Alberta Politics Thread

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Locke

Right, which makes this a thinly veiled extortion racket.

Banana Republic indeed.

Remind me again why all of this was needed at all again? Something, something carbon is bad?

Here's a copy of the climate change committee's report to the minister.

http://www.alberta.ca/documents/clim...o-minister.pdf

[Locke]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Here's a copy of the climate change committee's report to the minister.

http://www.alberta.ca/documents/clim...o-minister.pdf

Right, and in the meantime we're trying to show the world that we're a forward-thinking and progressive group of people.

Hows that going do you think?

[Grimbl420]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That there is a categorical difference between policy aimed at making the province function and policy aimed at doing the right thing. The ideology comes in when different parties start considering how they accomplish those goals.

it 100% depends on what your definition of doing the right thing is. Clearly we don't agree here. I'm just trying to say we don't think about it the same way, and that's okay.

I'm not ranking them, I'm distinguishing between them. I'm pretty surprised you don't see a categorical difference between paying off your credit card at the end of the month and donating to charity, and see both as actions motivated by morality. I think that's a pretty counterintuitive position, for most people.

six of one half dozen of another. Be surprised all you want because you clearly think your opinion is superior to mine, and I'm done discussing it with you.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Locke

Right, which makes this a thinly veiled extortion racket.

Banana Republic indeed.

Remind me again why all of this was needed at all again? Something, something carbon is bad?

They're starting with ground based carbon. Next they move to attacking carbon based life forms. Oh wait they are on that one already.

I'm of course joking but only in part.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Delgar

They're starting with ground based carbon. Next they move to attacking carbon based life forms. Oh wait they are on that one already.

I'm of course joking but only in part.

If we dont joke then the severity of the situation gradually seeps in.

Besides, we have a joke for a Government so why shuck the trend?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Locke

If we dont joke then the severity of the situation gradually seeps in.

Besides, we have a joke for a Government so why shuck the trend?

Wouldn't the easiest method to reduce the carbon footprint of the province to be to drive out tens (or even better) hundreds of thousands of people? Short of the twelve monkey virus mass killing of people of course.

Joking, not serious but kinda serious?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Here's a copy of the climate change committee's report to the minister.

http://www.alberta.ca/documents/clim...o-minister.pdf

Wow there are a few big lies in that document.

The big one being that the US State department was against the Keystone Pipeline, when in fact they signed off on the Pipeline and found it at worst to be carbon neutral compared to conventional shipments.

The other one is that Albertan's are basically overwhelmingly in favor of this plan. the latest polls show approval of the carbon Tax in the low 20's.

The whole thing is just a really terrible effort at propaganda at that point.

With flashy pictures of dwindling glaciers and quotes.

Also under the use of revenue, they talk about the carbon tax bringing in $5 billion dollars a year, and they spend very little of it on actual carbon initiatives. There are nebulous areas called broadening the economy and helping the vulnerable, so basically a lot of this cash is going to go to general revenue where the government will pick winners and losers.

On top of it, they still continue to talk about the shutting down of coal, but we'll replace it with renewable energy, but we don't have a plan for that so (spin flashy coin) just believe us.


They also finally admit that the carbon tax at its height will cost families $900.00 or over this year, a figure that they denied when they came up with the rebate.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Wouldn't the easiest method to reduce the carbon footprint of the province to be to drive out tens (or even better) hundreds of thousands of people? Short of the twelve monkey virus mass killing of people of course.

Joking, not serious but kinda serious?

The lizard people that have infiltrated Notley's government have been in contact with their superiors in FEMA the shadowy second government and the UN to procure their plans for slavery death camps for everyone that voted against the Notley government.

Its time that the truth is known, and I CaptainCrunch am telling you that the UN is already infiltrating the RCMP in an effort to continue seizing our guns so that there will be no resistance to the Notley Plan, or as its known on her homeworld BERSGRE YABBA DAABBA Due.

Wait I hear a knock on my do. . . . .

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Grimbl420

six of one half dozen of another. Be surprised all you want because you clearly think your opinion is superior to mine, and I'm done discussing it with you.

I didn't say superior, I said counter-intuitive. I think most people assess some actions on a moral framework, but for other actions morality doesn't really enter into the analysis ("paying off your credit card" being the example that I used). Based on what you've said, you apparently differ from most people in this respect. But of course I think my opinion is "better" - if I didn't think I had it right, I'd change my opinion.

[Locke]

The NDP at this point remind me a bit of PETA before they reformed their mission statement because they got caught having a core belief of fundamental human extinctionism.

Save the planet right? But at what cost?

[Fuzz]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...862301?cmp=rss

Alberta's NDP government plans to cap consumer power rates at a maximum of 6.8 cents per kilowatt hour for four years, starting June 1, 2017.
The current average electricity price is 3.8 cents per kilowatt hour. The price ceiling will apply to people with a regulated rate option. If the RRO is below 6.8 cents, they will still pay the lower rate.

Kind of makes Enmax's current 5 year fixed rate of 6.79 not make much sense. Even the 3 year 6.59 wouldn't be a good idea. I wonder these providers will be dropping their fixed rates.

Makes you wonder where the money will come from to pay for the carbon taxes if it can't be through rate hikes.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...862301?cmp=rss

Kind of makes Enmax's current 5 year fixed rate of 6.79 not make much sense. Even the 3 year 6.59 wouldn't be a good idea. I wonder these providers will be dropping their fixed rates.

Makes you wonder where the money will come from to pay for the carbon taxes if it can't be through rate hikes.

So they're jacking the costs to the providers and now capping cost to consumers.

I could see why a business would hate this.

If the Government wants to take over the power industry in this province then they should just get off the pot and do it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Locke

So they're jacking the costs to the providers and now capping cost to consumers.

I could see why a business would hate this.

If the Government wants to take over the power industry in this province then they should just get off the pot and do it.

So why in the blue hell would any company have anything to do with the power industry in this province.

The NDP are going to jack up the costs and cap what they can charge. Its just typical NDP pie in the sky political theory created by a party that is clueless when it comes to economic matters.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Slava

Nah, we're (the taxpayer) on the hook for the whole thing. We either pay because the government settles this and saves face, or we pay because the utilities pay and pass it along.

I don't see it the same way.

Doesn't this simply mean, net-net, that the government won't be able to collect carbon taxes on the power associated with these PPAs?

The "losses" due to the carbon tax are the carbon tax costs themselves. So "covering the losses" means giving back the money collected from them in the first place. Therefore net-net zero and we're not on the hook for anything.

If that is the case this is a very good move by the NDP. Basically they get to say "fine, you're right we won't tax you but if you still press forward with cancelling these PPAs then you're just trying to offload the fact that they're a bad deal for you onto the public".

[Tron_fdc]

I'm not going to fully comment until I see the plan, but when you cap costs you are regulating the market. We are going backwards, which may not be a bad thing.

I'm going to be very curious how they re-regulate, while still creating a market for new capacity construction and investment. My guess is green subsidies.

[Fuzz]

You've got to wonder about the whole plan. Some of our coal plants aren't all that old, and instead of running them to EOL, they are being forced to close early. Now, the plan is green energy with natural gas to make up the difference. But why would anyone invest in a natural gas plant now, knowing that some time in the future the government may kill those before their time is up? Basically you have to plan to make your money back long before the plant reaches EOL, and that will be tougher to do with a cap on prices.

[para transit fellow]

This cap of electricity reminds me of Ralph's natural gas rebates.

Is it any different?

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

My guess is green subsidies.

That's a good guess. There would need to be subsidies even without a market cap on prices.

Take a look at the SolarCity plant Elon Musk is behind in the US. Musk seems to be lauded as a public hero but that company has bled cash heavily, but they are severely subsidized.

[Locke]

The NDP want to Nationalize (Provincialize?) the energy industry in Alberta without putting their own skin in the game.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

This cap of electricity reminds me of Ralph's natural gas rebates.

Is it any different?

Yes. Completely. I'm not sure how you would argue they are the same, frankly. The market isn't an even game where ins=outs. Where it goes in and where it comes out makes a world of difference.