Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28607 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #735 on: June 07, 2019, 03:59:20 pm »
You and your fellow crusaders seem to be under the delusion that fossil fuels are subsidized and that if they subsidies were ended there would be a big pile of cash to to spend your pet projects. This is nonsense. The potential loss of revenues to government is proof that it is nonsense.

If Canada stopped subsidizing fossil fuel production there would be around 3.3 billion available to invest is renewables.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #736 on: June 07, 2019, 04:01:17 pm »
You and your fellow crusaders seem to be under the delusion that fossil fuels are subsidized

Here are some of those delusions for you to ponder:

Canadian Development Expense - $1,018 million
Canadian Exploration Expense - $148 million
Crown Royalty Reductions (Alberta) - $1,161 million
Deep Drilling Credit (British Columbia) $271 million
Atlantic Investment Tax Credit - $127 million
Other - $589 million
Total: $3.3 billion

ref: 2014 Report

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #737 on: June 07, 2019, 04:12:22 pm »
Here are some of those delusions for you to ponder:
Total revenues from fossil fuel royalties: 6-10 billion. Total revenue from fuel excise taxes: $15 billion.

Like I said: fossil fuels are a net revenue generator. There are no subsidies to eliminate.

Furthermore, most of those are tax deductions and credits available to every industry in different forms because creating a profitable business always has expenses. Getting rid of them would result in less revenue for the government as companies invest less and make lower profits.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #738 on: June 07, 2019, 04:16:17 pm »
Total revenues from fossil fuel royalties: 6-10 billion. Total revenue from fuel excise taxes: $15 billion.

Like I said: fossil fuels are a net revenue generator. There are no subsidies to eliminate.

Furthermore, most of those are tax deductions and credits available to every industry in different forms because creating a profitable business always has expenses. Getting rid of them would result in less revenue for the government as companies invest less and make lower profits.

So why then are we subsidizing them to the tune of over 3 billion to continue to pollute our planet when we could be collecting revenue each time you charge up your EV?
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #739 on: June 07, 2019, 04:22:06 pm »
Getting rid of them would result in less revenue for the government as companies invest less and make lower profits.

You seem to think that if there were no fossil fuels trade would come to halt. You realize that other energy industries also contribute to trade, and hence government revenues.

... and before you go off on your old tirade; nobody is suggesting turning off the tap tomorrow, the point is focusing investment in sustainable futures instead.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #740 on: June 07, 2019, 04:37:35 pm »
You seem to think that if there were no fossil fuels trade would come to halt. You realize that other energy industries also contribute to trade, and hence government revenues.
No other industries produce a product that is so profitable that the government can collect billions in taxes from every unit shipped and then collect special excise taxes when bought by the consumers. There is no way those revenues would be replaced by other energy sources which struggle to make a profit without subsidies.

... and before you go off on your old tirade; nobody is suggesting turning off the tap tomorrow, the point is focusing investment in sustainable futures instead.
My point is there is no pool of money from "fossil fuel" subsidies that can be reallocated. Fossil fuels are net revenue generator for government.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2019, 01:03:25 am by TimG »

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #741 on: June 07, 2019, 04:44:08 pm »
.
My point is there is no pool of money from "fossil fuel" subsidies that can be reallocated. Fossil fuels are net revenue generator for government.
[/quote]

So why are we continuing to subsidize the industry?
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #742 on: June 07, 2019, 05:20:39 pm »

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #743 on: June 07, 2019, 05:36:50 pm »

There are no subsidies to switch.

Nonsense. The data is just not being released by the Liberals.

In his spring 2017 report, the auditor general found that the Department of Finance along with Environment and Climate Change Canada — responsible, respectively, for the tax and non-tax portion of the commitment — hadn't yet defined what an "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidy was, let alone figured out a way to cut or phase them out.

And real numbers have been hard to come by.

Under pressure from environmental groups this past June, Jim Carr announced a study to pinpoint how much Ottawa and the provinces actually spend to support the fossil fuel industry, the results of which will eventually be made public.

A recent report from the Overseas Development Institute, a U.K. think tank, that compares all the G7 nations gave Ottawa low marks on transparency and ranked Canada the worst at ending support for oil and gas production.

By its figures, Canada was providing a total of $4.63 billion US ($6.25 billion CDN) in support to fossil fuel industries, the most per capita in the G7.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/national-today-newsletter-canada-oil-subsidies-us-politics-1.4950380
« Last Edit: June 07, 2019, 06:16:00 pm by Granny »

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #744 on: June 08, 2019, 12:22:50 am »
Nonsense. The data is just not being released by the Liberals.
The data does not say what you think it says because it only looks at one side of the ledger. Any full and honest accounting must take into account the direct revenues that governments get from fossil fuel production and sale. Governments make ~$20 billion per year in direct revenue from fossil fuels which far exceeds any alleged subsidies. On top of that many of the so called subsidies are not subsidies at all but simply tax rules that all corporations benefit from in one way or another.

No matter how you twist and turn, the argument that fossil fuels in canada are net recipients of subsidies is unequivocally false.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #745 on: June 08, 2019, 12:28:56 am »
The data does not say what you think it says because it only looks at one side of the ledger. Any full and honest accounting must take into account the direct revenues that governments get from fossil fuel production and sale. Governments make ~$20 billion per year in direct revenue from fossil fuels which far exceeds any alleged subsidies. On top of that many of the so called subsidies are not subsidies at all but simply tax rules that all corporations benefit from in one way or another.

No matter how you twist and turn, the argument that fossil fuels in canada are net recipients of subsidies is unequivocally false.

How much does Canada give out in fossil fuel subsidies?

About $3.3 billion for oil and gas producers (currency in Canadian dollars).

https://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies/

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #746 on: June 08, 2019, 12:47:12 am »
About $3.3 billion for oil and gas producers (currency in Canadian dollars).
And oil and gas producers pay about $6-10 billion per year in royalties. A 100%+ return on investment is pretty good deal for taxpayers. Of course, that assumes that everything on the list is really a subsidy. Most are are simply tax rules that every corporation benefits from in one way or another.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #747 on: June 08, 2019, 03:55:34 am »
Of course, that assumes that everything on the list is really a subsidy. Most are are simply tax rules that every corporation benefits from in one way or another.
Furthermore, most of those are tax deductions and credits available to every industry in different forms because creating a profitable business always has expenses.
You and your fellow crusaders seem to be under the delusion that fossil fuels are subsidized...

and what have the 164 member states of the WTO agreed to?


Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #748 on: June 08, 2019, 07:04:32 am »
And oil and gas producers pay about $6-10 billion per year in royalties. A 100%+ return on investment is pretty good deal for taxpayers. Of course, that assumes that everything on the list is really a subsidy. Most are are simply tax rules that every corporation benefits from in one way or another.

Irrelevant, Tim. The fossil fuel issue is not about short term profits. It's now about the long term pain it is causing.
We're aware that fossil fuels are profitable in the short term - if we don't include environmental costs.  Profitability is not the reason for winding down fossil fuels.
Damage is.

Yes there are still federal subsidies, and we want those federal subsidies to be transferred to renewables.

I tracked down a federal subsidy to a startup oil company once - $150m.
In their first year of operation - not drilling yet - the company posted a profit of ... $150m.
Weird. Public money should never be 'profit' for investors. Something hinky there.

Alberta can subsidize if it wants, but that federal money needs to be invested in the future of clezn energy, not shoring up dirty energy.

Fossil fuels were never cheap. We just subsidized them and passed the environmental costs on to the future.
We can't afford to do that anymore.
And the kids are really pissed at us about that: Have you heard of them protesting in the streets worldwide?
It's their future we've compromised.



Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #749 on: June 08, 2019, 07:38:11 pm »
Updated report on polar ice melt due to global warming not good news.

The Arctic is heating up twice as fast as the global average, causing massive melting of sea ice. But while we know climate change is warming the Arctic air, there is a lot more happening under the ice that we don't fully understand.

A team of interdisciplinary scientists is here on a study facilitated by Greenpeace, at the start of the environmental group's nearly year-long pole-to-pole expedition. The scientists want to learn more about this threat beneath the ice, which could potentially destroy the cycle of life that starts here, and threaten the lives of people all over the planet.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/08/world/arctic-beneath-ice-intl/index.html