Alberta Politics Thread

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Global warming it ultimately about consumption. If you make things more expensive, people consume less. Make flying more expensive and fewer people fly. Make oranges from California more expensive and there's less demand to truck those oranges 2,500 km to Calgary. Make TVs more expensive and maybe people hang onto the one they have for 8 years instead of 6 and fewer of them are manufactured and shipped halfway around the world.

The question is whether people are going to be willing to sustain a hit to their standard of living, or if they'll satisfy their sense of righteous concern with protesting pipelines and coal-fired electricity plants in China.

I think maybe is the key word. Maybe low income earners will spend less but do you think it would really deter the super rich? Doesn't seem like they really care about how much money they spend and they are the ones with private jets flying around the world. Not the family of 4 who has to scrounge enough cash to take 1 vacation a year. The family now might not even be able to afford the 1 vacation anymore.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The super rich are called the 1% for a reason, they're a vanishingly small minority and while in many cases their carbon footprints ars larger than the average person (certainly true of those with private jets) their overall contribution to the problem is minute. And incidentally, the people rich enough to have a jet are more like the .001%.

[calgarygeologist]

Did anyone else get a Christmas card from Rachel Notley this week? Makes me all warm and cheerful inside.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Did anyone else get a Christmas card from Rachel Notley this week? Makes me all warm and cheerful inside.

Glad to hear you enjoyed it, because you paid for it...

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Did anyone else get a Christmas card from Rachel Notley this week? Makes me all warm and cheerful inside.

Was it printed on 100% recycled paper?

[CaptainCrunch]

The choice for the middle class won't be about spending on luxury, but on things like food and heating and gas for their car, things that would be considered essential

A recent study from McGill has stated that overall grocery prices for a family of four will go up next year by about $460 due to changes in policy by the US government and other things, not including the carbon tax impact.

With a carbon tax we are literally going to give the most vulnerable people in society the stick instead of the carrot. They will never be able to afford furnaces and window replacements or more costly energy efficient cars. The rebate that they're getting might cover some expenses but not all, the Alberta government has basically guessed on that.

People that are renting will see their costs increase as well, the carbon tax is going to create a bigger treadmill and a larger lower class in society as every single good, luxury or required goes up in price.

At the end of the day this is a tax grab and eventually it will be a wealth re-distrution and have nothing to do with reducing emissions in any noticeable way.

Without a carrot of some type, this is just a action of greed by the governments to increase their tax revenues mostly on the backs of people that can't afford to give more.

The real rage is going to hit this province I figure on about Jan 15th when they receive their utility bills, cable bills and their phone bills and see that this carbon tax is a universal bill.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Did anyone else get a Christmas card from Rachel Notley this week? Makes me all warm and cheerful inside.

Little too stiff to be good toilet paper and the sharp edges hurt.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

Was it printed on 100% recycled paper?

Doesn't look like it. I actually wasn't even sure that it included a message in English because the English sentiment is off to the side.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Didn't the scientists behind a lot of the models that show the earth continuing to warm lie in their models? Making the temperature look like it was going up when in reality temperatures have stabalized?

.

No

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The super rich are called the 1% for a reason, they're a vanishingly small minority and while in many cases their carbon footprints ars larger than the average person (certainly true of those with private jets) their overall contribution to the problem is minute.

I agree. Which is why there should not be any kind of rebate or reduction on the carbon taxes for anyone at all (low income, families, etc.)

If the goal is truly to have an effect on the carbon emissions to any material effect, you have to absolutely hammer the vast majority of the population, the 99% (and the 1% of course).

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The choice for the middle class won't be about spending on luxury, but on things like food and heating and gas for their car, things that would be considered essential

If our middle-class spend most of their money on essentials, what does that say about the 90 per cent of the planet who have lower - much lower - material standards of living?

One way or another, most people in North America are probably going to see their material standard of living fall back to what our grandparents or great-grandparents before the post-WW2 boom lived with. The question is how fast, and with how much political turmoil.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If our middle-class spend most of their money on essentials, what does that say about the 90 per cent of the planet who have lower - much lower - material standards of living?

It means the cost of many of the things that are deemed essential like housing are vastly inflated compared to their actual worth or that wages aren't keeping pace with the cost of living (or both).

Anyone who bought a house in Calgary in the 90s is laughing their asses off right now, but is a house in Brentwood or Inglewood really twice as valuable as it was then or are market forces conspiring against the average wage earner?

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If our middle-class spend most of their money on essentials, what does that say about the 90 per cent of the planet who have lower - much lower - material standards of living?

One way or another, most people in North America are probably going to see their material standard of living fall back to what our grandparents or great-grandparents before the post-WW2 boom lived with. The question is how fast, and with how much political turmoil.

Really...? Are our iPhones and iPads just going to vanish into thin air?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If our middle-class spend most of their money on essentials, what does that say about the 90 per cent of the planet who have lower - much lower - material standards of living?

One way or another, most people in North America are probably going to see their material standard of living fall back to what our grandparents or great-grandparents before the post-WW2 boom lived with. The question is how fast, and with how much political turmoil.

It's actually kind of crazy. The essentials, food, electricity, heat etc are all going to get more expensive, mostly through artificial taxes. The non-essential crap made in China is going to continue to stay artificially cheap. What a wonderful policy, eh?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Really...? Are our iPhones and iPads just going to vanish into thin air?

I don't mean technology. I mean disposable income. The leisure to buy lots of stuff, eat out, travel, etc. that we take for granted, but which would astonish many of our grandparents (and most of the people alive in the world today).

It's becoming apparent that the post WW2 boom was not a new normal. It was an anomaly, brought about by several factors - the wars destroying capital and making labour more valuable, most of the world either still pre-industrial or blasted to rubble, a huge demographic boom coming online just in time to take advantage of key new technologies.

Food in a world of 10 billion is going to get expensive. Very expensive. Especially food imported from halfway around the world. Even without factoring the devastation that global warming and it's resultant droughts could inflict, there's only much topsoil and productive land on the planet.

Of course, technology could change all that. We could all be saved by amazing new sources of energy, by wonder materials, by huge breakthroughs in agricultural efficiency and sustainability. Technology could also give us 70 per cent unemployment. Who can say? But I wouldn't count on our run of remarkable prosperity continuing for another 60 years.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's actually kind of crazy. The essentials, food, electricity, heat etc are all going to get more expensive, mostly through artificial taxes. The non-essential crap made in China is going to continue to stay artificially cheap. What a wonderful policy, eh?

It's why all Carbon tax should be paid by the consumer as VAT type tax based on the actual or estimated carbon impact of a good and all exports should be excempt from Carbon taxes.

These taxes aren't artificial. They are lifecycle based costs that actually probably still undervalue the cost of carbon reduction.

Though we currently have the technology to reduce the amount of sunlight getting to earth which could solve global warming relatively cheaply. Certainly cheaper than massive societal change. It doesn't solve ocean acidification and comes with uncertain side affects but based on the current trends we should be acting now with the interim solutions.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by GGG

Though we currently have the technology to reduce the amount of sunlight getting to earth which could solve global warming relatively cheaply. Certainly cheaper than massive societal change. It doesn't solve ocean acidification and comes with uncertain side affects but based on the current trends we should be acting now with the interim solutions.

Like this?

Spoiler!

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by chemgear

I agree. Which is why there should not be any kind of rebate or reduction on the carbon taxes for anyone at all (low income, families, etc.)

If the goal is truly to have an effect on the carbon emissions to any material effect, you have to absolutely hammer the vast majority of the population, the 99% (and the 1% of course).

The people who receive the rebate still face the carbon price. It allows them them the ability to reduce their carbon emissions (if it's optimal for them) while preserving their economic welfare.

[CaptainCrunch]

Not if the rebate doesn't cover the full cost increase, and that's a major concern. Instead we'll just be driving those people deeper into a hole.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The real rage is going to hit this province I figure on about Jan 15th when they receive their utility bills, cable bills and their phone bills and see that this carbon tax is a universal bill.

Cable bills and phone bills will be going up? Mine won't be. Maybe you should lock into a contract before Armageddon hits.