Ford trumps Trudeau on Carbon Tax | GTAMotorcycle.com

Ford trumps Trudeau on Carbon Tax

Mad Mike

Mad Mike

Well-known member
It looks like Trudeau has learned a little about the a penal system from his buddy Doug Ford. Ford has stood by his position that the federal system would damage competitiveness for Canada, today the feds acknowledged such and walked back their emission penalties for by changing targets -- they softened them by 15% to 30% depending on the industry -- their stated reason is they fear the penalties could damage the Canadian economy in a meaningful way.

Ottawa to dramatically scale back carbon tax on competitiveness concerns ...


On carbon tax: Ford 1 - Trudeau 0
 
JavaFan said:
jeez, almost think someone is in campaign mode................
Click to expand...
I think there are a few interesting things to learn from this:

1) You can't foist your ideals on voters
2) Nobody likes the Liberal penal programs (tax grabs)
3) Simple speak gets through to voters

I give Trudeau credit for being observant and having the guts to do the right thing. I'm sure this will be hugely unpopular for a lot of Liberal supporters, that should be nicely offset by gains made in the center.
 
Mad Mike said:
I think there are a few interesting things to learn from this:

1) You can't foist your ideals on voters
2) Nobody likes the Liberal penal programs (tax grabs)
3) Simple speak gets through to voters

I give Trudeau credit for being observant and having the guts to do the right thing. I'm sure this will be hugely unpopular for a lot of Liberal supporters, that should be nicely offset by gains made in the center.
Click to expand...

yup, he's moving to the center
will force CP to go further right
good strategy, should work
 
There's only one lesson from this, which is that we are affected by the US backtracking on carbon emissions because our economies are so tightly intertwined.

It's still the wrong way to go, but our hands are tied in the short term by short term thinking on the other side of the border.
 
How is this short term thinking? Everyone knows climate change is real, everyone knows it needs to be tackled.

The liberal thinking is just to tax everything to hell, and pray it works! There are many ways to tackle climate change but raising the cost of everything isn't the way to go about it.

The provincial election was just a microcosm of things to come in the upcoming election. Trudeau and the liberals trying to not suffer the same fate as Wynn(losing party status, humiliating defeat, and barely holding on to her own seat)

It wont matter in the end, the liberals have ****** off far too many people.

They were warned about this by the opposition, but they didn't listen till it was too late.
 
economy is chugging along
low unemployment
low interest rates
no wars in sight

one term governments need to be presiding over a disaster to get tossed
JT is nowhere near past shelf life yet
sure there have been some PR gaffes, laughable behaviour
but where it counts there is no need to change course

the Smirk from Saskatchewan does not appeal to anyone outside the prairies
how do you think an anglofone Christian freak is going to play in Quebec?

Atlantic Canada will vote Liberal, Quebec will be a PC blood bath
905 and northern Ontario ridings, may have a few go PC

but really, the election will be over before Manitoba is done work for the day
Liberals gonna cruise to another majority
next time around could be a different story

personally, I think we're gonna see a Harper re-emergence
after Sheer resigns from the disaster of the next election
 
JavaFan said:
economy is chugging along
low unemployment
low interest rates
no wars in sight

one term governments need to be presiding over a disaster to get tossed
JT is nowhere near past shelf life yet
sure there have been some PR gaffes, laughable behaviour
but where it counts there is no need to change course

the Smirk from Saskatchewan does not appeal to anyone outside the prairies
how do you think an anglofone Christian freak is going to play in Quebec?

Atlantic Canada will vote Liberal, Quebec will be a PC blood bath
905 and northern Ontario ridings, may have a few go PC

but really, the election will be over before Manitoba is done work for the day
Liberals gonna cruise to another majority
next time around could be a different story

personally, I think we're gonna see a Harper re-emergence
after Sheer resigns from the disaster of the next election
Click to expand...

I'd love to see Harper run in this election. Put Trudeau in his place. I really hope liberals don't win
 
LiNK666 said:
Their expectation is that businesses will foot the bill. Businesses will move away if you grabbing from their pockets.
Click to expand...

business never foots a tax bill, or a tariff

if the Liberals continue to use JT as the selling point
they could be in trouble, they need to focus on policy

I could think of worse things than to have Harper back
but not yet, the party needs spanked a bit more first
 
bigpoppa said:
How is this short term thinking? Everyone knows climate change is real, everyone knows it needs to be tackled.

The liberal thinking is just to tax everything to hell, and pray it works! There are many ways to tackle climate change but raising the cost of everything isn't the way to go about it.

The provincial election was just a microcosm of things to come in the upcoming election. Trudeau and the liberals trying to not suffer the same fate as Wynn(losing party status, humiliating defeat, and barely holding on to her own seat)

It wont matter in the end, the liberals have ****** off far too many people.

They were warned about this by the opposition, but they didn't listen till it was too late.
Click to expand...
What many ways? Give us an example that's as effective and efficient as a carbon tax.
 
fastar1 said:
What many ways? Give us an example that's as effective and efficient as a carbon tax.
Click to expand...
What? Carbon output is well below 1990 levels today, this was done with regulation. Tougher laws on cars and trucks, tougher laws on new buildings, and tougher emission laws on heavy industrial use of carbon based fuels did that -- you can thank the EPA mostly, there was absolutely nothing progressive the Liberals in Ontario did with respect to carbon.

Cheap windows for those renovating expensive houses -check. Rebates on Teslas - check. Microfit energy contracts at 7 to 20x market rates for unneeded energy thet is routinely dumped - check. Delaying decommissioning of dirty coal plants by years due to mismanaged gas and nuclear retrofits - check. Claiming a huge carbon victory for finally closing those plants - check.

Ontario Liberals used carbon taxes for general revenue and political boondoggling - nothing more.
 
fastar1 said:
What many ways? Give us an example that's as effective and efficient as a carbon tax.
Click to expand...

I don't want to start a meaningless dispute, but just in my opinion, the carbon tax doesn't solve the issue. For example, based on data for 2016 from US EPA, electricity was the source of 34% of carbon dioxide and transportation another 34%. So, what carbon tax will solve? Can it solve the electricity problem? I just don't see how e.g. small and mid business can switch e.g. to solar power at the moment. The government can solve it. They can just build nuclear power plants and reduce the use of fossil fuels (yes, I know that nuclear power has downsides, but looks like more and more scientists think that right now it can be the solution for some regions). Same for transportation, we still need to transport goods from A to B. If there is no alternative then this tax just increases gas prices, nothing more..

I mean, the carbon tax doesn't provide a solution to the issue (very serious issue actually) and doesn't provide an alternative to "dirty" energy sources.. At the same time, there are options to address these issues and reduce greenhouse gases. However, based on my understanding, the carbon tax was never designed to address these issues. It was designed to increase the cost for everything and hope that people will find a solution on their own.

As a bonus fact, did you know that cows produce almost 7 times more greenhouse gas than chicken (for the same amount of protein)?
 
Neither of you have provided an alternative to carbon tax but we'll have to wait for bigpoppa to reply since it was his claim.

While we wait I'll address the new distortions and obfuscations introduced below. But it would be nice if we could focus on one question at a time instead of gaslighting every discussion of progressive values that's posted.
Mad Mike said:
What? Carbon output is well below 1990 levels today, this was done with regulation. Tougher laws on cars and trucks, tougher laws on new buildings, and tougher emission laws on heavy industrial use of carbon based fuels did that -- you can thank the EPA mostly, there was absolutely nothing progressive the Liberals in Ontario did with respect to carbon.

Cheap windows for those renovating expensive houses -check. Rebates on Teslas - check. Microfit energy contracts at 7 to 20x market rates for unneeded energy thet is routinely dumped - check. Delaying decommissioning of dirty coal plants by years due to mismanaged gas and nuclear retrofits - check. Claiming a huge carbon victory for finally closing those plants - check.

Ontario Liberals used carbon taxes for general revenue and political boondoggling - nothing more.
Click to expand...
What "well below 1990 levels"?

Not the US, which is above 1990 levels: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#carbon-dioxide
Not Canada, which is above 1990 levels: https://www.canada.ca/en/environmen...ntal-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html
Maybe you meant Ontario, which is 10% below 1990 levels: https://www.canada.ca/en/environmen...reenhouse-gas-emissions.html#summary-details1

Ontario, Quebec, NB, and NS are the only provinces below 1990 levels. BC has also changed course in the past 10 years. But you say we need to thank the EPA for these reductions, not progressive action? I can't wait to hear that rationale. But what I expect is that you'll go on and fabricate some other truth and hope to drown out the signal with more noise.

GreenPlane said:
I don't want to start a meaningless dispute, but just in my opinion, the carbon tax doesn't solve the issue. For example, based on data for 2016 from US EPA, electricity was the source of 34% of carbon dioxide and transportation another 34%. So, what carbon tax will solve? Can it solve the electricity problem? I just don't see how e.g. small and mid business can switch e.g. to solar power at the moment. The government can solve it. They can just build nuclear power plants and reduce the use of fossil fuels (yes, I know that nuclear power has downsides, but looks like more and more scientists think that right now it can be the solution for some regions). Same for transportation, we still need to transport goods from A to B. If there is no alternative then this tax just increases gas prices, nothing more..

I mean, the carbon tax doesn't provide a solution to the issue (very serious issue actually) and doesn't provide an alternative to "dirty" energy sources.. At the same time, there are options to address these issues and reduce greenhouse gases. However, based on my understanding, the carbon tax was never designed to address these issues. It was designed to increase the cost for everything and hope that people will find a solution on their own.

As a bonus fact, did you know that cows produce almost 7 times more greenhouse gas than chicken (for the same amount of protein)?
Click to expand...
You're right, carbon taxes provide no solution. But that's actually their strength. With a carbon tax, it enables solutions to be provided by scientists, researchers, innovators, entrepreneurs, and consumers, instead of being dictated to us by politicians. That's simply because alternatives to fossil fuels cost more. But there are plenty of alternatives, which I'll touch on below.

You're also right about US emissions sources: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#carbon-dioxide

So let's use the two largest sources of pollution that you mentioned as examples.

The emissions from electricity production could be replaced by nuclear as you say, but fossil fuels are chosen instead because they're cheaper. Not only would a carbon tax change that value equation in favour of nuclear, it would also make it much easier politically to 'sell' a widespread carbon tax across several jurisdictions than to 'sell' the costs of nuclear because for this one expensive project the government decided to try and save the planet. And of course no private company would take it upon themselves to spend more if they didn't have to.

There are other alternatives out there too. Who's to say nuclear is the only way forward? Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, could all have their place in the energy market but we don't know which is best suited for what purpose unless we put a price on carbon and let the market decide between them. Maybe for some application, NG is the solution rather than coal? The market system is perfect for determining these things as long as all costs are accounted for.

The second largest source of CO2 pollution you pointed out is transportation. Same problem; alternatives are more expensive. But there are plenty of alternatives that a carbon tax could enable, including one I posted a while back about a viable process to draw CO2 from the air to make synthetic fuel. https://news.nationalgeographic.com...g-liquid-fuel-carbon-capture-neutral-science/

It's energy intensive but it's almost carbon neutral. All it needs to be viable is volume efficiencies and a carbon tax so that its price can be lower than the price of fossil fuels. It would be a great solution for maritime and aeronautical applications since electric power isn't a viable option in those sectors. It may even make a viable solution for drivers versus going electric, but who's to say? I'll tell you who; drivers! With a proper carbon tax we can all decide for ourselves which is the most cost-effective solution for our needs. Just as with electricity production, you have to let the market mechanism work its magic but it requires full costing to be known and applied. That means a carbon tax.

Same can be said for food production. Will lab meat taste different from animal meat? If it does, should those who prefer the carbon-intensive meat pay more for their choice? Of course.

To paraphrase the great and wonderful Rob Ford: "Carbon tax, carbon tax, CARBON TAX!"
 
Last edited:
Summary...

Liberals modify a policy based on changing market conditions, public consultation or even just on additional research and information. They are trying to get it right before implementation by tweaking it. Conservative cry that they don't know what they are doing because they made a change.

I get it, Conservatives say they are going to do something and most of the time they do it even if they figured out between saying it and doing it that they had it (or some of it) wrong and it needs changes. OR they flip flop totally when they figure out there is a backlash (flip flop Ford anyone) and Conservatives just back pedal saying that was the intention all along.

Both of the above are just pigs at the trough BTW.
 
I will reply with a full breakdown, doing the liberals job for them when I have the time to extensively research, but much like going offroad, there are many ways to get there.(Dirt bike, dual sport, ADV bikes etc)

Only simple minded plebs who can't think of anything else will think carbon tax is a good way to tackle climate change.
Its like using a hammer where a scalpel is needed. Maybe the liberals think this is like the budget and will balance itself?

Raising the prices on everything is the wrong way to do it.



#Edit I hear they have rolled back on some things, apparently only large corporations who have lobbyists get to avoid the full force of the carbon tax, but you and me who cant afford lobbyists and spread money around to liberal coffers still get ****ed on carbon tax.
 
fastar1 said:
Neither of you have provided an alternative to carbon tax but we'll have to wait for bigpoppa to reply since it was his claim. While we wait I'll address the new distortions and obfuscations introduced below. But it would be nice if we could focus on one question at a time instead of gaslighting every discussion of progressive values that's posted. What "well below 1990 levels"? Not the US, which is above 1990 levels: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#carbon-dioxide Not Canada, which is above 1990 levels: https://www.canada.ca/en/environmen...ntal-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html Maybe you meant Ontario, which is 10% below 1990 levels: https://www.canada.ca/en/environmen...reenhouse-gas-emissions.html#summary-details1 Ontario, Quebec, NB, and NS are the only provinces below 1990 levels. BC has also changed course in the past 10 years. But you say we need to thank the EPA for these reductions, not progressive action? I can't wait to hear that rationale. But what I expect is that you'll go on and fabricate some other truth and hope to drown out the signal with more noise. You're right, carbon taxes provide no solution. But that's actually their strength. With a carbon tax, it enables solutions to be provided by scientists, researchers, innovators, entrepreneurs, and consumers, instead of being dictated to us by politicians. That's simply because alternatives to fossil fuels cost more. But there are plenty of alternatives, which I'll touch on below. You're also right about US emissions sources: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#carbon-dioxide So let's use the two largest sources of pollution that you mentioned as examples. The emissions from electricity production could be replaced by nuclear as you say, but fossil fuels are chosen instead because they're cheaper. Not only would a carbon tax change that value equation in favour of nuclear, it would also make it much easier politically to 'sell' a widespread carbon tax across several jurisdictions than to 'sell' the costs of nuclear because for this one expensive project the government decided to try and save the planet. And of course no private company would take it upon themselves to spend more if they didn't have to. There are other alternatives out there too. Who's to say nuclear is the only way forward? Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, could all have their place in the energy market but we don't know which is best suited for what purpose unless we put a price on carbon and let the market decide between them. Maybe for some application, NG is the solution rather than coal? The market system is perfect for determining these things as long as all costs are accounted for. The second largest source of CO2 pollution you pointed out is transportation. Same problem; alternatives are more expensive. But there are plenty of alternatives that a carbon tax could enable, including one I posted a while back about a viable process to draw CO2 from the air to make synthetic fuel. https://news.nationalgeographic.com...g-liquid-fuel-carbon-capture-neutral-science/ It's energy intensive but it's almost carbon neutral. All it needs to be viable is volume efficiencies and a carbon tax so that its price can be lower than the price of fossil fuels. It would be a great solution for maritime and aeronautical applications since electric power isn't a viable option in those sectors. It may even make a viable solution for drivers versus going electric, but who's to say? I'll tell you who; drivers! With a proper carbon tax we can all decide for ourselves which is the most cost-effective solution for our needs. Just as with electricity production, you have to let the market mechanism work its magic but it requires full costing to be known and applied. That means a carbon tax. Same can be said for food production. Will lab meat taste different from animal meat? If it does, should those who prefer the carbon-intensive meat pay more for their choice? Of course. To paraphrase the great and wonderful Rob Ford: "Carbon tax, carbon tax, CARBON TAX!"
Click to expand...
That's a lot of writing to say nothing meaningful.
 
Baggsy said:
That's a lot of writing to say nothing meaningful.
Click to expand...

Piktchur 4 U

tom-toles-carbon-tax-december-2012.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom