Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Ottawa => Provincial and Local Politics => Topic started by: Squidward von Squidderson on April 26, 2018, 03:47:10 pm
-
No, not the artificial reef (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Saskatchewan_(DDE_262))
Saskatchewan has launched a Constitutional challenge to the feds imposing a carbon tax. Now, apparently, this doesn’t have a leg to stand on, but Sask. disagrees with the Feds and would like the SC to determine the constitutionality of the Feds’ plan (sound familiar???).
Should Sask. be doing this? Clearly the Feds are in the tax collecting business and reducing emissions and abiding by international treaties is in the national interest of the country.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-saskatchewan-seeks-court-of-appeal-ruling-on-federal-carbon-tax/
-
How is it in the national interest to cripple our economy in order to accomplish nothing whatsoever?
-
I believe Notley said she didn't like it either, but it was inevitable that the Feds were going to do it, so VOILA! Carbon Tax in Alberta - what a scam.
Good luck, Saskatchewan!
(And Go, Riders!)
-
Sounds like Scott Moe is being an ass. I'm skeptical he has a legal leg to stand on. I suspect this is an even bigger long-shot than Horgan's pipeline challenge.
More importantly, from the Saskatchewan point of view, is that the federal government's willingness to approve and support pipeline development is contingent upon provincial cooperation on environmental initiatives. Trudeau made clear when he approved the Kinder-Morgan expansion that it would not have been approved without Notley's initiatives on carbon tax, phasing out coal, and capping emissions from the oil-sands. This kind of compromise works better than the alternative did. It gives "wins" to both the economic development people and the environment people. But as Moe and his predecessor have been riding on Ms Notley's coat-tails as far as getting the pipeline approved and built, perhaps they feel that they don't have to give up anything themselves.
-k
-
This kind of compromise works better than the alternative did. It gives "wins" to both the economic development people and the environment people.
Well, the move is fair game as long as BC is involved in a court action. If BC loses and the pipeline moves forward then I would hope Moe can be pressured to back off. Moe's action is also kinda stupid because the feds have imposed healthcare policy on provinces for decades with spending power so it would likely be a worse deal for Saskatchewan if Moe wins because the feds will fall back on using transfer payments to enforce policy which we know is constitutional.
-
I believe Notley said she didn't like it either, but it was inevitable that the Feds were going to do it, so VOILA! Carbon Tax in Alberta - what a scam.
Good luck, Saskatchewan!
(And Go, Riders!)
Alberta had a carbon tax for years now.
-
Alberta had a carbon tax for years now.
And by approximately how much has this slowed global warming?
-
And by approximately how much has this slowed global warming?
It's not high enough. We can in fact see from the examples of the Nordic countries that properly priced carbon schemes do in fact shift lifestyle habits and reduce outputs.
-
It's not high enough. We can in fact see from the examples of the Nordic countries that properly priced carbon schemes do in fact shift lifestyle habits and reduce outputs.
**** outta here with empirical evidence. This forum is for assumptions only.
-
It's not high enough. We can in fact see from the examples of the Nordic countries that properly priced carbon schemes do in fact shift lifestyle habits and reduce outputs.
Minor lifestyle shifts that add up to nothing when one looks at global carbon emissions. You can see how ineffective the policies are here:
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/norway/
-
**** outta here with empirical evidence. This forum is for assumptions only.
Says the person that categorically rejects all of the evidence that demonstrates that CO2 reductions are a pointless waste of resources.
-
Says the person that categorically rejects all of the evidence that demonstrates that CO2 reductions are a pointless waste of resources.
All the evidence that emits from 3% of qualified scientists.
-
All the evidence that emits from 3% of qualified scientists.
This is exactly the kind of psuedo-scientific drivil that makes alarmists so insufferable. If you look at statement I made and understood it you would see that the number of scientists thinking that CO2 is a problem is completely irrelevant. The number could be 100% but my statement would still be true. That is because my question was about whether CO2 reductions are cost effective and answering that requires a background in engineering and economics. The opinion of climate scientists on these questions is roughly equal to the opinion of a starbucks barista.
-
This is exactly the kind of psuedo-scientific drivil that makes alarmists so insufferable. If you look at statement I made and understood it you would see that the number of scientists thinking that CO2 is a problem is completely irrelevant. The number could be 100% but my statement would still be true. That is because my question was about whether CO2 reductions are cost effective and answering that requires a background in engineering and economics. The opinion of climate scientists on these questions is roughly equal to the opinion of a starbucks barista.
Do you also believe treating human waste before you throw it into the ocean is based on cost effectiveness. Would you be happy with a Starbucks barista prescribing medicine to you for an aliment? you have really outdone yourself this time in terms of "dumbness"
-
Would you be happy with a Starbucks barista prescribing medicine to you for an aliment? you have really outdone yourself this time in terms of "dumbness"
Remedial lesson in logic: comparing climate scientists to baristas does NOT mean I see baristas as an authority. It means exactly the opposite. I am saying that if you want expert advice you have to find the experts in the fields relevant to questions being asked. I would not ask my doctor for advice on fixing my car. Likewise I would not ask a climate scientist for advice on reducing CO2 emissions. You, OTOH, seem to think that an "expert" that you agree with immediately becomes the omniscient authority of everything. That kind of thinking is a textbook example of dumb.
-
Remedial lesson in logic: comparing climate scientists to baristas does NOT mean I see baristas as an authority. It means exactly the opposite. I am saying that if you want expert advice you have to find the experts in the fields relevant to questions being asked. I would not ask my doctor for advice on fixing my car. Likewise I would not ask a climate scientist for advice on reducing CO2 emissions. You, OTOH, seem to think that an "expert" that you agree with immediately becomes the omniscient authority of everything. That kind of thinking is a textbook example of dumb.
So if you took your car to 100 auto mechanics and 97 of them said you needed new brakes you would ignore them because you didn't want to believe you needed new brakes. That's dumb.
-
So if you took your car to 100 auto mechanics and 97 of them said you needed new brakes you would ignore them because you didn't want to believe you needed new brakes. That's dumb.
Breaks cost money, I am going to shop around for the opinion I like.
-
Minor lifestyle shifts that add up to nothing when one looks at global carbon emissions. You can see how ineffective the policies are here:
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/norway/
Yes, they are tiny countries.
-
So if you took your car to 100 auto mechanics and 97 of them said you needed new brakes you would ignore them because you didn't want to believe you needed new brakes. That's dumb.
You are really having a problem the concept of relevant expertise. When it comes to determining whether spending money on car repairs is cost effective then mechanics have relevant expertise. This is why a mechanic will tell you to fix your your breaks but not to rebuild in the engine block because of a small oil leak. Climate scientists have none of that kind of knowledge, training or data. They have a bunch of unverifiable computer models that indicate that CO2 might be a problem in the future. They have no knowledge of how the energy system works or negative consequences of eliminating fossil fuels. The people who do that have expertise are the engineers and project managers working in energy development and distribution. They are only people that could credibly claim that CO2 reductions are economically viable.
-
You are really having a problem the concept of relevant expertise. When it comes to determining whether spending money on car repairs is cost effective then mechanics have relevant expertise. This is why a mechanic will tell you to fix your your breaks but not to rebuild in the engine block because of a small oil leak. Climate scientists have none of that kind of knowledge, training or data. They have a bunch of unverifiable computer models that indicate that CO2 might be a problem in the future. They have no knowledge of how the energy system works or negative consequences of eliminating fossil fuels. The people who do that have expertise are the engineers and project managers working in energy development and distribution. They are only people that could credibly claim that CO2 reductions are economically viable.
Yes mechanics are trained and so are climate scientists. Also satellite pictures of melting arctic ice in huge amounts are not "unverifiable computer models". They show that CO2 is a problem now and will get worse if we don't do anything about it. If you don't understand the positive effects of eliminating fossil fuels you have never walked around the streets in the winter time in cities that burn coal for heat.
-
They show that CO2 is a problem now and will get worse if we don't do anything about it.
All climate scientists know is CO2 will cause warming. The question of whether warming is a "problem" is not known. It is merely a probability spectrum where bad outcomes are a possibility. Without real world data (i.e. a long history of problems from failed brakes), then no one can quantify the likelihood of bad outcomes from rising CO2.
If you don't understand the positive effects of eliminating fossil fuels you have never walked around the streets in the winter time in cities that burn coal for heat.
More logic fails from you. It makes no difference how much you think it would be a good idea to get rid of fossil fuels. What matters is the costs associated with using alternatives and whether those costs are low enough to make a complete switch a plausible option and whether any individual action provides benefits that are in line with the costs of the action. Climate scientists have no qualifications that would allow them to answer such questions. People who insist that they do have qualifications are like people insisting that a doctor can provide advice on fixing cars.
-
Can we have a super dumb flag? Only those with a monetary stake in the ground can tell you what is better for you. This argument about cost is the absolute most insane argument possible. The cost as you say is only in terms of artificial money, and of course those who stand to gain will game the system.
-
{Climate scientists} have none of that kind of knowledge, training or data. They have a bunch of unverifiable computer models that indicate that CO2 might be a problem in the future. They have no knowledge of how the energy system works or negative consequences of eliminating fossil fuels. The people who do that have expertise are the engineers and project managers working in energy development and distribution. They are only people that could credibly claim that CO2 reductions are economically viable.
"engineers and project managers" --- please provide citation showing recognized organizations/associations of your stated, "engineers and project managers", that have declared broad & complete positions against the need for CO2 emission reduction... that have declared specific positions against particular CO2 mitigating emission reduction policies.
equally, in line with your forever/oft stated acceptance of adaptation as the sole alternate strategy & approach to mitigating emissions reduction (rather, to your stated, in isolation, adaptation only alternative to a combined approach that includes mitigation, adaptation and prevention), please provide citation showing recognized organizations/associations of your stated, "engineers and project managers", that have declared specific positions to support the need for, in isolation to mitigation/prevention, adaptation only measures & policies to attempt to manage climate change impacts... that have declared specific positions, in isolation to mitigation/prevention, in favour of adaptation only measures & policies to attempt to manage the impacts of climate change.
-
All climate scientists know is CO2 will cause warming. The question of whether warming is a "problem" is not known. It is merely a probability spectrum where bad outcomes are a possibility. Without real world data (i.e. a long history of problems from failed brakes), then no one can quantify the likelihood of bad outcomes from rising CO2.
if you posit, "no/little likelihood of bad outcomes from rising CO2", what has your forever/oft stated fall-back position to accepting the need for adaptive measures to climate change been all about? Adaptation... to what then?
More logic fails from you. It makes no difference how much you think it would be a good idea to get rid of fossil fuels. What matters is the costs associated with using alternatives and whether those costs are low enough to make a complete switch a plausible option and whether any individual action provides benefits that are in line with the costs of the action. Climate scientists have no qualifications that would allow them to answer such questions. People who insist that they do have qualifications are like people insisting that a doctor can provide advice on fixing cars.
standard strawman (of yours): where is the call for, as you say, "a complete switch"?
-
Can we have a super dumb flag? Only those with a monetary stake in the ground can tell you what is better for you. This argument about cost is the absolute most insane argument possible. The cost as you say is only in terms of artificial money, and of course those who stand to gain will game the system.
I'd like to see you survive without "artificial" money.
-
Can we have a super dumb flag? Only those with a monetary stake in the ground can tell you what is better for you. This argument about cost is the absolute most insane argument possible. The cost as you say is only in terms of artificial money, and of course those who stand to gain will game the system.
I am not the one trying to argue that no one can have a valid opinion other than climate scientists. I realize that you object to the notion of turning to people who might disagree with you for advice but by objecting to using people with with appropriate expertise you prove how intellectually dishonest your really arguments are.
-
"engineers and project managers" --- please provide citation showing recognized organizations/associations of your stated, "engineers and project managers", that have declared broad & complete positions against the need for CO2 emission reduction... that have declared specific positions against particular CO2 mitigating emission reduction policies.
Who cares what politically motivated professional societies may have to say? What matters are the result of cost analysis done by qualified people (i.e. people who will be held responsible if a project fails) on different possible CO2 reduction strategies. Some strategies may be useful but expensive (nuclear). Some may be expensive and useless (solar/wind because of the need for backup power).
Whether you want to believe it or not the numbers don't add up and the proof is in the lack of any real progress. If reducing CO2 emissions was an economically viable option there would be no political opposition. It would be just be done.
-
If reducing CO2 emissions was an economically viable option there would be no political opposition. It would be just be done.
is this you stating that all 'political opposition' reflects upon (your perceived) economic viability? ;D
-
If reducing CO2 emissions was an economically viable option there would be no political opposition. It would be just be done.
You might want to add tautology to your list of logical fallacies that you like to throw around.
-
I'd like to see you survive without "artificial" money.
Sure thing, make me banker and I will create the rules. You don't seem to understand how artificial the system is, aand it has warped costs to further a certain agenda.
-
Sure thing, make me banker and I will create the rules. You don't seem to understand how artificial the system is, aand it has warped costs to further a certain agenda.
You don’t seem to understand that our society can’t function without a monetary system. Unless you think everyone can survive by producing their own food and goods or straight barter.
-
You don’t seem to understand that our society can’t function without a monetary system. Unless you think everyone can survive by producing their own food and goods or straight barter.
I do understand that living your life bound by these rules has closed you mind.
-
I do understand that living your life bound by these rules has closed you mind.
Closed it to what? How would your brave new world function?
-
You might want to add tautology to your list of logical fallacies that you like to throw around.
In the last 30 years the internet/wireless have fundamentally changed society. Entire industries have been wiped out (video rental, camera film) and many others have been forced to adapt (journalism). This was mostly financed by private money and faced little opposition from people who would have preferred the status quo. IOW, our society *will* embrace radical change when the change is economically viable. When it comes to CO2 policy the opposition stems entirely from the fact that there are no economically viable options that would make any difference. People who think the opposition is based on "resistance to change" or "big oil lobbies" are inventing conspiracy theories to avoid acknowledging the hard economic reality. If CO2 free options were economically viable they would be embraced just like the Internet was embraced.
-
In the last 30 years the internet/wireless have fundamentally changed society. Entire industries have been wiped out (video rental, camera film) and many others have been forced to adapt (journalism). This was mostly financed by private money and faced little opposition from people who would have preferred the status quo. IOW, our society *will* embrace radical change when the change is economically viable. When it comes to CO2 policy the opposition stems entirely from the fact that there are no economically viable options that would make any difference. People who think the opposition is based on "resistance to change" or "big oil lobbies" are inventing conspiracy theories to avoid acknowledging the hard economic reality. If CO2 free options were economically viable they would be embraced just like the Internet was embraced.
Little oil companies, you know such as Exxon-Mobil have been planning to adapt to renewable energy for some time now, (I know because I used to work for them) because they are smart enough to see the inevitability of having to do so and don't want to get caught with their pants down. You seem to be stuck in the ancient frame of mind that harks back to when people thought the horseless carriage would never be a serious alternative.
-
Little oil companies, you know such as Exxon-Mobil have been planning to adapt to renewable energy for some time now.
Yep. As I said: if CO2 free sources were economically viable there would be a mad rush to adopt them without requiring government subsidies and no proponent of the status quo could stop them. But that is not happening because (an only because) there are no real alternatives to fossil fuels at this time.
-
Yep. As I said: if CO2 free sources were economically viable there would be a mad rush to adopt them without requiring government subsidies and no proponent of the status quo could stop them. But that is not happening because (an only because) there are no real alternatives to fossil fuels at this time.
Apparently you're still in "the dark" as to how the world is moving toward renewables at an ever increasing rate to keep the lights on.
"It's a new milestone: Europe got more of its power from solar, wind and biomass than coal last year. But when it comes to investment, the European industry is in decline as China steals the title of renewables pioneer."
http://www.dw.com/en/europe-breaks-own-renewables-record-but-cant-keep-up-with-china/a-42386502
-
"It's a new milestone: Europe got more of its power from solar, wind and biomass than coal last year.
ROTFL. Renewable boosters are so desperate to claim progress that they engage in outright deception.
The stats in the article refer to nameplate capacity which means nothing since renewables don't produce all of the time and sometimes when they produce their power cannot be used. When you look at actual energy production you see a very different picture:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Production_of_primary_energy,_EU-28,_2015_(%25_of_total,_based_on_tonnes_of_oil_equivalent)_YB17.png
A mere 4% of european energy production comes from solar or wind despite the massive investment.
But go ahead - live in your world of delusions. The people behind the scenes that are actually responsible for keeping the lights on will quitely keep those fossil fuel plants running because those people know that renewables are a joke because it is their job to know.
-
Interesting that just recently, BC Hydro said they want to stop paying for electricity residential solar systems put into the grid because they have no market for it. When the sun shines, electricity demand goes down. Who knew.
-
ROTFL. Renewable boosters are so desperate to claim progress that they engage in outright deception.
The stats in the article refer to nameplate capacity which means nothing since renewables don't produce all of the time and sometimes when they produce their power cannot be used. When you look at actual energy production you see a very different picture:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Production_of_primary_energy,_EU-28,_2015_(%25_of_total,_based_on_tonnes_of_oil_equivalent)_YB17.png
A mere 4% of european energy production comes from solar or wind despite the massive investment.
But go ahead - live in your world of delusions. The people behind the scenes that are actually responsible for keeping the lights on will quitely keep those fossil fuel plants running because those people know that renewables are a joke because it is their job to know.
ROTF once again you demonstrate you either don't read well or simply keep your blinders on. In any case, the people who are really in the dark don't quite get that there is a last barrel of junk fuel in the ground and that we will need to look elsewhere before we get to it or we will all be in the dark. Not to mention we should work toward not killing off large numbers of people annually with the garbage we put into the air.
-
Closed it to what? How would your brave new world function?
I wouldn't reward those who exploit the worlds resources and leave a mess for future generations. That is central to the current model, and any minor attempt to mitigate it (e.g. carbon tax, resource extraction tax) is met with hostility by those with entrenched position in the current system and supported by their ignorant followers.
-
When you look at actual energy production you see a very different picture:
The graph you linked to showed renewable producing 26.7%, and coal producing 18.9%. That seems exactly in line with the previous statement, what are you trying to say?
-
I wouldn't reward those who exploit the worlds resources and leave a mess for future generations. That is central to the current model, and any minor attempt to mitigate it (e.g. carbon tax, resource extraction tax) is met with hostility by those with entrenched position in the current system and supported by their ignorant followers.
So you don't know. Didn't think so.
-
The graph you linked to showed renewable producing 26.7%, and coal producing 18.9%. That seems exactly in line with the previous statement, what are you trying to say?
Look at the breakdown for renewables. Renewables includes a lot of biomass which is not really CO2 emission free. It status depends on the assumption that CO2 emissions required to harvest the biomass are insignificant and that burned biomass will be replaced faster than it is burned. This is not necessarily true. Only ~15% is wind or solar. That makes solar/wind a mere 4% of the total yet the headline makes it sound like wind/solar are significant players.
That said, I will acknowledge misreading the original op. I missed the comparison to coal. I thought it was all fossil fuels. Does not change my point about solar/wind being insignificant players despite the trillions being wasted on building out the infrastructure.
-
Look at the breakdown for renewables. Renewables includes a lot of biomass which is not really CO2 emission free. It status depends on the assumption that CO2 emissions required to harvest the biomass are insignificant and that burned biomass will be replaced faster than it is burned. This is not necessarily true. Only ~15% is wind or solar. That makes solar/wind a mere 4% of the total yet the headline makes it sound like wind/solar are significant players.
Ok, lets look closely at the graph (I used a ruler in a graphics package) and converting to percent of total I get:
Geothermal - 0.9%
Solar - 1.8%
Wind - 3.3%
Hydro - 3.4%
Biomass/waste - 17.4%
That makes Solar & Wind 5.1%. Discounting the others however is ridiculous. Yes the assumption is that biomass & waste will regrow in a number of years, and that number is usually measured in decades where fossil fuels is measured in hundreds of millions of years. There is at least a million to one difference. Note also that the biomass and waste could of course just decompose and release its C02 anyway and we get no energy from it, although yes we might get other useful byproducts.
-
Who cares what politically motivated professional societies may have to say? What matters are the result of cost analysis done by qualified people (i.e. people who will be held responsible if a project fails) on different possible CO2 reduction strategies. Some strategies may be useful but expensive (nuclear). Some may be expensive and useless (solar/wind because of the need for backup power).
"politically motivated professional societies" - oh really! ;D how so - do tell, do tell
your perpetual dismissal of science and the world-wide body of scientists and scientific organizations/institutions is LEGION... good to read you bringing forward a new 'wrinkle' here with your outright dismissal of 'engineering and project management' related professional societies. You're such a rebel!
I'm shocked you can't provide the cites I've asked you for - shocked I tells ya - shocked!
Whether you want to believe it or not the numbers don't add up and the proof is in the lack of any real progress. If reducing CO2 emissions was an economically viable option there would be no political opposition. It would be just be done.
I'll ask again: do you claim all manner of 'political opposition' reflects upon (your perceived) economic viability? You mean... there's no oppo related to luddite deniers & fake skeptics - like you?
-
A mere 4% of european energy production comes from solar or wind despite the massive investment.
how disingenuous can you be? You're so full of ****! Why choose the full complement of/across 28 countries... why not target the top 5... even the top 10 leading EU countries?
-
Yes the assumption is that biomass & waste will regrow in a number of years, and that number is usually measured in decades where fossil fuels is measured in hundreds of millions of years.
That is a big assumption and when politicians set 'targets' that have no connection to reality the people tasked with running the system will look the other way if suppliers are using inefficient harvesting methods or are failing to replant the biomass (the diesel emission cheating is a good example of the 'what I don't know can't hurt me' process in action). Biomass is also not where the majority of money is being spent - most of that is going into solar and wind which is providing a miserable return on investment. So it is deceptive to use biomass to exaggerate the "success" of wind and solar.
Please note that I am not against solar and wind if we had economically viable grid scale storage. The trouble is grid scale storage with the capacity required to replace 24x7 baseload is prohibitively expensive and there are no signs that costs will drop by the orders of magnitude required to make it viable.
-
Yet another display of tautology.
-
A Carbon Tax and/or Cap and Trade Schemes are useless tax grabs.
And these versions aren't even revenue neutral like the one Stephane Dion got trounced advocating for in 2008.
-
A Carbon Tax and/or Cap and Trade Schemes are useless tax grabs.
So you think that people should be rewardes for bad behavior? If you destroy the environment, or if you deplete resources then that is to be commended rather than taxed?
-
So you think that people should be rewardes for bad behavior? If you destroy the environment, or if you deplete resources then that is to be commended rather than taxed?
Driving isn't bad behaviour, it's transportation, often to places where you go contribute to the economy(and the tax base). Money spent on an ADDITIONAL gasoline tax is money taken from other parts of the economy.
I fully support pursuing more fuel efficient models or embracing electric car models. Why are hybrids so much more expensive?
A good percentage of our country can't use public transit to anything else.
-
A good percentage of our country can't use public transit to anything else.
Public transit would be much better if people actually used it instead of wanting to drive their SUV everywhere.
-
Public transit would be much better if people actually used it instead of wanting to drive their SUV everywhere.
They do use it when it is efficient. Unless there is a reason I need to take a vehicle, I always take Skytrain into downtown Vancouver. Of course I have to drive for 45 minutes to the nearest station.
-
Public transit would be much better if people actually used it instead of wanting to drive their SUV everywhere.
Not technically true. Public transit is only more energy efficient when there is high population density. If someone wants to go to the store at 8PM an SUV is actually more efficient than a diesel bus:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008/pdf
-
Not technically true. Public transit is only more energy efficient when there is high population density. If someone wants to go to the store at 8PM an SUV is actually more efficient than a diesel bus:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008/pdf
They usually don't put public transit in places that don't have high population density. Try again l'il buddy.
-
They usually don't put public transit in places that don't have high population density. Try again l'il buddy.
If you read the link and educated yourself instead of pontificating you would have found that off peak diesel buses consume more energy per passenger mile than trucks or SUVs even in high density areas because the number of passengers drops off. Hence my point about it being more energy efficient to drive an SUV at 8PM than take a bus.
-
If you read the link and educated yourself instead of pontificating you would have found that off peak diesel buses consume more energy per passenger mile than trucks or SUVs even in high density areas because the number of passengers drops off. Hence my point about it being more energy efficient to drive an SUV at 8PM than take a bus.
So all you are confirming to us is that idiots that like to drive their SUV's even though public transit is still available but they don't want to adjust their schedule because they like to go when they want and to hell with the environment. Sounds about right.
-
Public transit would be much better if people actually used it instead of wanting to drive their SUV everywhere.
Yeah all drivers use SUVs.
Even if you did use public transit to get from one community to another, you have the first and last mile problem.
In Toronto specifically, if everyone stopped driving tomorrow, the public transit system would be overwhelmed.
With Public transit, trips that could take 45 minutes take 2 hours.
It's just not feasible for a vast number of people. The government creates urban sprawl and now is punishing people for participating in it.
-
So all you are confirming to us is that idiots that like to drive their SUV's even though public transit is still available but they don't want to adjust their schedule because they like to go when they want and to hell with the environment. Sounds about right.
Yeah freedom is cool ain't it. I like walking to places wherever possible, but if you can go some place in 5 minutes or a half hour, it's far more efficient of your time to use a car.
It's less about money or the environment than people's time. And YES! people should want to move where they work (I currently do and it's great), but that's very difficult with Real Estate prices and the fact that couples may work in different cities.
And you make yourself look foolish by going back to this SUV pejorative. People who buy SUV are often families that need to transport multiple people to multiple places. I drive a 4 cylinder sedan that gets 500-600 kms per 50L tank.
-
In Toronto specifically, if everyone stopped driving tomorrow, the public transit system would be overwhelmed.
...
It's just not feasible for a vast number of people. The government creates urban sprawl and now is punishing people for participating in it.
Of course if the system is not designed to meet the capacity then you would have problems, no ****.
The feasibility is just plain stupid. You can increase the capacity of the public transit system far more effectively than private vehicles on roads. The selfish people who want to drive their SUV everywhere are punishing the rest of us with their selfish behavior.
-
And you make yourself look foolish by going back to this SUV pejorative. People who buy SUV are often families that need ...
Ok, how about the morons with their F-350's, that always drives alone and with nothing in the back. To further exasperate their selfish behavior the nutcases are always speeding, and accelerating and breaking hard. I see those jerks continually, so don't tell me some sad story about they may need it for that once they pick up a couple of bags of topsoil in the spring.
-
Ok, how about the morons with their F-350's, that always drives alone and with nothing in the back. To further exasperate their selfish behavior the nutcases are always speeding, and accelerating and breaking hard. I see those jerks continually, so don't tell me some sad story about they may need it for that once they pick up a couple of bags of topsoil in the spring.
And it seems many of those same morons modify the exhaust system so it makes even more noise as they leave the bar parking lot.
-
And it seems many of those same morons modify the exhaust system so it makes even more noise as they leave the bar parking lot.
Pretty hard to do that with the newer diesels. Even if It is possible, it means deleting the entire emissions system and adding around $2000 in off road only electronics and anther parts. Illegal and voids warranty but some people still do it.
My peave is mufflerless Harley’s. I like the sound of a V twin as much as anyone but not at 110+ dB. These guys are the adult equivalent of the 17 yr old with the 10,000 watt sound system who sits beside you at light playing rap with it cranked up to 9.
-
Pretty hard to do that with the newer diesels. Even if It is possible, it means deleting the entire emissions system and adding around $2000 in off road only electronics and anther parts. Illegal and voids warranty but some people still do it.
My peave is mufflerless Harley’s. I like the sound of a V twin as much as anyone but not at 110+ dB. These guys are the adult equivalent of the 17 yr old with the 10,000 watt sound system who sits beside you at light playing rap with it cranked up to 9.
Agree with both of these. "Coal rollers" are ****. The motorcycles are awful here. The little Japanese cars with the gigantic "fart cannon" mufflers are awful as well.
-k
-
Ok, how about the morons with their F-350's, that always drives alone and with nothing in the back. To further exasperate their selfish behavior the nutcases are always speeding, and accelerating and breaking hard. I see those jerks continually, so don't tell me some sad story about they may need it for that once they pick up a couple of bags of topsoil in the spring.
It's hilarious that you use anecdotes and stereotypes to make an argument about anything. I'm sure you don't like when people do that about stuff. . . like say Muslims.
Most people who own a car do it because they need to regularly get somewhere conveniently at a good price and don't want to be on 3 buses for 2 hours, twice a day.
A Carbon Tax doesn't change that behaviour.
-
Agree with both of these. "Coal rollers" are ****. The motorcycles are awful here. The little Japanese cars with the gigantic "fart cannon" mufflers are awful as well.
-k
And what some here are implying are carbon taxes on the whole population is a good response to these toolbags.
-
As a matter of policy the green side believes that higher fuel costs will give people an impetus to conserve fuel, change their habits, and adopt green technologies. That's the main rationale for a carbon tax at the consumer level, right?
And yet here in BC as fuel costs rise, we have Premier Horgan calling on Ottawa to provide "leadership" on the issue of higher fuel costs, and we have Attorney General David Eby vowing to sue Alberta for economic damages should Premier Notley make good on the threat to switch the existing pipeline over to bitumen.
It all seems very contradictory. Why, if increased fuel costs are a good thing, is Horgan asking for Ottawa to do something to stop it? Why is Eby threatening to sue Notley for "economic damage" resulting from increased fuel prices? I thought this kind of "economic damage" was exactly the kind of impetus greenie types believe is necessary to drive people to embrace green tech.
Should Eby also sue Horgan and Weber for economic damage resulting from higher fuel prices?
-k
-
Should Notley sue Horgan for the economic damage Alberta suffers from BC obstructing the pipeline? After all, the damage to Alberta's economy is real, BC's is just hypothetical.
-
Should Notley sue Horgan for the economic damage Alberta suffers from BC obstructing the pipeline? After all, the damage to Alberta's economy is real
Actually, no, it isn't. It's also hypothetical.
-
What's real is the logical contradiction between the idea that raising carbon taxes to get people to change their behavior is GOOD and beneficial, while gas prices rising due to other factors is BAD and harmful.
-k
-
Actually, no, it isn't. It's also hypothetical.
The uncertainty created by NIMBYs opposing pipelines has had significant impact on investment in Alberta. Imperial Oil recently a halt to all new projects in Canada because of the hostile regulatory environment. It was not all due to BC opposition but it was part of it.
-
What's real is the logical contradiction between the idea that raising carbon taxes to get people to change their behavior is GOOD and beneficial, while gas prices rising due to other factors is BAD and harmful.
It does not matter why prices go up because the impact on the consumer is the same. If higher prices are desirable then higher prices because OPEC wants to make more money must be a good thing. It is illogical to argue otherwise.
-
Actually, no, it isn't. It's also hypothetical.
Not being able to export your products isn't hypothetical. 35% of Manitoba's agricultural exports go to countries other than the US. How much damage would be done to the Manitoba economy if its exports were restricted to only the US, just as Alberta's oil exports are restricted?
-
It does not matter why prices go up because the impact on the consumer is the same. If higher prices are desirable then higher prices because OPEC wants to make more money must be a good thing. It is illogical to argue otherwise.
This is what I'm getting at. We've got Horgan boosting the carbon tax, while pleading for Ottawa to "provide leadership" on fuel costs, and David Eby threatening to sue Alberta if Notley restricts gasoline flow to BC.
And why isn't Andrew Webber out on the streets explaining why high gas prices are a great thing for British Columbia?
-k
-
It does not matter why prices go up because the impact on the consumer is the same. If higher prices are desirable then higher prices because OPEC wants to make more money must be a good thing. It is illogical to argue otherwise.
It's only a bad thing because the revenues are going to industry instead of into government coffers. That's why Horgan wants the feds to provide relief, his government would have no chance of even maintaining the claim of a balanced budget if it lowered any provincial tax on fuel.
-
And why isn't Andrew Webber out on the streets explaining why high gas prices are a great thing for British Columbia?
Because he has musicals to compose?
-
You know the fucken guy I meant. Whatever the **** his name is.
-k
-
Not being able to export your products isn't hypothetical.
Sure it is - it hasn't happened. Actual economic damage would involve a shrinking in the economic base.
-
Sure it is - it hasn't happened. Actual economic damage would involve a shrinking in the economic base.
So other provinces can arbitrarily decide whether another province can grow its economy or replace existing markets and you are fine with that.
Without Churchill, Manitoba would be at the mercy of other provinces to get its products to a Canadian port.
-
It does not matter why prices go up because the impact on the consumer is the same. If higher prices are desirable then higher prices because OPEC wants to make more money must be a good thing. It is illogical to argue otherwise.
Wrong times a thousand billion. Carbon taxes go to pay for things we all need, and to invest in alternative energies.
-
Wrong times a thousand billion. Carbon taxes go to pay for things we all need, and to invest in alternative energies.
Irrelevant. The issue is if someone believes that higher fossil prices is good they have no business demanding that governments do something to lower prices. Higher prices are good no matter what the reason if climate change is the real issue. What is really happening is shameless politicking because politicians know that support for "action" on climate change disappears as soon as people are asked to make sacrifices so they focus on wasting money on pointless gestures that don't do enough to have any real effect on consumer behavior. We are seeing that hypocrisy on full display in BC where politicians whine about the carbon emissions from oil pipelines and while asking for federal help on gas prices. A little tip: if people in BC really want lower gas prices they could stop trying to screw over their major supplier of oil.
-
It does not matter why prices go up because the impact on the consumer is the same. If higher prices are desirable then higher prices because OPEC wants to make more money must be a good thing. It is illogical to argue otherwise.
Your post is a little hard to follow but are you trying to say for instance that the carbon tax levied by the province of BC years ago is being handed over to OPEC.?
-
Irrelevant. The issue is if someone believes that higher fossil prices is good they have no business demanding that governments do something to lower prices. Higher prices are good no matter what the reason if climate change is the real issue. What is really happening is shameless politicking because politicians know that support for "action" on climate change disappears as soon as people are asked to make sacrifices so they focus on wasting money on pointless gestures that don't do enough to have any real effect on consumer behavior. We are seeing that hypocrisy on full display in BC where politicians whine about the carbon emissions from oil pipelines and while asking for federal help on gas prices. A little tip: if people in BC really want lower gas prices they could stop trying to screw over their major supplier of oil.
The BC carbon tax hasn't "disappeared" as you seem to suggest all efforts always do, and has been in place for 10 years and has reportedly reduced emissions in the province by ~15%. The tax was revenue neutral for roughly half that time but then governments did fall back on reducing provincial income/corporate taxes. That's where the politics come in but here's a tip for you: People who understand the evidence of, and therefore have concerns about global warming, don't wish for higher prices them to "screw over" anybody.
-
Without Churchill, Manitoba would be at the mercy of other provinces to get its products to a Canadian port.
Churchill hasn't been accessible for a year now...
-
The BC carbon tax hasn't "disappeared" as you seem to suggest all efforts always do, and has been in place for 10 years and has reportedly reduced emissions in the province by ~15%. The tax was revenue neutral for roughly half that time but then governments did fall back on reducing provincial income/corporate taxes. That's where the politics come in but here's a tip for you: People who understand the evidence of, and therefore have concerns about global warming, don't wish for higher prices them to "screw over" anybody.
Nonetheless, the claim that the carbon tax has reduced emissions by 15% seems predicated on the premise that higher costs reduce consumption and encourage people to change their behavior.
If that's the case, why does it matter if the higher cost comes from Rachel Notley or from sanctions being put on Iranian oil, or from some other reason? Ultimately, the green-people say that higher costs reduce consumption and save the environment. Higher gasoline costs are good. Therefore green-people should be happy if Notley causes gas prices to rise. Andrew Lloyd Weaver should write Notley a thank-you if she reduces gasoline flow to BC, shouldn't he?
-k
-
Nonetheless, the claim that the carbon tax has reduced emissions by 15% seems predicated on the premise that higher costs reduce consumption and encourage people to change their behavior.
If that's the case, why does it matter if the higher cost comes from Rachel Notley or from sanctions being put on Iranian oil, or from some other reason? Ultimately, the green-people say that higher costs reduce consumption and save the environment. Higher gasoline costs are good. Therefore green-people should be happy if Notley causes gas prices to rise. Andrew Lloyd Weaver should write Notley a thank-you if she reduces gasoline flow to BC, shouldn't he?
-k
I certainly don't propose to speak for "green people" but I think to say they are just happy for higher prices for whatever reason is a completely blind assumption. (of the timg variety) I do think that people will pay a bit extra if the proceeds go towards healthy alternatives and not into OPEC's pockets is acceptable. I guess it depends on how well you can ignore climate science.
-
Churchill hasn't been accessible for a year now...
So there you go, you would be screwed.
-
There are a lot of reasons that contribute to lowering emissions. As less efficient system are replaced with newer more efficient ones, emissions will go down. Technology is a big driver and to give carbon taxes all the credit is just crap.
-
Of course new technology will be the driving force as opposed to the ancient technology of drilling a hole in the ground and sucking up another barrel of oil to burn sending the ash up into the atmosphere.
-
Of course new technology will be the driving force as opposed to the ancient technology of drilling a hole in the ground and sucking up another barrel of oil to burn sending the ash up into the atmosphere.
Drilling for oil is an extremely high tech enterprise: especially something like fracking. Windmills are the truly ancient tech. They have been around for millennia and their deficiencies have not gone away even as the materials improve.
-
Drilling for oil is an extremely high tech enterprise: especially something like fracking. Windmills are the truly ancient tech. They have been around for millennia and their deficiencies have not gone away even as the materials improve.
Fracking is old tech: it's just directional drilling followed by explosives that tend to release pollutants in all directions rather than just into the pipe that was intended. And yes windmills have been used for some time, but the technology for capturing it's endless energy has advanced significantly. The sun has been around for quite awhile as well so I've heard. Do you ever fear it won't come up tomorrow?
-
The notion that carbon taxes are a primary motivator in the development of more efficient technologies is just nonsense. They may have an effect on public behaviour but how much is certainly open for debate.
-
The notion that carbon taxes are a primary motivator in the development of more efficient technologies is just nonsense. They may have an effect on public behaviour but how much is certainly open for debate.
Of course, carbon taxes are simply a way to reduce consumption in the interim. Development of new techs will flow from realization that they are the way of the future.
-
Of course, carbon taxes are simply a way to reduce consumption in the interim. Development of new techs will flow from realization that they are the way of the future.
They may be a way of reducing consumption but it is far from proved. The fact is, per capita emissions have declined in almost all provinces, with or without carbon taxes.
-
They may be a way of reducing consumption but it is far from proved. The fact is, per capita emissions have declined in almost all provinces, with or without carbon taxes.
That's perhaps a sign that people are getting educated on the topic.