I can't necessarily get into details, but Albertas regulations and handling of both general and specific circumstances and the AER and its approach to industry is 180 degree opposite from Saskatchewan (and bad).
The AER and the Crown in AB is often a gong show, so it's not surprising businesses are losing faith.
I would think the responses have less to do with carbon taxes or pricing and more to do with things like royalty reviews every 4 years.
My gut tells me that this thing will be so tied up in court challenges and protests and rage that the shovels don't hit the ground until long after this government is out of office.
I did have to laugh at Justin's cabinet ministers threat of using the military to control protests.
I flashed back I really did.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
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?
You have to be wrong, Locke. Aunt Rachel promised us that the poor and middle class would benefit under her government. You aren't calling Aunt Rachel a liar, are you? Are you?
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.
I agree with you that a tax on everything isn't prudent but you can't complain that something was a disaster when it accomplished exactly what it was supposed to accomplish.
However the fight against global warming is going to suck. Its why I prefer a geo-engineered solution.
I agree with you that a tax on everything isn't prudent but you can't complain that something was a disaster when it accomplished exactly what it was supposed to accomplish.
However the fight against global warming is going to suck. Its why I prefer a geo-engineered solution.
A tax on everything just means inflation though? In all seriousness, what is being accomplished?
I agree with you that a tax on everything isn't prudent but you can't complain that something was a disaster when it accomplished exactly what it was supposed to accomplish.
Absolutely you can, especially when the consequences are so great. $8 billion per year axed out of the Australian economy, power prices rise 25%, cost of everything else rises. Individuals and small business bear the burden - article doesn't say but the clear implication is that some small businesses closed and people lost jobs.
Absolutely you can, especially when the consequences are so great. $8 billion per year axed out of the Australian economy, power prices rise 25%, cost of everything else rises. Individuals and small business bear the burden - article doesn't say but the clear implication is that some small businesses closed and people lost jobs.
And what did it achieve?
It increased the cost of everything driving consumption down decreasing GHG emissions. You can't look globally when looking at GHG emission cuts or no cuts ever make sense. You need to look at sustainable CO2 output for your population and make the cuts there.
Increasing power costs by 25% makes renewables viable and over 10 years would encourage investment in the supply. 2 years is not significant enough time to see that result. In the short term the cost of everything rises which encourages investment and R&D into alternative technologies or more efficient use of current technologies. Overtime these technologies come to market and are lower cost displacing the higher cost CO2 options.
If you are actually serious about cutting CO2 emissions for your country then the cost of everything increases. This is what forces the market to act.
The goal, GGG, was to be "world leaders" and Australia discovered that it is so insignificant that nobody followed. There is a lot of hubris around here where we talk about being "world leaders" as well. And we are no more special than Australia is.
Sorry mate, their plan clearly failed to achieve its goals.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
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?
The whole 'global warming fight' seems like just another way for governments to increase their intake from taxes.
Yeah, I'm not going there. I may rail against punishing Alberta/Canadian public over something they can't change, but I won't pretend climate change isn't a thing either.
Make Energy Efficient Appliances, Windows, Insulation and Vehicles Tax Deductible.
Not a credit or a rebate, but Tax Deductible.
Wait... What? I'm pretty sure you mean a credit. A tax deduction is about a 30% subsidy and is worth more in real dollars the higher your marginal rate is (i.e. it's worth more to high income taxpayers). You seem to want the whole bill sent to the provincial government, if I'm understanding you right.
...Which as I'm typing this I'm getting less and less certain because that would of course be totally insane and a deduction would make far more sense from a policy perspective. But I guess that would still mostly be "putting our money where their mouths are".
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Make Energy Efficient Appliances, Windows, Insulation and Vehicles Tax Deductible.
Not a credit or a rebate, but Tax Deductible.
You bought an energy efficient furnace and upgraded your windows? Looks like you're not paying Provincial taxes for a while.
Lets see them put their money where their mouths are rather than us putting our money where their mouths are.
They won't do that at all, a large portion of the revenue has already been spent providing subsidies to offset the cost.
If Alberta's insignificant contribution to GHG is such a big deal, then we should get rid of all subsidies and all the rebates. Every single person should be on the hook for the full cost, regardless of their income. The emissions from a low income family are no less harmful than those from a family with a higher income. You can also argue their cost would be lower due to less discretionary income and less carbon intensive activity.
Yeah, I'm not going there. I may rail against punishing Alberta/Canadian public over something they can't change, but I won't pretend climate change isn't a thing either.
Yeah, the debate is about sound and reasonable public policy, not about whether a problem exists. Frankly, the right in this province would be doing themselves a favour by making it very clear to anyone denying anthropogenic climate change that if they want to muddy those waters there's no seat for them at the table... It's totally counterproductive.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Yeah, I'm not going there. I may rail against punishing Alberta/Canadian public over something they can't change, but I won't pretend climate change isn't a thing either.
The climate changes. But what does giving a bunch of elected spending addicts more money resolve? Does it fix anything? Is giving them more money going to magically reduce green house gasses? I doubt it. They will spend it where they see fit and there will be another issue in a few years that we need to tax to fix.
Wait... What? I'm pretty sure you mean a credit. A tax deduction is about a 30% subsidy and is worth more in real dollars the higher your marginal rate is (i.e. it's worth more to high income taxpayers). You seem to want the whole bill sent to the provincial government, if I'm understanding you right.
...Which as I'm typing this I'm getting less and less certain because that would of course be totally insane and a deduction would make far more sense from a policy perspective. But I guess that would still mostly be "putting our money where their mouths are".
If the goal of the carbon tax was to introduce long term sustainable choices and increases in efficiency and not just wealth transfer and raising general revenues, they would be implementing a system of incentives to switch.
No one is going to spend $5k-$8k on a high efficiency furnace upgrade to save a few hundred every year, same goes for windows and doors. What will happen is that people will cut down spending on discretionary items, further hurting businesses that are being hit by higher costs at the same time.
The climate changes. But what does giving a bunch of elected spending addicts more money resolve? Does it fix anything? Is giving them more money going to magically reduce green house gasses? I doubt it. They will spend it where they see fit and there will be another issue in a few years that we need to tax to fix.
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
If the goal of the carbon tax was to introduce long term sustainable choices and increases in efficiency and not just wealth transfer and raising general revenues, they would be implementing a system of incentives to switch.
No one is going to spend $5k-$8k on a high efficiency furnace upgrade to save a few hundred every year, same goes for windows and doors. What will happen is that people will cut down spending on discretionary items, further hurting businesses that are being hit by higher costs at the same time.
I'm not arguing that you're wrong, but would more people make that capital outlay if 30% was covered by the province (and if that was feasible in terms of revenue)? Would the uptick in energy efficient tech offset the likely deficit increase and is there a way to offset that without another significant tax hike?
Obviously you can't just full-credit the purchase of new furnaces and windows or everyone will go buy them, it'd just be a handout.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
