Alberta Politics Thread

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I don't disagree, but the underlying play & commodity prices has more to do with investment than overall political arena and (relatively) small additional taxes &/or levies. Luckily Montney is the new Viking, havn't you heard?

Since we are losing ground to Saskatchewan it must be more than commodity prices.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I'd prefer you take the time to read the report and provide some actual commentary?

Did you notice the questions you were interested in are listed right there?

Ping me for Skype details

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Since we are losing ground to Saskatchewan it must be more than commodity prices.

Well of course it is more than commodity prices, but those prices and underlying costs (including gov't imposed) impact which plays the capital gets thrown at, which is the main driver of SK getting more development, rather than any sort of bureaucratic choice/policy SK has made or "friendliness" to O&G producers.

If gas prices shoot through the roof, people would run to Alberta and BC plays, even with carbon regimes and political nonsense. Its all about the $.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

Both extremes, just the opposite ends of the spectrum, but you condemn only one? Meanwhile nobody questions May or others for openly saying they are actually going to break the law. Double standard, that's all.

What in the world are you talking about? This is an AB politics thread, and no, I don't post about every politician I disagree with, but how in the world do you think I am not condemning May for her comments?

There is no double standard, many of us are against May as well.

I repeat what I said, we can be against the Rebel Media and May. It really isn't that hard considering where their beliefs lie.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

What in the world are you talking about? This is an AB politics thread, and no, I don't post about every politician I disagree with, but how in the world do you think I am not condemning May for her comments?

There is no double standard, many of us are against May as well.

I repeat what I said, we can be against the Rebel Media and May. It really isn't that hard considering where their beliefs lie.

What was on TV and radio the last 2 days? The chant, not May. That's what the hell I am talking about. The channel has been switched and most like you didn't even notice.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Well of course it is more than commodity prices, but those prices and underlying costs (including gov't imposed) impact which plays the capital gets thrown at, which is the main driver of SK getting more development, rather than any sort of bureaucratic choice/policy SK has made or "friendliness" to O&G producers.

If gas prices shoot through the roof, people would run to Alberta and BC plays, even with carbon regimes and political nonsense. Its all about the $.

You responded to a post showing that we are falling behind Sask for investment and said that commodity prices had more to do with it than political climate, taxes and levies. Both provinces are suffering from low commodity prices so I would asssume that government policy is having a significant impact. Obviously if prices shoot up investment will rise everywhere but right now Sask appears to be dealing with the downturn better. Not sure what we are arguing here.

[Slava]

My issue with the Fraser Institute report here is that on the news they were referring to the carbon tax as a potential concern. To me that's not right. Last year the big producers were on the stage with Notley and they all seem in favour. Now it's a negative for oil and gas investment? It can't be both.

[Muta]

I felt like I should make an appearance here.

Good times, good times

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Slava

My issue with the Fraser Institute report here is that on the news they were referring to the carbon tax as a potential concern. To me that's not right. Last year the big producers were on the stage with Notley and they all seem in favour. Now it's a negative for oil and gas investment? It can't be both.

It was a pretty select number of specific producers. They don't represent the entire industry at all and there was a lot of accusations about them locking in a (relatively) good deal for themselves.

It would be like looking at the policies of Trudeau (or any other politician) and saying people can't complain about them, look at the millions of people who voted for him and all those people standing on the stage with him. And honestly, that's also a terrible analogy. You'd have to find the handful of the richest people standing on stage with him that supported his policies and then blanket assume Canada would act and do the same.

EDIT: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...sers-1.3347197

Alberta climate plan makes for winners and losers in the oilsands

Those four companies were involved in consultations with environmental groups and politicians for around a year, even before the NDP election in May.

Imperial Oil, the biggest oilsands player not represented on the stage, said that it was reserving judgment on the plan until it had more details. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, which typically talks for industry, is also uncertain.

That is notable. Four energy companies that represent more than half of Alberta's oilsands production stand behind the policy, but the group that represents them isn't sure.

Let's look at why.

Although the energy industry may sometimes seem to possess a hive mind, it is made up of hundreds of companies with different technologies, different oil reservoirs, different finances and different agendas.

By design, Alberta's climate change policy does not create a level playing field. It rewards companies that are the most efficient when it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions per barrel of oil and penalizes those that are less efficient. As a result, there will be clear winners and losers, in the oilsands and outside of them as well.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by chemgear

It was a pretty select number of specific producers. They don't represent the entire industry and there was a lot of accusations about them locking in a (relatively) good deal for themselves.

It would be like looking at the policies of Trudeau (or any other politician) and saying people can't complain about them, look at the millions of people who voted for him and all those people standing on the stage with him.

Yeah and I get that, and I believe that they were just locking in a good deal for themselves. But it's not the same as the Trudeau example because this is one specific policy and we're talking about the investment climate of that same industry.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah and I get that, and I believe that they were just locking in a good deal for themselves. But it's not the same as the Trudeau example because this is one specific policy and we're talking about the investment climate of that same industry.

Yeah, the analogy is pretty bad (see my edit, lol).

But still, the interests of 4 oilsands producers simply cannot possibly represent the entire spectrum of oil and (nevermind) gas industry in the province. Especially when those 4 are getting a nice subsidy in the deal while also being able to financially hurt their peers.

[Slava]

And apparently the Aussie experience with a carbon tax was terrible: http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...rom-down-under

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

And apparently the Aussie experience with a carbon tax was terrible: http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...rom-down-under

It appears the Carbon tax worked as planned. It made everything more expensive reducing consumption.

That's basicly the point of the carbon tax. Make things expensive enough that the alternatives are viable. It appears to have been working until they canceled it.

They also had the fantastic policy of not taxing exports. What they failed to do was starring imports. But in general the system appeared to have been working.

[Slava]

I don't think that the point is to make "everything" more expensive though. The point is supposed to increase the cost of somethings to change behaviour. I question whether increased home heating and grocery expenses are behaviours that should be changed (if they can be changed in the first place). But that $8bn removed from the economy seems like a poor outcome as well?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

And apparently the Aussie experience with a carbon tax was terrible: http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...rom-down-under

Most notable about that was the comment about the futility of expecting a nation with a tiny population could ever impact the world's behaviour.

[Bootsy]

Originally Posted by GGG

It appears the Carbon tax worked as planned. It made everything more expensive reducing consumption.

That's basicly the point of the carbon tax. Make things expensive enough that the alternatives are viable. It appears to have been working until they canceled it.

They also had the fantastic policy of not taxing exports. What they failed to do was starring imports. But in general the system appeared to have been working.

That does sounds like it was working the way it was intended to , create a socialist society. Good on the Aussies for wising up and ditching it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't think that the point is to make "everything" more expensive though. The point is supposed to increase the cost of somethings to change behaviour. I question whether increased home heating and grocery expenses are behaviours that should be changed (if they can be changed in the first place). But that $8bn removed from the economy seems like a poor outcome as well?

The goal on food would be to purchase food grown near you to reduce the CO2 impact. Do you need asparagus from Chille or will the beats works. The only way a carbon tax has any affect is if everything is increased in price and the Carbon winners reduce in price. For example choosing vegetarian options instead of meat should be more attractive under a carbon pricing system(though we're stupid about it and don't tax cow farts but tax has to ship vegetables)

Heating to the Carbon tax is supposed to change behaviour as upgrading windows, doors and furnaces becomes more economical and just turning down your heat a degree or two becomes more attractive.

Austraiias GDP is 1.4 trillion so 8 billion is the margin of error. I suspect they mean the government collected 8 billion. And a small loss of GDP is usually the affect of a tax increase as the private sector is generally more efficient.

It was politically unpopular there as it will be here as anything that drives food, gas, heat and electricity is but that doesn't mean it's not working.

If there really is to be a fight against global warming consumption of everything needs to be more expensive.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bootsy

That does sounds like it was working the way it was intended to , create a socialist society. Good on the Aussies for wising up and ditching it.

Where do you think you live, exactly?

[Dion]

Ms. Notley was set to meet with just one pipeline opponent – provincial NDP Leader John Horgan – for what was expected to be a civil and private meeting of long-time friends.

However, there will be no such meeting with Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, a former NDP MLA in British Columbia and one of the leading opponents of the pipeline expansion, which will result in a sevenfold increase in the number of oil tankers passing through the city’s English Bay.

Several indigenous communities are preparing to launch a court action to block the project, and Ms. Notley’s visit has angered First Nations leaders, who say she should be meeting with them.

“Who is she engaging with? It’s not us,” said Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. He said avoiding opponents won’t help persuade British Columbians to abandon their fears about the risk of oil spills and compared the visit to the tightly controlled messaging of the previous federal government. “It’s like in the early days of the Harper government – they were doing the same thing. It didn’t work for them, and it won’t work for her.”

B.C. Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver, who on Monday challenged Ms. Notley to a public debate on the merits of the project, said her visit is not actually a conversation because she won’t hear from the public.

“She said she is coming to B.C. to sell this project to British Columbians, but it’s clear to me she is actually here to sell this project to John Horgan,” Mr. Weaver said in an interview. Mr. Horgan has campaigned against the pipeline expansion, but earlier this year said he was open to persuasion on the merits of the project.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle33212559/

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

The goal on food would be to purchase food grown near you to reduce the CO2 impact. Do you need asparagus from Chille or will the beats works. The only way a carbon tax has any affect is if everything is increased in price and the Carbon winners reduce in price. For example choosing vegetarian options instead of meat should be more attractive under a carbon pricing system(though we're stupid about it and don't tax cow farts but tax has to ship vegetables)

Heating to the Carbon tax is supposed to change behaviour as upgrading windows, doors and furnaces becomes more economical and just turning down your heat a degree or two becomes more attractive.

Austraiias GDP is 1.4 trillion so 8 billion is the margin of error. I suspect they mean the government collected 8 billion. And a small loss of GDP is usually the affect of a tax increase as the private sector is generally more efficient.

It was politically unpopular there as it will be here as anything that drives food, gas, heat and electricity is but that doesn't mean it's not working.

If there really is to be a fight against global warming consumption of everything needs to be more expensive.

Right. And thats insane.

Unless the Government is going to increase the cost of heating and simultaneously and dramatically subsidize the cost of efficient windows, furnaces, insulation, etc, then that plan is absolutely batcrap crazy!

The cost of those Capital Improvements on an average home could easily dip into the tens of thousands of dollars for average Albertans who are already getting their teeth kicked in economically, how are we expected to afford that in addition to everything being more expensive and our taxes being jacked on top of it?

Meanwhile what help do we get from the Carbon Tax? It isnt going into a fund to support or promote energy efficient living or renewable power sources its going into General Revenue so Notley can take more British Columbian vacations and, ironically, keep the lights on. The now significantly more expensive lights.