GT: Canadian Federal Election 2019

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by zamler

So consume less what are you waiting for.

Okay, I will.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Okay, I will.

lol no you won't, neither will I or anyone else this is PROVEN by the average energy usage for 50+ years.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by V

Why not? I agree, if you want the tax to actually drive change, make it impactful. As it stands right now, it’s just an impotent cash grab. But let’s be serious, anyone that actually tried to implement something impactful they would be voted out instantly. People say they care about climate change, but very few people actually do.

What makes you think it doesn't work?

A tiny tax has a tiny effect. However, the effect is not zero, and there's hundreds of studies out there (along with basic economics) to show that it has an effect.

We might not be on track to meet the Paris targets, but there's no doubt that a carbon tax would drive emission reduction. You don't need to solve a problem in one fell swoop.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

in addition to what has already been said about the CT my thought is that the tax at it's current level really only takes some money out of people's pockets. If this tax is truly designed to change behavior then make a liter of gas $3. Make it so that people have to make hard decisions about filling up or heating their home. Walking or driving? Figuring out if you can get little timmy to hcoey/dance/music via bus or if you need to car pool with 18 other kids to save some gas money.

This would be absolutely insane.


You know that not everyone lives around things like car pools or mass transit. This would also effect food and transport who would pass those costs onto the consumers, there are also people who have a driving requirement with their jobs. Also this would send agricultural prices through the roof and that would again be passed on to the consumer and not just once but multiple times.



The main effect would be that people wouldn't be able to afford to leave their homes.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

You do realize it's almost 7 years since the NEB originally approved the line expansion. What is a reasonable amount of time for this to finally finish? 10 years from original approval to first oil?

25 years. Minimum. Really make sure that anyone it would benefit are well dead and buried.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Regorium

What makes you think it doesn't work?

A tiny tax has a tiny effect. However, the effect is not zero, and there's hundreds of studies out there (along with basic economics) to show that it has an effect.

We might not be on track to meet the Paris targets, but there's no doubt that a carbon tax would drive emission reduction. You don't need to solve a problem in one fell swoop.

I agree with you, but I'm skeptical about the impact of the tax as we saw it. I know the economic theory behind modifying behaviour and it sounds sensible...but I don't see it working in practice. It seems that very few of us made changes during the carbon tax period we had in Alberta? I attribute that partly to the fact that it's on things which are virtually essential (home heating, vehicle fuel spring to mind), and people are apt to eat that increase and not modify behaviour at all for that type of spending.

I realise that there is a tipping point though. If gasoline was suddenly $2/litre, then people would switch quickly to another method of transport and less use. We'd also have a mutiny though! So while I think that behaviour could be modified, the impact has to be pronounced before people are going to live in colder homes or drive significantly less.

[nik-]

Does a deterrent work when you rebate most of the people you're trying to deter?

[zamler]

The sane way to approach climate change is set policy based on what technology is available or soon will be. Setting arbitrary targets for the sake of it accomplishes absolutely nothing, see every climate accord we've had.

Funding new tech with tax revenue is great I'm all for it, but we are taxed enough (35% of the price at the pump is tax). Last time I checked the government of Canada collects about $45 billion in fuel taxes per year. If governments were serious about climate change they'd make it law that every cent collected on taxing energy would go to public transit projects (I think all public transit should be free) and investing in cleaner energy tech.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by nik-

Does a deterrent work when you rebate most of the people you're trying to deter?

How is the whole 'investing Carbon Tax revenues into Green Initiatives to reduce carbon emissions' thing working out?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by nik-

It was basically their campaign strategy.

You'd have to be an idiot not to punch the soft targets the CPC opened up.

The ONLY leader not to march in a pride parade. The moral superiority is tangible. You don't even have to campaign off it, it's like the CPC launched their own negative campaign ad against themselves. Absolute disaster in 2019.

Never having had a real job? I mean, seriously, laugh out loud here that Andrew Scheer appeared to have less real life experience than justin freakin' trudeau.

When your political opponent gives you that kind of material you run with it.

[Locke]

The Electorate should be smarter than to swallow that BS hook, line and sinker.

[Fuzz]

If someone wants a Halloween costume, you could put on an alien mask, and wear your stampede gear. Bam. Western Alienation.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Locke

The Electorate should be smarter than to swallow that BS hook, line and sinker.

Part of the electorate wasted energy obsessing about blackface when actually relevant and damaging behaviour occurred while in office. Some people are still doing it.

"The Electorate" is not smart. They are easily swayed by things of little consequence. This is not new information, and Scheer failed by forgetting it.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Locke

25 years. Minimum. Really make sure that anyone it would benefit are well dead and buried.

I'd love to know what the 7 years got us? It's the same spec 24" pipe buried at 3 meter depth going from Edmonton to Burnaby. Opposition is just as entrenched if not more so today. We've basically wasted 7 years paying lawyers and other parasites to navel gaze over one of the most basic pieces of infrastructure. The entire thing was politicized by the Liberals to start with and now we should embrace them as saviors for doing it right?

[Oling_Roachinen]

I'm sure you will have no difficulty in pointing to the NEB approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline from 7 years ago.

Forget the fact that the NEB doesn't approve, only sends a recommendation to the GIC, Trans Mountain was only applied for 7 years ago so it was certainly not 'approved.'

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I'm sure you will have no difficulty in pointing to the NEB approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline from 7 years ago.

Forget the fact that the NEB doesn't approve, only sends a recommendation to the GIC, Trans Mountain was only applied for 7 years ago so it was certainly not 'approved.'

It was applied for long before the 2013 initial approval. The NEB review is at least a year or more. Regardless, please tell me what magical improvements to the line have taken place in the intervening half decade plus?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

It was applied for long before the 2013 initial approval. The NEB review is at least a year or more. Regardless, please tell me what magical improvements to the line have taken place in the intervening half decade?

2013 approval? Again, I'm sure you will have no difficulty providing us with that.

Forget the fact that, had it actually been approved in 2012 as originally contended, then why didn't the Conservatives get it built before the election in 2015?

The actual history is that it was approved in 2016, just a couple of months after the NEB finalized it's process and sent to the GIC its recommendation that it be approved.

[puckedoff]

That we are arguing whether it should take 7 years or 10 years to build something other countries (Norway, Lebanon, the US) can build in two or three highlights the problem pretty well.

Actually, not well enough because we are arguing 7 to 10 years, IF AT ALL.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

That we are arguing whether it should take 7 years or 10 years to build something other countries (Norway, Lebanon, the US) can build in two or three highlights the problem pretty well.

Actually, not well enough because we are arguing 7 to 10 years, IF AT ALL.

Yeah, how long did it take to get Keystone XL built?

And I don't think pointing out blatant misinformation should be contentious.

[nik-]

That is true, another pipeline being used as a notorious political football is taking a long time to build.