

Everybody renewing contracts now is upping their rates and pointing to minimum wage and EHT increases. Many I've dealt with are trying to sneak in more when you do the math and call them on it.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

WTF are you talking about.

Everybody renewing contracts now is upping their rates and pointing to minimum wage and EHT increases. Many I've dealt with are trying to sneak in more when you do the math and call them on it.

Yep, good luck trying to attract or retain any jobseekers in Vancouver if you're not being competitive with wages and raises. "I had to pay for your medical" premium isn't going to cut it as an employer excuse.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yep, good luck trying to attract or retain any jobseekers in Vancouver if you're not being competitive with wages and raises. "I had to pay for your medical" premium isn't going to cut it as an employer excuse.

My take home pay has increased as my MSP is/was covered as a taxable benefit.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

My take home pay has increased as my MSP is/was covered as a taxable benefit.

Indeed, as it would have been done by most desirable employers.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Indeed, as it would have been done by most desirable employers.

Ya I've actually never paid MSP. But I understood the system, and it was stupid.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by misher

Well when you transfer a tax from an individual to business of course people will end up paying less taxes and of course they will also see less wages increases. Its hard to use this as a measure for success as its just roundabout taxation. But yes I would agree that taxes on the 1% have definitely increased.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The math is painfully obvious if you run a business. "If I spend X more money on people/capital/equipment/etc., can I make at least X+1 more dollars?" If yes, then you do it.

An obvious oversimplification. Nowhere in there does it talk about taxes on business.

I'm not a huge fan of the EHT, but it's a step up from MSP, which was a joke. It's too bad the NDP did take the report they commissioned more directly. This stuff should be funded from general revenue and existing sales/income taxes.

More specifically, the HST probably would have helped.... Too bad that chemtrail-conspiracy idiot convinced the uneducated voters to reject it.

Basically this. The HST should have stuck around, and the revenues from the carbon tax and the HST should have been moved to cover MSP taxes: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o...s-love-consumption-taxes/article1381083/

In effect, consumption taxes have less impact on the economy as a whole because they don't discourage investment and growth much- especially in a world of free trade.


The MSP was a regressive tax, which was the primary problem behind it. If you make income above a certain level, you automatically got hit with a large tax, disincentivising people from trying to make above that certain level. We see this with welfare benefits.

Honestly, the EHT isn't really that good either, as it has that same problem, but for businesses.

[misher]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Basically this. The HST should have stuck around, and the revenues from the carbon tax and the HST should have been moved to cover MSP taxes: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o...s-love-consumption-taxes/article1381083/

In effect, consumption taxes have less impact on the economy as a whole because they don't discourage investment and growth much- especially in a world of free trade.


The MSP was a regressive tax, which was the primary problem behind it. If you make income above a certain level, you automatically got hit with a large tax, disincentivising people from trying to make above that certain level. We see this with welfare benefits.

Honestly, the EHT isn't really that good either, as it has that same problem, but for businesses.

I know a few who are near the $500,000 or were slightly over who either didn't hire or fired to stay underneath it.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by misher

I know a few who are near the $500,000 or were slightly over who either didn't hire or fired to stay underneath it.

As I said, I know that's a problem. At least it's not a regressive tax. There honestly aren't any other viable solutions right now (except spending cuts- I mean, I'm not holding my breath, you'd need a lot.)

[misher]

Left wing governments generally have more to hide ������ the NDP’s promise of transparency reminds me of Trudeau.

Joan Isaacs, the Liberal MLA chairing the committee session, broke the tie to side with her Liberal colleagues. The Liberals won with 42 votes.

The victory meant the Liberals have forcibly amended the minority NDP government’s legislation.

The amendment didn’t substantially change the NDP’s LNG tax regime nor is it likely to derail the LNG Canada project.

However, it did give the Liberals a symbolic victory because it preserved a law — the Liquefied Natural Gas Projects Agreements Act — that former premier Christy Clark’s government had passed on project development agreements with LNG companies that requires those agreements and key information contained within them to be made public. The NDP bill had proposed to repeal that law.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/liberals-tweak-ndp-noses-with-rare-legislature-win

[bluefox]

Originally Posted by misher

Left wing governments generally have more to hide ������ the NDP’s promise of transparency reminds me of Trudeau.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/liberals-tweak-ndp-noses-with-rare-legislature-win

Just wondering... your comment has nothing to do with the article you posted. Did you actually read the article?

[misher]

https://biv.com/article/2019/04/do-ads-and-economics-point-spring-election-bc

Do ads and economics point to a spring election for B.C.?

The door is open as widely as it might ever be, so will the BC NDP walk through?

It will sound a little weedy and backhanded as a half-hearted, double-negative assertion, but I have not been convinced yet that a provincial election is not on as we get closer to summer. I know that many senior Liberals believe that, too, and that some New Democrats are murmuring about this as their most opportune moment.

The latest intriguing morsel to interpret comes in the form of radio commercials that have surfaced in recent days, paid for by the “NDP caucus,” claiming that BC Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson is only interested in helping the rich. Of course their leader, they claim, is about helping all British Columbians.

Sure, sure, we get it: positioning the embattled listener as deserving and the empowered rich as undeserving is not exactly a novel scheme to secure support. But why tell people something if you’re not making a call to action? Why spend anything now when the official election date is two years hence?


History has shown, and as I suppose Justin Trudeau hopes holds true, that even a few months is an eternity in politics, thanks in part to the short memories of many voters. Would any message about Andrew Wilkinson in 2019 stick in 2021?

It’s not as if we aren’t festooned with vanity press. The NDP government is swamping television with ads about its most recent budget, as do most governments under a non-partisan, public service guise. The radio ads, though, strike the same exaggerated pitch of a campaign message – so it’s worth wondering if indeed that’s what they will soon be.

After all, there remain very good reasons to call an election sooner rather than later.

The NDP has fulfilled much of its commitment it needed from the Greens to stay afloat in the legislature, in particular the referendum on proportional representation (which seemed a low NDP priority and played out as such). It can cut the ties without significant unfinished business and hope it need not require its help again.

The Liberals, meanwhile, are in their most vulnerable position in some time. They are bearing debt and finding opposition a much more difficult exercise than it need be. Many arguments in the legislature are still about their record and not that of the new government. Like many parties that find themselves out of office after a long time in it, they are taking time to identify what their next chapter holds.

Beyond the legislature, though, lies a difficult long-term game that a risk-averse government might be wiser to test now.

Our economy is the country’s best, and our country’s is one of the world’s best, but no one expects it to improve, and there are several worrying signs that we might be swept into near-global recession some time in 2020.

Do you really want to be seeking re-election in the spring of 2021 in that case? The bite of NDP taxes will be felt most significantly by then, the tap will be turned down on the revenue stream from real estate that has fed government growth for years and the age-old perception of the NDP’s economic sub-competence could resurface.

The NDP stock is only going to decline.

Very likely on the morning of April 17, in the aftermath of the one-term NDP government in Alberta, there will be a cascade of resumés arriving in Victoria.

Many of these CVs will come from British Columbians who in political opposition left to work for Rachel Notley’s government and will not either have or wish to have jobs in opposition again. So they will need or want to leave to work for John Horgan as he leads the lone NDP government, now and in the near future. They would be big organizational boosts in a heartbeat, attuned to a campaign rhythm and prepared for another one.

The door will be open only briefly for an election in June. July and August are out, and the fall belongs to the federal campaign, so that late-April period will be worth watching to see if there is a manufactured reason to ask British Columbia for a fresh mandate.