Author Topic: Wreck of Saskatchewan  (Read 573 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline the_squid

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4164
Wreck of Saskatchewan
« on: April 26, 2018, 03:47:10 pm »
No, not the artificial reef

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/

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2018, 03:59:46 pm »
How is it in the national interest to cripple our economy in order to accomplish nothing whatsoever?
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum
Agree Agree x 1 Winner Winner x 1 Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline Goddess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 817
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2018, 05:12:04 pm »
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!)
"A religion without a Goddess is half-way to atheism."

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4344
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2018, 10:55:55 pm »
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
Masked for your safety.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2018, 11:53:50 pm »
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.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 12:50:32 am by TimG »

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3457
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2018, 03:16:41 pm »
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.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2018, 03:21:50 pm »
Alberta had a carbon tax for years now.

And by approximately how much has this slowed global warming?
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3457
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2018, 01:46:54 pm »
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.
Agree Agree x 3 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2915
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2018, 02:02:46 pm »
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.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2018, 02:27:38 pm »
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/

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2018, 02:29:04 pm »
**** 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.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8560
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2018, 02:33:03 pm »
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.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2018, 03:35:04 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 03:37:04 pm by TimG »
Dumb Dumb x 4 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8560
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2018, 04:13:32 pm »
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"
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2018, 04:44:34 pm »
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.