leith

Only Saskatchewan and Manitoba haven't signed on to the Canadian "framework" for reducing carbon emissions. By 2020, the carbon tax levy will be $50 a tonne. BC already has a $30 per tonne levy. It looks as if Albertans will be especially hard hit. Australia used to have a carbon tax but cancelled it,partly, at least, because of the costs passed on to the taxpayers and the resulting hardship.
So what do you think? How will it affect your finances? Is it really going to have any impact on global warming or is this just more political posturing to create a good impression internationally? Is Brad Wall, the Premier of Saskatchewan right is saying there should have been an economic impact study done first?

magnumpi

It is BS as far as I can see, the fact u can off set one province tax and sell tokens to another isn't going to reduce anything all it is is a Liberal revenue generator

scrubbedexpat091

Higher gas prices for the other provinces who enjoy lower prices currently?

Engineer_abroad

This is exactly the wrong time for a carbon tax. Oil and gas process are already so low and Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are already struggling because of this. A carbon levy will make this worse and will create even more animosity amongst those populations towards the idea of climate change.

I think Brad Wall got it spot on in his conference speech and especially when he said 'when is a national carbon tax not a national carbon tax, when the eastern provinces can manipulate the costs'.

My opinion is that whilst human activity has no doubt accelerated climate change, it is still a natural concept and the fluctuations being predicted by the models are well within historic lows and highs. There are 3 ways we can try and combat the effects of climate change.
1) Reduce carbon - May help slow the onset but unlikely in the long run to prevent it. Also with development nations surging ahead with coal power plants at a huge rate reducing carbon in Canada is a drop in the ocean. We may be able to reduce this by exporting cleaner LNG but that bring sup the question of pipelines, which in my province is a hot topic right now.
2) Invest in research and implementation of system to help humans cope with climate change. We have had climate change in the past and the only reason it is now such a big issue is that we have more people living in the areas that are effected. This would include better flood defense systems, revised building codes, zoning, big systems like the Moses or Thames barrier. In fact this is the way earthquake research has gone in resent years. Stop trying to prevent or predict them and invest in helping humans survive them.
3) Innovation in non carbon fuel systems - This will take many decades and in my opinion is so poorly funded by government. This is currently being pushed by entrepreneurs rather than government which means it is becoming a business interest for those who can afford it. Just look at the way Eli Musk pretends to be some sort of Environmental hero whilst becoming famously wealthy selling 100k+ super cars. This should be driven by government as not for profit. This will also require a complete re-thinking of how we approach power generation, nuclear will almost certainly have to be a part of this, especially in the mid term term whilst new systems mature to the level of society implementation.

The problems is most governments around the world only look at point 1 and are obsessed with the idea of cutting carbon whilst doing nothing on points 2 and 3.

magnumpi

Why don't the God fairing religious people amongst us say a prayer to god and ask he fix the thermostat on this world he created and let's just get on with life.

Novocastrian

Those who know me would be surprised if I let this post go without comment.

I assume process was a typo for prices? AB, SK and to a lesser extent MB have only themselves to blame. There is some small amount of conventional oil production there of course, but the main fossil fuel source in those provinces is the tar sands. The EROEI (energy return on energy invested) is about unity which means that for every unit of energy obtained from the tar, the same amount of energy from other sources has to be used up. This is an idiocy which can only bring financial profit when the price of a barrel of oil is well over $100 US (constant $) and when the input energy from other sources is much cheaper.

Those provinces, notably AB, which in recent decades have prospered by buying energy cheaply and then selling dirty crude at an elevated rate have been importing money while pretending to be exporting energy. Not a long term plan which ever had a chance.

How is anthropogenically induced climate change a "natural concept"? The models aren't predicting fluctuation but rather, if unchecked, an exponentially rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and an exponentially rising increase in average global temperatures

I think we can confine "historic" to mean "during the course of human civilisation". The global temperature has never been so high during that period which goes back about 8000 years to the time when basic agriculture began to supplant hunter-gatherer cultures, originally in Mesopotamia. Nor has the rate of change in global temperature ever been so high in the last 150,000 years for which we have detailed ice core and oxygen isotope ratio data.

You do know that China is now the world leader in renewable energy production? You do know that (at long last) Canada and China and India and *gasp* even the US, along with almost ever other country in the world, signed on to the Paris Treaty?

The research has already been done (I did a good bit of it). It's time now (indeed well past time) to act on the huge body of relevant knowledge that we already have.

I bolded the sentence I did because it's laughably ass-backwards in its "logic". Firstly,"we", i.e civilised humans have never experienced climate change like this. Secondly, the reason why that is so, is precisely because there are so many more or us in affected regions, (the whole ****ing planet) and our exploitation of non renewable energy resources is ludicrously unsustainable.

Yes, it is becoming a business interest (thank goodness). Many entrepreneurial folk have already seen the writing on the wall for the business interests they are seeking, belatedly, to replace.

I don't think it will take decades for them to succeed. Despite Tronald Dump.

R I C H

Tesla have rarely made a profit (see: Tesla posts rare profit, stock pops 6% - Oct. 26, 2016). Musk made his fortune from x.com and PayPal, not manufacturing and selling vehicles. The Model 3, available next year, will be on sale for c$35k.

Are you suggesting that an entrepreneurial approach to developing greener technologies (such as the Powerwall) isn't a good thing?

Engineer_abroad

No I.m saying it should be more heavy invested in my governments. What good are electric cars if you don't have the infrastructure to support them?

Novocastrian

You don't?

R I C H

There's huge growth in electric car sales, up 42% in Q1 2016 (https://cleantechnica.com/2016/06/05...bally-q1-2016/), which surely wouldn't occur if consumers felt infrastructure was lacking.

Should governments partner and invest in infrastructure alongside private business, and potentially risk tax payers money on an enterprise that may/not be successful? Or is legislation better to encourage a particular industry? Like a carbon tax?

scrubbedexpat091

That's the issue with electric. But as time goes on the infrastructure will come and it slowly is.

If I could afford an electric car and could drive it long distances with the ability to charge in small town nowhere and could charge it at home which as a renter really isn't possible at the moment in apartment buildings.

I would get one.

Engineer_abroad

You are kinda of straw manning the electric car point now, which was used solely as an example. The point is you have to develop the infrastructure alongside. Transport is only one part of a much wider problem.

I just want to absolutely clear here that I am NOT climate change denier and do believe that carbon has an impact.

But I do think that too much effort is concentrated on trying to stop climate change. I do not feel that ultimately it can be stopped, slowed maybe but not stopped.

We also cannot ignore the effect that it will have on a large population group and the impact on their lives.

What is needed in the whole debate is a more holistic approach.

Novocastrian

As an example of what? You suggested that Elon (not Eli) Musk was making huge profits from Tesla, which is not true. You further suggested that infrastructure is not in place. That maybe true in whatever remote corner of Canada you live, but it's not true in Europe.

Why? You claim to accept that climate change in the last 50 years or so is caused by unrestricted CO2 emissions. It can be stopped by limiting those emissions to about 20% of current levels. This can be done with current technologies.


The time for debate is over. We need action (perhaps holistic, but more importantly, effective and successful), and finally (!) we're getting some. Less so, it seems, in Canada. So much for Canadian soft power if anyone remembers that.

macadian

Cash grab. Simples init.....

Novocastrian

Oh dear. Do actually understand anything? Who's grabbing cash?

MaggiePI's famous Lieberals?