Who did you vote for?

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well Quebec is a foreign culture. That's like saying polls have Walloons ranking their connection to foreign country France as high while the Flemish are ranking their connection to foreign country Netherlands higher. No shit.

Actually it's more specific than just English Canada vs French Canada. A lot of Newfoundlander's live/work in Alberta. The Churchill falls deal tarnished Quebec's imagine in Newfoundland (admittedly local politicians also fuel this fire).

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by lio45
Couldn't agree more with everything you said.

It's crystal clear that high fuel taxes are the way to go...

...but you buy your petrol from USA? nice to see you doing your part lio45

[SaskScraper]

I think the main reason Saskatchewan and Alberta voted, in some cases in ridings, 85% Conservative and 10% Liberals is because the Trudeau didn't take into consideration that his policies were causing extra harm over and above what slump in the Oil & Gas industry was already occuring.

Adding Carbon tax at high levels and ignoring what individual provinces like Saskatchewan are doing like multi $Billion sequestering carbon projects at SaskPower plants but still slapping on additional tax. Liberals adding red tape and forcing private industry from building pipelines and then end up having to spend tax payers money to build TMX especially while BC's LNG pipeline builds get green lights all the way.

Had this been the early 2000s and Harper had thrown on extra taxes on auto industry when it was down instead of bailing out auto industry with $billions you would have seen a similar sweep in Ontario federal elections.

This election showed explicitly how a province like Quebec can introduce something despicable like Bill 21 which has zero monetary value and Trudeau wipes his hands of it by saying it's not his responsibility what Quebec does, but just as easily meddles directly in Prairie tax policies with out a thought of caution of how it directly affects what businesses stay open & which close, for example, Husky Oil laid off hundreds of employees day after election, which is no coincidence

I'm surprised Canadians are so astonished that Western Canada, especially Saskatchewan and Alberta voted so strongly against all the political parties that are against the economy on The Prairies.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

While car ownership can be a major expense, and a questionable luxury in the hearts of Canada's 6-8 largest cities, in the vast majority of the country, the automobile is a major necessity of life, and is absolutely indispensable.

The car isn't going anywhere. Especially with hybrids, full EVs and hydrogen powered vehicles, they will be with us forever.

Freedom of movement is a major tennent of modern life in the western world. It is almost a civil right. You want to deprive us of this????

Where do you read that in my post?

My point is simply that this freedom car ownership is becoming more expensive, while other options become more viable.

"Freedom of Movement" is less and less dependent on "private car ownership" as time goes by. First in cities, and it will spread.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

Adding Carbon tax at high levels and ignoring what individual provinces like Saskatchewan are doing like multi $Billion sequestering carbon projects at SaskPower plants but still slapping on additional tax. Liberals adding red tape and forcing private industry from building pipelines and then end up having to spend tax payers money to build TMX especially while BC's LNG pipeline builds get green lights all the way.

This election showed explicitly how a province like Quebec can introduce something despicable like Bill 21 which has zero monetary value and Trudeau wipes his hands of it by saying it's not his responsibility what Quebec does, but just as easily meddles directly in Prairie tax policies with out a thought of caution of how it directly affects what businesses stay open & which close, for example, Husky Oil laid off hundreds of employees day after election, which is no coincidence

First of all, SaskPower's carbon sequestering projects have been objective failures so far. And you know one of the main drivers of financially viable technology like carbon capture is to actually put a price on carbon, right?

Second, Trudeau was actually the only leader to say he'd leave his options open on Bill 21.

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

While car ownership can be a major expense, and a questionable luxury in the hearts of Canada's 6-8 largest cities, in the vast majority of the country, the automobile is a major necessity of life, and is absolutely indispensable.

The car isn't going anywhere. Especially with hybrids, full EVs and hydrogen powered vehicles, they will be with us forever.

Freedom of movement is a major tennent of modern life in the western world. It is almost a civil right. You want to deprive us of this????

You’re misunderstanding this, I think.
Freedom of movement shouldn’t come with an expensive buy-in. Today there are places that you really can’t get to without a car, thanks to infrastructure that’s impassible, and made worse by car-induced widespread development patterns, and consequently gutted public transit.

Even if you drive you would benefit from fewer cars getting in your way.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

...but you buy your petrol from USA? nice to see you doing your part lio45

That's why the government has to do it. Everyone has different circumstances which define the choices they make and every individual and business is obliged to run their life in the cheapest way possible. I get free gas so my marginal cost of running an EV is infinite... That does not make me a hypocrite when I say gas should be taxed more.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

Adding Carbon tax at high levels and ignoring what individual provinces like Saskatchewan are doing like multi $Billion sequestering carbon projects at SaskPower plants but still slapping on additional tax. Liberals adding red tape and forcing private industry from building pipelines and then end up having to spend tax payers money to build TMX especially while BC's LNG pipeline builds get green lights all the way.

If you think carbon capture is part of the solution then carbon pricing is absolutely mandatory. You cannot possibly pay for something that has no market value (burying carbon) unless you add a price adjustment.

And if you are paying people to get rid of CO2, as you support, it would be absolutely mad not to charge people to produce it.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

"Freedom of Movement" is less and less dependent on "private car ownership" as time goes by. First in cities, and it will spread.

You obviously don't have a clue how poorly 95% of the country is served my public transportation.

- The "Hub & Spoke" air travel model means that only the largest cities are well served by air travel.
- Outside the Windsor to Quebec City corridor, passenger rail service barely exists.
- In large parts of the country (especially the west), there is no point to point intercity bus service.

Public transportation options are increasingly an urban phenomenon. Because of this, Canada is essentially a loose collection of urban islands. For the rest of us, the private automobile is the only option. I imagine this will remain the case for the foreseeable future.

[CityTech]

Those urban islands are most of the country. That's where most people live.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

You obviously don't have a clue how poorly 95% of the country is served my public transportation.

- The "Hub & Spoke" air travel model means that only the largest cities are well served by air travel.
- Outside the Windsor to Quebec City corridor, passenger rail service barely exists.
- In large parts of the country (especially the west), there is no point to point intercity bus service.

Public transportation options are increasingly an urban phenomenon. Because of this, Canada is essentially a loose collection of urban islands. For the rest of us, the private automobile is the only option. I imagine this will remain the case for the foreseeable future.

We are likely in a very brief period in the history of humankind where personal transport is both an incredible benefit that we all want, but also an incredible detriment to the environment. Once we stop powering that personal transport with something that also ensures the planet eventually becomes uninhabitable, that huge negative goes away. At that point, the argument that personal transport is bad will hold no water and we will again be free to encourage it to our heart's content.

That doesn't mean we should discourage public transit either as that has its own advantages. They are both great.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Those urban islands are most of the country. That's where most people live.

And most people there still use person vehicles, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

You obviously don't have a clue how poorly 95% of the country is served my public transportation.

- The "Hub & Spoke" air travel model means that only the largest cities are well served by air travel.
- Outside the Windsor to Quebec City corridor, passenger rail service barely exists.
- In large parts of the country (especially the west), there is no point to point intercity bus service.

Public transportation options are increasingly an urban phenomenon. Because of this, Canada is essentially a loose collection of urban islands. For the rest of us, the private automobile is the only option. I imagine this will remain the case for the foreseeable future.

95%? Geographically sure, Canada is a big country, but extremely urbanized.

We should be talking about population.

Once self-driving cars are a reality, they will go to small towns. Why wouldn't they? The cost is minimal if you aren't paying a driver to sit around while not in use. And this will be the final 5% of customers, not the first 80% that are already served by a multitude of options in urban centers.

Saying something "only works in urban areas" is equivalent to saying it already covers the vast majority of Canadians.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by milomilo

And most people there still use person vehicles, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Single occupant mileage per person has been trending down in Vancouver for years. People still own cars (maybe 1 per family instead of 2) but don't drive them as much.

There is definitely an emotional "freedom" aspect, but I also think people misjudge the true cost of car ownership. It's expensive.

I say this as a car owner that's fully aware what our vehicle costs. My wife and I both walk to work, and our home parking spot could easily be an income generator if we didn't need it.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by milomilo

We are likely in a very brief period in the history of humankind where personal transport is both an incredible benefit that we all want, but also an incredible detriment to the environment. Once we stop powering that personal transport with something that also ensures the planet eventually becomes uninhabitable, that huge negative goes away. At that point, the argument that personal transport is bad will hold no water and we will again be free to encourage it to our heart's content.

That doesn't mean we should discourage public transit either as that has its own advantages. They are both great.

I think we need to define "personal transport". I see personal private ownership declining, but with the same or better amount of personal transportation flexibility and convenience.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by milomilo

That's why the government has to do it. Everyone has different circumstances which define the choices they make and every individual and business is obliged to run their life in the cheapest way possible. I get free gas so my marginal cost of running an EV is infinite... That does not make me a hypocrite when I say gas should be taxed more.

What produces electricity that powers your EV in a city like Calgary I wonder.
if you say you aren't a hypocrite, i'll take your word for it

Originally Posted by milomilo

...And if you are paying people to get rid of CO2, as you support, it would be absolutely mad not to charge people to produce it.

My point is Saskatchewan residents are already paying a carbon tax with funding World first sequestering projects like at SaskPower, Why shouldn't that be taken into consideration when federal liberals start determining provincial share of carbon taxing in Canada.

...reading this discussion I take it no one has ever heard of cap-and-trade on carbon.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I think we need to define "personal transport". I see personal private ownership declining, but with the same or better amount of personal transportation flexibility and convenience.

I'd say it's impossible to say exactly what the future looks like, and you could well be correct. Even if people don't own as many vehicles though, I can't see much reason why people would choose to ride with other people for much of the time if the ability to ride in vehicle alone or with friends/family only existed (whether that vehicle is owned and driven by the occupants or not). People like mobility, and for many journeys that is most enjoyably achieved in a vehicle that is dedicated in service to the occupants.

We must remember, the climate problem isn't cars themselves (though they do have other issues). It's the burning of fossil fuels by cars. And even that doesn't have to be a problem - if it turns out liquid hydrocarbons are the best form of energy storage, we can still make them without a net addition of CO2.

[jigglysquishy]

We should have got rid of coal in Saskatchewan 50 years ago.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Actually it's more specific than just English Canada vs French Canada. A lot of Newfoundlander's live/work in Alberta. The Churchill falls deal tarnished Quebec's imagine in Newfoundland (admittedly local politicians also fuel this fire).

And the Muskrat Falls mess tarnished Newfoundland's reputation for being able to do such projects without Hydro-Quebec's babysitting supervision (and resulting ownership of the works). I wonder if people are connecting the dots over there or not.....

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

What produces electricity that powers your EV in a city like Calgary I wonder.
if you say you aren't a hypocrite, i'll take your word for it



My point is Saskatchewan residents are already paying a carbon tax with funding World first sequestering projects like at SaskPower, Why shouldn't that be taken into consideration when federal liberals start determining provincial share of carbon taxing in Canada.

...reading this discussion I take it no one has ever heard of cap-and-trade on carbon.

The carbon price you currently pay is almost nothing, and the contribution of the carbon capture you have is also almost nothing. Yes, they should be combined into a single scheme of carbon pricing, but the way to get there is not opposition to carbon pricing as an irrational policy position. Saskatchewan should be supporting pricing to make their schemes more viable. In fact, surely the power plants using carbon capture must already be in the federal large emitters scheme? So they will actually have that carbon emission reduction accounted for - correct me if I'm wrong.