Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Which interests exactly? When the Premier of Alberta tried to prioritize our interests she was called a traitor.

That’s because instead of first trying to negotiate with the other provinces in a rare moment where we actually had some leverage over them she instead opted to throw them under the bus.

She’s backtracked a little since then but IMO domestically she initially handled the situation about as poorly as she could have.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

And he's 100% right. I wish it was $200/T and that they'd cut income tax. I can avoid one and not the other...this isnt rocket science.

That entire segment of the carbon tax was ignored though by this government and is as important as the tax itself. Trevor Tombe who is trotted out all the time here has always and still contends that is the vital part of the carbon tax. And not just cut a little income tax, across the board, equivalent to the tax brought in.

But it’s a slush fund for politicians to buy votes on mostly horse crap projects. I don’t even believe the conservatives will get rid of the slush, just move it elsewhere. Mostly because 98% of all
Politicians are life losers who want pay raises for being useless.

You do what the carbon tax is entirely predicated upon and I am 100% pro!

Isnthis about wealth re-distribution or reducing emissions. If it’s “both”, yer a C.

[shotinthebacklund]

And then implement the clean fuels tax on top of the carbon tax.

[Zoller]

I read this on CBC yesterday.

Canada should discuss west-east oil pipeline now that American relationship has changed: minister

Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said Thursday the country should weigh building a new west-east oil pipeline after President Donald Trump's threatened tariffs exposed what he's calling a "vulnerability" in energy infrastructure.

Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline, which moves Western Canadian oil across the continent and down through Michigan into Sarnia, Ont., is a critical piece of energy infrastructure that operates at the whim of the Americans, at least in part. Even before Trump re-entered the scene, Michigan's Democratic governor tried to shut it down.

Line 5 feeds refineries that produce about half of Ontario and Quebec's fuel needs — everything from jet fuel for Toronto's Pearson Airport to gas for home heating.

So I guess it's not just about Energy East pipeline through Quebec.

It's ALSO about that line 5 pipeline that... checks notes... goes through Michigan?

Bruh, Canada doesn't even ship it's own oil to Ontario without piggy backing off American infrastructure?

You guys deserve to be in this mess. I bet Canada couldn't even build the TransCanada Highway in this day and age.

[chemgear]

We need to tax the ever living #### out of all these people who insist making the singular choice that causes the most environmental carbon damage by far. That single choice along more than offsets all good environmental efforts of dozens of other Canadians combined. It's ridiculous.



https://globalnews.ca/news/3595511/c...20CO2%20levels.


Nevermind the planet rapists that insist on committing this crime more than once!

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by chemgear

We need to tax the ever living #### out of all these people who insist making the singular choice that causes the most environmental carbon damage by far. That single choice along more than offsets all good environmental efforts of dozens of other Canadians combined. It's ridiculous.



https://globalnews.ca/news/3595511/c...20CO2%20levels.


Nevermind the planet rapists that insist on committing this crime more than once!

Parents do get taxed for having children, it’s called the GST and kids are not cheap, that 5% is doing some seriously heavy lifting.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

This is a interesting premise. How do you effectively stop trickle down cost increases on the consumer side though? In the end I dont see a manageable way around that. The idea being there is going to be a consumer side but you will make it back on income tax? Canada is already in a massive dept hole. How do we fund that? raise GST?

Reducing Carbon load is going to come down to advancement in technology or energy production (nuclear). Sure you can use a system that charges for carbon are kicked back to funding green projects and advancements like the SDTC but... That money was by and large used as one giant corruption pit as whats very clearly shown. Maybe that was just a really bad board?


Until Canada bans the imports of Oil and gas that's being Shipped across the world from a place with very weak environmental or social standards I just cant take any of this carbon tax nonsense.

The ship has sailed on making that work. Only because the trickle down effect wouldn't be that bad, and the oil and gas companies would rebel. The reason that it wouldn't be as bad as you think, is because gas price (-->transportation cost-->inflation) is tied to global markets and not local ones.

This has worked out really well in terms of making companies money locally, but if the tax burden was shifted to them completely, the impact would be felt locally by them, but not radically effect gas prices. This would effectively make them a victim of their own previously successful policy.

I realize that this is a radical oversimplification. I'm just saying that a heavy industrial carbon tax could be done, but it won't be done.

Also, zero chance of any government lowering income tax. They will just spend it or pocket it.

Carbon tax is an example of a idea that works in the theory but not practice.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by chemgear

We need to tax the ever living #### out of all these people who insist making the singular choice that causes the most environmental carbon damage by far. That single choice along more than offsets all good environmental efforts of dozens of other Canadians combined. It's ridiculous.



https://globalnews.ca/news/3595511/c...20CO2%20levels.


Nevermind the planet rapists that insist on committing this crime more than once!

Green Text?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by chemgear

We need to tax the ever living #### out of all these people who insist making the singular choice that causes the most environmental carbon damage by far. That single choice along more than offsets all good environmental efforts of dozens of other Canadians combined. It's ridiculous.



https://globalnews.ca/news/3595511/c...20CO2%20levels.


Nevermind the planet rapists that insist on committing this crime more than once!

Little more context from the author of that study.

Kimberly Nicholas
One thing it’s really important to realize is that population is actually irrelevant to solving the climate crisis. And the reason for that is that we only have the next few years to solve the climate crisis reasonably well.

We know that we have this limited carbon budget that determines how much warming we’re going to experience. We’re really close to scary and dangerous limits right now. And we know what we have to do, which is leave fossil fuels in the ground and switch to regenerative and sustainable agriculture. That’s what our job is basically in this next decade.

So in that sense, creating new people? Well, yes, of course, it is true that more people will consume more resources and cause more greenhouse gas emissions. But that’s not really the relevant timeframe for actually stabilizing the climate, given that we have this decade to cut emissions in half.

Full interview : https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2...overpopulation

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

Green Text?

Not really. Most of the world's problems can be boiled down to a combination of overpopulation and an economic theory that demands infinite growth.

In terms of the graphic.... it's also boiling down a global problem to a local scale, which makes it funny.

[indes]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Not really. Most of the world's problems can be boiled down to a combination of overpopulation and an economic theory that demands infinite growth.

In terms of the graphic.... it's also boiling down a global problem to a local scale, which makes it funny.

There are more countries in the world panicking about low birth rates than there is the opposite. https://populationmatters.org/news/2...jections-2024/

Most researchers have the population peaking in around 50 years and then declining. A bunch have also said that's optimistic with birth rates that are trending down already. Either way we're only a couple of generations away from rapid population decline.

Back on topic, we already lost the energy race. We lost when we let the world decide we didn't need to compete in the global market. Canada had to be the ones to worry about the environment and take the global warming backlash while OPEC+ and the US ran drills and pipelines non-stop. I hope someone made some money off the "social credit" we were earning because it sure as #### wasn't Canadians.

We can't even get carbon capture built. Shouldn't our carbon tax dollars be going towards these projects or this innovation everyone keeps talking about? Pathways Alliance CCUS would be a good start. Maybe get that project going then talk to me about the innovation and technology the industry should be using.

[shotinthebacklund]

Population decline entering the robotic AI age is likely the desired outcome though I expect. Dont need to have the same workforce levels and also dont need to support them to have a living.



also, every living thing on earth exists primarily driven for one thing. To survive, and reproduce. Going to be a interesting future

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Zoller

Bruh, Canada doesn't even ship it's own oil to Ontario without piggy backing off American infrastructure?

You guys deserve to be in this mess. I bet Canada couldn't even build the TransCanada Highway in this day and age.

With a stable US like there was 75 years ago when the line was built, there's nothing wrong with that setup. It's a private company's infrastructure. How is it any different than the US not being able to supply their Midwest refineries without relying on pipelines coming from Canada?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Zoller

I read this on CBC yesterday.

Canada should discuss west-east oil pipeline now that American relationship has changed: minister





So I guess it's not just about Energy East pipeline through Quebec.

It's ALSO about that line 5 pipeline that... checks notes... goes through Michigan?

Bruh, Canada doesn't even ship it's own oil to Ontario without piggy backing off American infrastructure?

You guys deserve to be in this mess. I bet Canada couldn't even build the TransCanada Highway in this day and age.

… it has more to do with geography. Look at a map in that area.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

He's trying to do a Trump but that only works in a 3rd world country. There is no way that kyit works here in Canada except for a select few in the forum here! lollol

Maybe it’s time we can the plan!

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

Green Text?

Is it an emergency?

Originally Posted by belsarius

Little more context from the author of that study.

One thing it’s really important to realize is that population is actually irrelevant to solving the climate crisis. And the reason for that is that we only have the next few years to solve the climate crisis reasonably well.

We know that we have this limited carbon budget that determines how much warming we’re going to experience. We’re really close to scary and dangerous limits right now. And we know what we have to do, which is leave fossil fuels in the ground and switch to regenerative and sustainable agriculture. That’s what our job is basically in this next decade.

So in that sense, creating new people? Well, yes, of course, it is true that more people will consume more resources and cause more greenhouse gas emissions. But that’s not really the relevant timeframe for actually stabilizing the climate, given that we have this decade to cut emissions in half.

Their study was in 2017. And those statements are from 2021. It's now 2025. They're forcibly only looking out to 2030 and closing their eyes past that; how is cutting world wide emissions in half progressing by 2030?

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

If it doesn't matter, nothing matters.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Is it an emergency?



Their study was in 2017. And those statements are from 2021. It's now 2025. They're forcibly only looking out to 2030 and closing their eyes past that; how is cutting world wide emissions in half progressing by 2030?

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

If it doesn't matter, nothing matters.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...past-50-years/

We’ve Had Six Years Left to Save the World for the Past 50 Years

A 2019 article, titled “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency,” spawned a documentary about scientists’ alleged “moral obligation to warn humanity” that global warming will destroy everything in just a few short years. What’s never mentioned is that the use of such language is nothing new. There’s a long track record of these kinds of predictions —

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...past-50-years/

Literally nobody has claimed it would “destroy everything in a few short years”.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Parents do get taxed for having children, it’s called the GST and kids are not cheap, that 5% is doing some seriously heavy lifting.

... and tax benefits / credits, and more excuses for leaving the office early / working from home, and the unearned sense of moral superiority by starting sentences with "as a parent" when speaking to those of us without them.

Seriously, a two-parent family with a damned good income and a 5 year old and a 2 year old qualified for approximately $6,500 in tax credits over a year when both the quarterly carbon rebate and the monthly Canada child benefit are counted.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Literally nobody has claimed it would “destroy everything in a few short years”.

Literally nobody would take what is written about climate change at the National Review seriously. At least I hope not? Gee, now I wonder...