Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

4.3 million people vs 5.7 million this year so a 30ish % reduction in emissions intensity or so.

About 1/4 of vehicles being green vehicles.

That doesn’t seem too terrible. It didn’t hit targets but they also added significant industrial activity.

Yup, and also an almost 50% drop in GDP intensity since 1997:


https://www.bcbc.com/insight/s2b3j03...5x7cglhsngz3j3

[PepsiFree]

It shouldn’t be surprising that moderate centrist policies delivered without fascist rhetoric, a Trump-style playbook, and pandering to the far right suddenly become a lot more appealing to people.

Just goes to show that the right still doesn’t get it. So out of touch with Canadians.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Ped

####


####

The 2nd one needs an exclamation mark at the end of it.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yup, and also an almost 50% drop in GDP intensity since 1997:

Oh lol, for a second there by GDP intensity I thought you meant GDP per person. That would have been a worrying drop.

Originally Posted by Kaine

Cool. I also don't vote based solely on what happened in the past, I mean the present and future are sort of important as well are they not?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GGG

4.3 million people vs 5.7 million this year so a 30ish % reduction in emissions intensity or so.

About 1/4 of vehicles being green vehicles.

That doesn’t seem too terrible. It didn’t hit targets but they also added significant industrial activity.

Per capita, Alberta is doing better than BC. Since 2007, Alberta is down 21% and BC is down 18%. We are kicking ass.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Per capita, Alberta is doing better than BC. Since 2007, Alberta is down 21% and BC is down 18%. We are kicking ass.

So you are suggesting that the Industrial Crabon tax implanted in 2007 worked?

The big win is that per barrel intensity has dropped by about 30% in the oil sands since 2000. Some of that as been driven by government sponsored energy reduction exercises paid for by the industrial carbon tax

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GGG

So you are suggesting that the Industrial Crabon tax implanted in 2007 worked?

The big win is that per barrel intensity has dropped by about 30% in the oil sands since 2000. Some of that as been driven by government sponsored energy reduction exercises paid for by the industrial carbon tax

No, it isn't working and didn't work. Plain and simple, the goal (in BC) was to reduce emissions by 16% in 2025 from 2007 levels. That didn't/won't happen so the carbon tax didn't work in meeting the goal. People can move the goalposts or look at different metrics to fool themselves into thinking it is working but when a concrete target is set there are only two options: meet or exceed for success or fall short and fail.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

No, it isn't working and didn't work. Plain and simple, the goal (in BC) was to reduce emissions by 16% in 2025 from 2007 levels. That didn't/won't happen so the carbon tax didn't work in meeting the goal. People can move the goalposts or look at different metrics to fool themselves into thinking it is working but when a concrete target is set there are only two options: meet or exceed for success or fall short and fail.

Oh, I see. So if someone sets a goal to lose 20 lbs, only loses 19lbs, it was all a waste of time and the person is a failure.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

No, it isn't working and didn't work. Plain and simple, the goal (in BC) was to reduce emissions by 16% in 2025 from 2007 levels. That didn't/won't happen so the carbon tax didn't work in meeting the goal. People can move the goalposts or look at different metrics to fool themselves into thinking it is working but when a concrete target is set there are only two options: meet or exceed for success or fall short and fail.

Personally I don’t share that binary view of success.

I think the question should be asked was there a more efficient way to reduce carbon emissions. But to call significant reductions in emissions intensity failures without that type of analysis seems premature.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Oh, I see. So if someone sets a goal to lose 20 lbs, only loses 19lbs, it was all a waste of time and the person is a failure.

Not a waste of time as it was a valiant effort but yes still a failure for having not met the target.

[Harry Lime]

I was under the assumption that the industrial carbon tax was just a simple redistribution of funds to the public. The potential reduction of the amount being taxed in the hands of the companies.

Hitting the climate goal seemed like a marketing gimmick to get everyone on board that would otherwise not feel good enough about their feelings.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GGG

Personally I don’t share that binary view of success.

I think the question should be asked was there a more efficient way to reduce carbon emissions. But to call significant reductions in emissions intensity failures without that type of analysis seems premature.

The question that should be asked is whether or not the people who are setting policies are doing so with realistic targets or just throwing around pie in the sky figures to appease the extreme factions. Similar to the EV target for 2035 that the federal government had to scrap because it won't happen. Or net Zero by 2050. None of these things are realistic and the government's need to stop being so altruistic in achieving unrealistic goals.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Azure

Okay, simple facts here.

Did or did not the Conservatives, lead by PP on Dec 10, 2024 introduce Bill C-356 which would have eliminated GST on new home sales up to $1 million value, and did the Liberals vote for or against it?

Simple fact: No, they did not. The below is the only mention of GST in the bill (the link is in the quoted post)...

Originally Posted by woob

OK so the Building Homes Not Bureaucracy Act the CPC put forward had the following (summary):

...

(b) provide a 100% GST rebate on new residential rental property for which the average rent payable is below market rate.

...

https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bil...6?view=details

Also, that bill was introduced in September 2023 and defeated in May 2024, so I'm not sure if you're referring to a different bill, but there doesn't appear to be any similar types of bills introduced by the CPC in December 2024.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Guys it's PLAGIARISM!!11one!

This is unacceptable!

'The Liberals will never do this policy' wtf kind of illiterate is this guy??

never enact, never follow through with, never complete,

Someone buy this idiot a thesaurus

[2ArmBands]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

'The Liberals will never do this policy' wtf kind of illiterate is this guy??

never enact, never follow through with, never complete,

Someone buy this idiot a thesaurus

If you think this is bad you should hear Carney speak french.

[chemgear]

Just say and promise whatever it takes to win baby! Even if it's obviously against your entire history of actions and principles.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by 2ArmBands

If you think this is bad you should hear Carney speak french.

Has whiny bitch "Axe the tax"Poilievre got that security clearance yet?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

Personally I don’t share that binary view of success.

I think the question should be asked was there a more efficient way to reduce carbon emissions. But to call significant reductions in emissions intensity failures without that type of analysis seems premature.

I think the efficiency of emmissions reductions is one question, and whether the emissions are actually ending or just moving elsewhere is another.

If the large emitters carbon tax combines with the US tariffs to kill Canadian steel production and we end up buying steel with similar or higher emissions profile from China instead I don't think anything has been accomplished except harming Canada.

From a political expediency point of view the consumer carbon tax was easier to cut, but my furnace can't move offshore while many large industrial emitters can be out-competed by jurisdictions with lower standards.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Guys it's PLAGIARISM!!11one!

This is unacceptable!

PP Plagiarized the BC NDP!
Even his craftiest slogan is stolen.

B.C. premier says NDP plan to 'axe the tax' is playing politics

[GGG]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think the efficiency of emmissions reductions is one question, and whether the emissions are actually ending or just moving elsewhere is another.

If the large emitters carbon tax combines with the US tariffs to kill Canadian steel production and we end up buying steel with similar or higher emissions profile from China instead I don't think anything has been accomplished except harming Canada.

From a political expediency point of view the consumer carbon tax was easier to cut, but my furnace can't move offshore while many large industrial emitters can be out-competed by jurisdictions with lower standards.

That’s where I think Carneys ultimate plan of Tarrif imports makes sense. With the EU and Canada having that policy it protects local industry from the export of pollution.

As it pertains to oil it really depends on what marginal barrel would be displaced vs the average reduction in intensity in all barrels.

I think the same is true for steel. If you dive deep into the policy basis for industrial emitters the goal of the system is to only tax a portion of emissions such that it encourages investment in new tech but also allows industry to remain competitive.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by 2ArmBands

If you think this is bad you should hear Carney speak french.

I'm sure it's galling to the French to hear an English speaker butcher the language of Voltaire, it sure is annoying that PeePee cant speak english properly

I guess he can at least manage 'I surrender, tell me again how much money I'll get as permanent Governer of Canada?'