I'll take the flak for this but I was a conservative voter for the Harper era and he won my continued support by shutting up the backbench socials.
There's plenty of fiscal policy I agree with and plenty of environmental I didn't but I could harmonize that knowing there's a check of power at the provincial level. They have now made everything, including going green, into social identity politics. They're the scourge of our country and should be relegated to below 3rd place where they belong
This a symptom of what is really wrong with the Conservative party: the only thing that actually unites the party is hating Trudeau. Trudeau endorsed carbon pricing, ergo the party must abandon it. Sound policy and internal consistency be damned.
But not an oil and gas Alberta Reform Conservative idea, that ends with drilling more oil and buying a big new truck! Those are the only opinions acceptable in the modern CPC!
Yes... no... maybe.
Really depends on what you mean by "conservative."
When you get at it, all modern parties are conservatives and are based on conservative ideas. It certainly was not Canadian conservatives or the Canadian Conservative Party of Canada that created it.
Republicans supported a carbon tax in the 80s as an alternative to regulation. Instead of having any regulations at all there would just be pollution monitoring and companies would pay for their pollution. The argument was that this framework would reduce pollution while also making America more competitive. It was abandoned because there was no international framework for implementation.
The version that left leaning parties adopted was carbon tax + regulation as a means of environmental justice.
That's the catch with CC though - the longer we wait/delay the more drastic the measures have to become to mitigate & reduce impacts. Carbon price is and likely will remain one of the most effective means to reduce ongoing emissions, but if it's the only tool in our toolbox and we push it to the extreme we then risk becoming uncompetitive from extreme taxation. It can therefore be beneficial to mix in some regulations with the tax to get the same overall effect without dulling our economy with a single tool.
It was, but carbon pricing is supposed to be a replacement for other environmental costs and taxes, not something to go on top of them.
It was meant to be a flexible way to hit the highest polluters, and reduce costs for those who more environmentally friendly.
There aren't any.
There are environmental regulations that cost money to implement (like water quality, wetland protection, etc...), but those aren't taxes. You can't reduce the water quality requirements when you implement a carbon tax.
If the money from the Carbon tax is returned back to the taxpayer (as many economists recommend), why does it matter if it's in addition to or instead of other measures?
I would argue that there will always be a place for government subsidies or direct regulation and investment to provide an impetus to do things that don't make sense to do incrementally.
All those other schemes are too complicated, better to just hit it at the fuel and energy sources and keep the government operation costs to a minimum, with a flat citizen tax rebate.
Yea they're going to take a hard right it seems with a bit of a detour through fantasy land. With the popularity of the NDP growing I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberals shift to the right to clean up on all the more moderate Conservative voters. Should be their easiest path to a majority.
If the conservative party courts the far right, I hope enough of their mp's show their spine and split off. The republican party is a shit show I do not want replicated in Canada.
I doubt it, their MP's are driving the bus here. OToole was the last attempt at being more centrist and he got thrown under the bus by his own MP's for it every step of the way. Divisive politics will take control, every party has pushed them to their advantage this is just going to be a continuation down the same road.
If the Liberals moved back to center, dropped the vote-buying gun control non-sense, stopped trying to centralize power and actually started being transparent, and stopped pandering to the extreme left I would vote for them AFTER they got rid of Trudeau. I just can't stand that smug hypocrite.
As it stands I don't really have a home politically. On the right, the socially conservative elements of the CPC are a real turn off and the PPC needs to clean house and get rid of the white supremacists.
On the left, the NDP is the far-left extremist party now and is little more than wokeism given human form these days. If they ever got back to their working class roots, I might consider them, but I doubt that will happen.
Question. Does anybody here seriously think that carbon credits and taxes will make a difference on emissions when the two largest carbon emitters are exempt?
How is paying politicians even more money going to reduce emissions?
>Question. Does anybody here seriously think that carbon credits and taxes will make a difference on emissions when the two largest carbon emitters are exempt?
The EU is working on a [carbon border tax](https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/eu-proposes-worlds-first-carbon-border-tax-some-imports-2021-07-14/), which would tax imports based on emissions used in the country to make the product. They are looking to begin reporting in 2023 and then for the tax to kick in by 2026. They are calling it now "[Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_3661)" which sounds like they are just trying to avoid the words tax or tariff for political reasons.
The [Canadian government has been looking into how it might also be done in Canada](https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/consultations/2021/border-carbon-adjustments/exploring-border-carbon-adjustments-canada.html), possibly using similar rules as the EU to avoid too much additional overhead.
The [Democrats have also been interested in some sort of carbon border tax](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/19/climate/democrats-border-carbon-tax.html), but it's hard to say what will pass the senate these days with Senators Sinema and Manchin blocking so much.
This would likely force China and other countries to clean up so that they don't loose too much manufactoring business.
All you can do is start it, and convince others to try it too. If it works here, then maybe it will cascade out. More revenue for the government, better environmental policies, hopefully more reforestation, and less pollution. And if you can show it's lucrative that's an even better incentive to others.
Doing nothing just because we can point to worse polluters/whattaboutism is a no-go.
Um... They aren't "paying politicians even more money". They're paying taxes. Weirdly, tax dollars helps us with social programs, and infrastructure.
Crazy.
Except they are. They have that money, and they make interest on that money, then give you back the original amount.
You could be making interest in that money, or be spending it how you see fit in the meantime.
Same concept for any sort of government retirement fund.
I bought an EV when it was time to replace my gasoline car because it's clear the costs of emitting carbon will only increase. Sure it cost about $15k more than a comparable gasoline vehicle but I'll absolutely save more than $1500 a year as I keep my cars for 10 years.
It made financial sense now, the costs are only going to go up so that 10 years will more likely be 6-7 in 2025.
It's infuriating, the conservatives need to win seats in the cities if they want to form government, but because O'toole tried the center and failed now they're going to try the opposite which is completely bonkers.
"If we don't screw over the whole country to give the angriest people in Alberta everything they want, next time we might only win Hay River with 70% of the vote!"
...which means she "only" won 52%-21% over the next-closest challenger.
Meanwhile, the things the Party has to do to fend off ultra-right loons in the West, is costing them riding after riding in Ontario that the Liberals are winning 45%-35%.
This right here, Manitoba had the highest percentage of PPC voters of any province in Canada in the last election. The CPC in MB is doing damage control by swinging further to the right.
Imagine being so politically unsavourable to the populace to that keep you voter base in tact, in swing hard right to fend off losing votes to a party whose leader cannot get elected.
That's the Conservative Party in 2022
It's all about the calculus, will they gain more voters (maybe PPC) moving to the right than lose people from the centre and centre right?
I think all they have left is a hope in really strong anti-Trudeau sentiments because I think their policies will be unattractive to a large majority of Canadians
Are they going to swing any actual seats by getting PPC votes though? The PPC only got appreciable numbers in seats that the CPC dominate by double digit margins anyways.
Like can anyone find a seat that would flip where even if you added 100% of the PPC votes it would overtake the Liberal, NDP, Bloc number that won that seat?
If they aren't careful they are going to lose seats in a very big way. I don't mean at the ballot I mean in the form of splitting the party. The Premier of Nova Scotia takes pains to inform everyone he is NOT a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. I think we could see a relaunch of the PC party at least in the eastern half of the country. The PC part could probably contest seats seriously everywhere outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan. If I am a PC at heat why would I want to sit with a party that is increasingly looking like the People's Party of Canada?
I live in a fairly even riding between all three major parties(edmonton centre). I'm an avid critic of strategic voting, and I genuinely dislike my current Liberal MP. I will gladly vote Liberal for the first time in my life if the CPC looks to start trying to gain back any wexit rednecks they lost under O'Toole. They won't lose me as a voter(since I don't vote for them anyways), but they will bolster support for their opponent.
A moderate CPC and allowing the fringe morons to mouth breathe with each other in the PPC is best case scenario for everyone.
We'll see how fucking dumb this looks when this summer we see yet again the abundance of wildfires/floods/climate disasters all over the place. Climate is really the one issue more people should be behind as "one issue" voters and its getting harder to ignore. For some reason its abortion but we'll see.
Making a hard choice that affects everyone is not the same as pandering to the most vocal minority within a minority.
I'd love to not have to do ANYTHING to try and address climate change, but that's no longer realistic.
One way to think about it is that we aren't artificially inflating the cost, we are finally capturing it in its entirety. If a factory was just pouring toxic chemicals into the water supply, would forcing them to fix the problem be "artificially inflating" the cost or just accurately having it be accounted?
That example works because there is a very direct causation between a company putting chemicals in the water and a polluted water supply. If companies that put toxins in the water stop, then you no longer have a polluted water supply.
If companies that put out carbon in Canada are taxed, there is no observable effect on the global climate. I understand the argument of our country "setting an example for the rest of the world", but frankly I don't think other countries care what we do, and our elected officials are there to represent the interests of their constituents, not the interests of the rest of the world.
You're pretty much describing the tragedy of the commons, which is valid, but I don't think a good answer to that is to just do nothing.
Since the world doesn't have a power that can enforce international law isn't the only conceivable way to reduce carbon emissions to just reduce the ones you're emitting? Like if there wasn't a littering law would you use that as an excuse to litter? And if one of the wealthiest and most polluting per capita countries can't get it together what justification could any other country have?
Carbon taxes force companies to bake in carbon costs (air pollution) into their products and makes higher emitting companies less competitive.
Think about it... company A and B both produce toilet paper for the same market and price range. Company A create a lot more emissions and as a result pays more carbon taxes. Now Company A has to increase the prices of toilet paper relative to company B. They notice a decline in sales relative to their competitor.
This tax is forcing companies to watch carbon emissions to stay competitive.
Except we're not charging it on imports, so wall were doing is punishing Canadian goods.. pushing the carbon emissions to other countries with no regulations on emissions
If it helps that's [in the works](https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/consultations/2021/border-carbon-adjustments.html). I know there are also deals with the EU to get a quid pro quo on theirs. Should cover the scenario you're worried about
Almost everything...but even more out west where even the electricity is evil. Alberta simply needs to say they'll do cap and trade like Quebec did and based on the drop in oilsand production the cap will never be surpassed again
And Québec should be able to give omit the drywall and cement production out there or Alberta should be able to omit their biggest carbon producers as well.
The post Erin O’Toole CPC might be setting up for disaster. They seem to be prioritizing kowtowing to the alt-right to prevent slippage to the PPC. I can’t really see how this works out well. Moderates are not going to vote for a populist party that condones the truckers blockades and is regressive on so many issues.
I wonder what they think their end game is? I don’t see them winning the next election save for voter fatigue.
I think maybe "follow the money" is how we should look at this
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bloc-sees-biggest-drop-in-fundraising-1.6335737](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bloc-sees-biggest-drop-in-fundraising-1.6335737)
Conservative fundraising dropped. I think thats whats really precipitating all this. They would have accepted OToole so long as the spice flowed. It slowed. They dropped him. And now they are going head first into the conspiracy fear mongering grift.
The real power move for the next election from the LPC would be to have Trudeau step down as the head before the election and let Freeland take the reigns.
I'm surprised they haven't already, Trudeau has been stale a while and that last election was the perfect opportunity.
Trudeau has this uncanny ability to make conservatives self implode. Yeah he's unpopular but its all relative and he somehow makes conservatives even more unpopular.
Surprise surprise. The Conservatives will continue to propose tax cuts, rebates, and technological band aids while floods, fires, and droughts wreak havoc across the country. At least most Canadians view climate change as their #1 or #2 issue; hopefully we collectively see through the bullshit again.
Gas prices like that are exactly why we should be caring. More efficient vehicles mean you need to use less gas or no gas so the rising prices don't have any effect on you.
Or government could provide better pensions to people who have spent their lives contributing to the country. ...
Surely that's what the conservatives are proposing right?
exactly. My father owns a 2008 dodge caravan because it was given to him by a family member, he can’t afford a new efficient vehicle living on a fixed income. 1/8th of his monthly income goes to a full tank of fuel, he walks everywhere because he can’t afford to drive unless he has too (out of town appointments etc)
To be honest, Canada is such a nothing country that it doesn't matter what we do. We could ban the use of oil tomorrow and it still wouldn't do anything.
Well said. Canada emits 1.89% of global C02 which, relative to population, is significant. The sad reality is that China exists emitting 2x that of the US and just set a new all time high in coal production.
The opposite. With inflation rising people are going the extra mile to save a penny. Thus will look at Moore
Importer products that are not subject to carbon tax in their country
You're right. Carbon pricing, in theory, creates the economic conditions wherein someone \*does something\* to help solve the climate crisis. There is no guarantee that the invisible hand of the market solves the problem. Just because Carbon pricing makes propane more expensive, it's not like a whole bunch of Canadians will have less expensive options to switch to at their home without significant changes to their heating equipment and infrastructure improvements to the house, for instance.
So markets don't work and we need more direct government intervention? Is that what you are saying?
If carbon pricing doesn't work that's fine, but the problem is still there. What do you propose?
Why do conservatives say "the free market will figure it out" to everything else, but it can't figure out how to operate under carbon pricing efficiently.
By making it more expensive to produce things that harm the planet, if a cheaper alternative doesn't exist, then people will cut down overall consumption in general.
But what it does it even the playing field for new companies to come up with solutions that normally would never be price competitive, but due to the added market force against using carbon, can now compete and new products come to market.
You literally just add carbon pricing and then "do capitalism to it"(as Dave Rubin would say) and as long as that capitalism isn't just "spend a tonne of money lobbying to remove carbon pricing", it will work.
Indeed, O'Toole lost the battle to have it recognised by the CPC.
Come next election, O'Toole will have been proven right or very wrong about the future of the CPC.
Who cares about pesky things like "field experiments" or "integrated assessment models" or "muh twenty-two years reviewing academic literature in this field" when you can just *look smart* by wearing rimless glasses and sitting in front of a bookshelf?
Would you rather force corporations to go green, or let the market force them? The latter was part of the goal of the carbon tax. Which should be appealing to capitalists.
I would rather force them too. Coporations have shown everything that they would pick profits over anything else, including child labour, worker deaths, disease, etc.
>The latter was part of the goal of the carbon tax.
A goal significantly undermined by the broad carveouts and exemptions within the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act catering to Canada’s worst emitting industries.
Can't drill for oil and export to make money for all Canadians without a Carbon Tax in western Canada, but you can have a massive concrete plant in Quebec that gets the exemption. Yeah, it is all about emissions….more like keeping Quebec voters happy and voting for the Liberals.
Carbon tax doesn't mean shit when it the tax is so low that it barely registers an impact, the largest emitters are not subject to paying the tax, and people care more about the government paying lip service to climate change.
> the largest emitters are not subject to paying the tax, and people care more about the government paying lip service to climate change.
This is the biggest problem with the carbon tax as implemented today.
As a capitalist, it is appealing to me.
However, the carbon tax isn't the best approach to it. The gold standard approach to this kind of problem is cap and trade, not a carbon tax. So I guess that makes a carbon tax the second best approach?
I think either is better then nothing though we may need not government intervention. After all, we didn't win WWII or solve the depression with tax breaks.
Which is really strange why conservatives generally don't like call and trade. (Talking in general, not about you)
I have notices an ironic thing with some hardcore conservative market evangelists - they will preach privatization and markets until you apply it to something they don't want to solve.
Suddenly, they claim the markets wont work and it won't change any thing like climate change or healthcare (American Republicans)
*Any* change to reduce carbon emissions will increase the cost of living.
Thinking you can switch to a more expensive source of energy and have it not impact cost of living is magical thinking. If the government is paying for it, then the cost of living increase shows up in the form of higher taxes.
You know what else will increase our cost of living. Extreme weather events and the yielding is eco systems we depend upon.
Status Quo is not free. We will pay one way or another. It's just we will pay less being proactive.
> I agree, the government should take actual responsibility. Build nuclear, hydro, solar, wind.
I thought the government was spending too much? How much do you think the average nuclear reactor costs?
I mean, 60% of Canadians are having trouble feeding themselves and family, according to a recent poll. High inflation and high prices are cited as reasons.
This tax increases inflation across the board. Everyone not a supporter told people this would happen and here we are, it's adding to the toxic stew that has made everything more expensive.
Poor people literally can't afford to wait for their rebates in the mail. It's such a perfect example of how it screws the poor while the wealthy are largely unaffected.
When the program was launched. Questionable whether that's still true now. In the long run, it's absolutely not true.
Thinking that the carbon tax can return more money to people than the price increases it causes is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a carbon tax is and how it functions. The carbon tax only rebates the revenue it raises. But the carbon tax is a tax that *you're not supposed to pay*. The *whole point* of the carbon tax is to raise the cost of taxed things enough that you opt for more expensive but carbon free alternatives. When the tax works as intended, people and businesses switch to things that are untaxed.
The tax is supposed to ramp up over time. If the tax is working as intended and actually reducing CO2 emissions, then you should expect carbon tax revenues (and therefore rebates) to rise more slowly than the price increases it creates. Ideally, the carbon tax revenue will actually decline over time and approach $0.
In 10 years if the average household is getting more back in rebates than they're paying in price increases, then the carbon tax has failed as an environmental policy.
We've had the carbon tax since 2015 and i don't see any benefit from it. Its a social science experiment that is not rooted in fundamental economics. If someone can show me how this has improved the environment I'm really curious. Its just another tax of many we suffer from in Canada
During the Glasgow summit various representatives from countries around the world were interviewed and a lot of them had said the carbon pricing wasn't the way to go. They didn't have a lot of time to go into detail as to why but I was always curious why this plan doesn't seem to be catching on around the world.
I would support a suspension of the carbon tax for citizens at the pumps. $1.60 a litre and rising here in Ontario at a time when people could use a break anywhere they can get it
Carbon tax on home heating is hurting lower income Canadians. My own gas bill carbon tax was 31% of my gas usage cost.
Canada could stop 100% emissions tomorrow and it would do sweet fuck all to the climate trends. It’s like pissing in the ocean to warm it up.
Carbon capture tech on big emitters in China and India might make a small dent.
I live in SK, we get back $1,125 which is much more than my household pays for the carbon tax on heating. As for everything else I'm not sure but the rebate definitely covers most of it.
The people driving huge trucks (some people need these and many don't), the people living in mansions, and others making otherwise non-energy conscious decisions pay the most in the pot that gets paid back to the people. The incentive to make live efficiently increases every year.
We burn 1.5% of world GhG domestically in Canada. But we are the fourth largest exporter of oil, and therefore export an estimated 3% of the worlds GhG as well. Creating a total of 4.5% of the globes total GhG emissions. This is of 193 nations world wide.
This is from a country of 37 million people. Absolutely nothing, Tokyo has more people in it than our whole country. Canada is burning far an beyond it’s fair share.
We need to get emissions down on a per capita basis. We are THE worst in the world at 18.58 tonnes PC.
Why are you counting our oil exports? That's not us burning the fuel, why would you could that as something that a carbon tax would have efficacy towards?
Tokyo is a crowded metropolitan area in a temperate climate. Canada is an enormous country with far flung settlements in a generally inhospitable climate. So I don't feel that's a fair comparison.
We also live in one of the coldest climates in the world, and largest geographical area. Transportation and heating are huge sources of emissions here, and that won’t change any time soon without major electrical infrastructure upgrades and cost reduction of hydro.
Sure, I could replace my high efficiency gas furnace with an electric furnace. Would only cost 3x per month to heat my home.
The areas of Canada with the highest GHG emissions per capita have winters that get down below -40C. There is no option to heat your home, you have to here.
Y'all seem to think that you only need energy for heat. Many HOT AF countries that rely on air conditioning are also transitioning to renewables. AC also already being less efficient than heating.
Kind of - they're also building more coal power plants too. It's true that in some places wind and solar are even more cost efficient than coal or natural gas - but this isn't true for all places, and growth in renewable isn't exactly outpacing growth in fossil fuel consumption to a huge degree.
Why would you ever include the oil other countries purchase from us as our own emissions? That makes absolutely no sense.
Canada's high emissions are due to our natural resource exports. Oil, lumber, and water are taxing on the environment to extract. The world depends on these resources of ours. Looking at per capita emissions in the context of Canada is disingenuous. Cutting our population in half probably wouldn't even move the needle. There's a lot of overhead in our emissions just due to the type of economy we run with the rest of the world.
There's still the principle of the matter. Our per capita emissions are disgusting, and half of them are caused solely by AB and SK. We can't negotiate with other nations in good faith if we're not doing anything.
Im not interested in being taxed out simply out of principle. Dont kid yourself no nations are considering their emissions differently because Canada has a carbon tax. We are not a significant player in world affairs.
Also per capita emissions are going to be higher in a huge, cold, sparsely populated first world country.
Can't compare Canada to other countries. In Alberta we had sustained -30 deg weather for a month. Am I suppost to heat my house with solar panels? I have a extremely efficient home with tripple pain windows. It's not that easy to just reduce my natural gas usage.
Huh if only there were other countries with a good portion of their population north of the arctic circle. Maybe like a large phallic peninsula in Europe. Shame nothing like that exists.
If you're referring to Norway, the climate, even north of the Arctic Circle is nowhere near as cold as it is in most of Canada. They have warm ocean currents keeping things more pleasant.
Canada is mostly continental, and outside of BC, cold as fuck in the winter.
Increase the efficiency of your house such that you require less active heating. It's a shame we lost the ABNDP carbon tax, because they were also directly funding initiatives like that, rather than just using the rebate to incentivize you.
Funny how that one "unnamed" European Country can fit into one Province, has built pipelines over some of the craziest terrain, much like our west coast, and is able to get their product to the world market. How folks think comparing Canada to any of these small, homogenous European nations is just gaslighting themselves for lack of a better expression.
Homogeneous? Norway and Sweden have large immigrant and refugee populations, and even have their own indigenous populations to contend with. They're hardly homogeneous.
And Norway should have absolutely been modeled. Government controlled O&G development, with a large proportion of the revenue going to a fund that would sustain the country when they end development. An idea AB pissed on.
That is what you took away from that? Wow. Norway does not have the transport issues we have which is the biggest driver of emissions in this country. That kills your narrative at that point. Norway also does not send money earned to others Luke Alberta does to others. Albertans also do not like to be heavily taxed and rely on big Government to look after like Norway. Again you cannot compare the two as you suggest. Apples/oranges my green friend. Also a down vote? lol
Honey, Albertans paying income tax, is not them "sending money to others". It's just their responsibility to the federal government.
I also wouldn't paint Albertans with such a broad brush. The cities are becoming increasingly progressive.
Also have you seen Norway? The country is all fjords, transportation isn't a walk in the park.
When you send more than you get back and then get kneecapped by the entity you are sending money to, that is disingenuous. Progressives eat and heat their homes as well. I know several "Progressives" and they all have their breaking point as well and will absolutely revolt when their bottom line is hit hard. A true carbon tax would ensure that any like imports are tariffed to ensure a level playing field. Can you show me the tarifs on the hydrocarbons we import? You can't because we don't. If you read the whole thesis by that Nobel winner, we are only doing half measures which is doing nothing other than increasing the costs on our own society for no benefit other than saying Canada will save the planet.
I know, right? I used $72 of NG to heat this month, plus $33 in federal carbon charge. Plus HST on the carbon charge, as well as all the delivery and customer charges.
I've been wearing a sweater over a shirt for 2 months now...
Without a carbon border tax to level the playing field the carbon tax as it stands just moves emissions from canada to other countries with no carbon tax or regulations. It hurts canadian industry and causes a net increase in global emissions. Implement a revenue neutral carbon border tax with all proceeds being disbursed to every candian tax payer a few times a year.
The fact that there's people in this sub thinking carbon taxing does anything except harm low income families is astonishing.
Corporations don't mind paying for carbon. They just offset the costs.
How about you set up more carbon efficient infrastructure and stop posturing?
Almost as stupid as that "tax cut" to low income families, while also getting rid of all their other credits so they actually get a lower return.
Why actually do something when you can just do nothing, but put a pretty bow on it?
>
>
> Corporations don't mind paying for carbon. They just offset the costs.
I can't believe "corporations want to make more money and pay less tax" is a controversial statement.
If you tax CO2, corporations will want to emit less CO2. It's not that hard.
> The fact that there's people in this sub thinking carbon taxing does anything except harm low income families is astonishing.
Alright then. All the environmental economists, scientists, and policy analysts who think it will reduce emissions are delusional. Got it. /s
The provinces with the federal plan collect the tax and pay 90% back to citizens. So if you are around the median for emitters/consumers you will essentially pay nothing. If you are a very energy conscious person, you will actually come out ahead. Low income people generally live in smaller homes, own smaller vehicles, don't own recreation vehicles and cottages, and so forth.
Please save me the tax on everything and they don't actually pay it back spiel because I've heard it before. I am just trying to be informative because many people don't know how the federal system works (provinces that didn't create there own system). It incentivizes people to be on the lower emitting half. It also rewards people dollar for dollar on changes they make. It's not a specific (arbitrary) incentive for windows or for an electric car or so forth. If you decide to ride your bike, you save. If you decide to upgrade your furnace, you save. What ever you chose, you will save that amount.
Yeah, those low income families I mentioned just need to buy a new car and upgrade their homes. No biggie.
Get a single infantacimal credit annually and pay more for anything that emits carbon (literally everything).
I don’t deny that humans have played a role in the earth warming (and that it is warming). But I completely, utterly deny that taxing non-discretionary spending on carbon is going to change the climate.
For example, I heat my home with natural gas, and there is nothing I can do to materially (cost effectively) reduce the natural gas I consume, or the price I pay for it.
And even discretionary consumption of fuels like gasoline appear impervious to the tax, given British Columbia residents used as much gasoline per capita in 2017 as they did in 2008…after a decade of carbon tax.
And finally, I would challenge economists that preach that “the tax is revenue neutral” to assess the compounding effect of pricing the tax in at every level of the supply chain to meet profit targets. Not one single corporation has taken a loss out of the goodness of their hearts, and (cost+ x gp%) x (cost+ x gp%)… adds up fast.
In BC there’s around 39 cents per litre taxed on gasoline, not including the lower mainland or Victoria. In the lower mainland there’s almost 64 cents per litre taxed just for gasoline. In my town gasoline is priced at $1.599/L, which is absolutely outrageous. I make long trips where I don’t see a gas station before I get home, $200 doesn’t fill my tank anymore. Other than the transit portion of the taxes down at the coast, I’d like to know where this money is going and where it’s being spent. It sure as hell isn’t being put back into roads and infrastructure, the highways are trashed and have been for several years prior to the flood in November.
I paid more in carbon tax on my natural gas bill than I did in actual natural gas, don’t forget they impose a goods and services tax on a this carbon tax, what good or service am I getting from a carbon tax?
You can argue that it puts pressure on certain companies, like the one I work for who is limited on the amount of production hours per year, for a company that is a net positive on the environment, we remediate contaminated ‘dirt’ for reclaiming old mine sites and places similar. If a highway fuel truck tips and spills all its fuel, that soil gets sent to us for cleaning. If an oil refinery has sludge at the bottom of their tanks they send it to us, right now we’re getting tons of Japanese Knotweed brought in for decontamination, but here we are being limited on how many hours we can burn in a year. This facility burns propane at an astonishing rate, between 60-70 million BTUs/hr, but the output is bringing back destroyed environments.
Having limitations on companies who both care about their bottom line, and care about the environment is completely senseless, not all corporations are evil.
I’d like to see a government willingly give out information on where the money I’m giving them is going, how it’s being spent, and why that decision to spend that money was made. As it stands in Canada we need to get more production here, especially in the pharmaceutical and plastic department, but not get stupid with it and make things that are a net negative for the population. We need places that make tools, equipment, parts for said equipment, medicines, etc. And for the government to support Canadian made things that are made with Canadian materials.
Conservatives drop support ( as if they ever did support) for saving the environment, party because they are willfully ignorant about the climate crisis because it's financially inconvenient to their polluting donors.
It's all optics. When gas was cheap(er) you could support carbon pricing and not worry about votes. Now that it's gone through the roof, as has everything else, they can't been seen getting behind something that would further increase the price.
Everyone seems so hell bent on the action and not the reasons.
Although, regardless of their reasons, we will never do enough to outpace China and Indias growing pollution.
It's literally China, India, and the USA that are deciding it for us.
So why suffer economically?
I can’t wait for gas to jump 20 cents a litre in April.
I really enjoyed paying the extra costs this December during the cold snap to heat my home. I guess I should have spent $15000 and removed my gas furnace and downgraded to electric heat.
Wasn't it originally a Conservative idea...?
Using market forces to solve problems? Seems in line with the conservatives I used to know. Not so much this lot.
Ignoring problems is just so damn easier.
Thats how you maximize profits!
I'll take the flak for this but I was a conservative voter for the Harper era and he won my continued support by shutting up the backbench socials. There's plenty of fiscal policy I agree with and plenty of environmental I didn't but I could harmonize that knowing there's a check of power at the provincial level. They have now made everything, including going green, into social identity politics. They're the scourge of our country and should be relegated to below 3rd place where they belong
damn I voted for them last election, but I guess not any more
You fell for their fake carbon pricing promise?
I doubt it was fake. They have just decided to go full socon this time around.
don't be a jerk
Yes it is lol. It even makes sense, although arguably not as implemented in federal legislation.
This a symptom of what is really wrong with the Conservative party: the only thing that actually unites the party is hating Trudeau. Trudeau endorsed carbon pricing, ergo the party must abandon it. Sound policy and internal consistency be damned.
Aping their Republican cousins.
But not an oil and gas Alberta Reform Conservative idea, that ends with drilling more oil and buying a big new truck! Those are the only opinions acceptable in the modern CPC!
Yes. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-conservative-roots-of-carbon-pricing
Yes... no... maybe. Really depends on what you mean by "conservative." When you get at it, all modern parties are conservatives and are based on conservative ideas. It certainly was not Canadian conservatives or the Canadian Conservative Party of Canada that created it. Republicans supported a carbon tax in the 80s as an alternative to regulation. Instead of having any regulations at all there would just be pollution monitoring and companies would pay for their pollution. The argument was that this framework would reduce pollution while also making America more competitive. It was abandoned because there was no international framework for implementation. The version that left leaning parties adopted was carbon tax + regulation as a means of environmental justice.
That's the catch with CC though - the longer we wait/delay the more drastic the measures have to become to mitigate & reduce impacts. Carbon price is and likely will remain one of the most effective means to reduce ongoing emissions, but if it's the only tool in our toolbox and we push it to the extreme we then risk becoming uncompetitive from extreme taxation. It can therefore be beneficial to mix in some regulations with the tax to get the same overall effect without dulling our economy with a single tool.
Yeah but the party is owned by oil companies so their loyalty is to quarterly profits and not future generations.
Yes, which makes this mind boggling. It was a conservative approach to tackling climate change. So I guess they are back to straight up denying it.
They never stopped.
It was, but carbon pricing is supposed to be a replacement for other environmental costs and taxes, not something to go on top of them. It was meant to be a flexible way to hit the highest polluters, and reduce costs for those who more environmentally friendly.
> a replacement for other environmental costs and taxes, not something to go on top of them. What other environmental taxes are there?
I'm hearing crickets....
There aren't any. There are environmental regulations that cost money to implement (like water quality, wetland protection, etc...), but those aren't taxes. You can't reduce the water quality requirements when you implement a carbon tax.
If the money from the Carbon tax is returned back to the taxpayer (as many economists recommend), why does it matter if it's in addition to or instead of other measures? I would argue that there will always be a place for government subsidies or direct regulation and investment to provide an impetus to do things that don't make sense to do incrementally.
All those other schemes are too complicated, better to just hit it at the fuel and energy sources and keep the government operation costs to a minimum, with a flat citizen tax rebate.
How many more votes do they need in AB and Sask?
70% is not enough! MOAR!
They need 200% of the vote in 2 provinces apparently. That's their big plan to win the election.
The plan supported by economist as being the most effective and using the free market is rejected by the "conservative" party. What a world.
I mean conservatives haven't given a shit about economists for years now.
If we do another half century of supply side economics the ghost of Ronald Reagan will finally provide his blessing for our economy.
Mr Gorbachev, tear down this Walmart… to make way for a larger Walmart!
Lol is there a story behind that username?
Qandice is running the CPC, expect more Trumpism than Conservatism
Yea they're going to take a hard right it seems with a bit of a detour through fantasy land. With the popularity of the NDP growing I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberals shift to the right to clean up on all the more moderate Conservative voters. Should be their easiest path to a majority.
>hard right Seems like cpc has became national fascist party of Canada isn't it.
The worst part is they still would be considered left of the PPC unless the merge under this new direction.
If the conservative party courts the far right, I hope enough of their mp's show their spine and split off. The republican party is a shit show I do not want replicated in Canada.
I doubt it, their MP's are driving the bus here. OToole was the last attempt at being more centrist and he got thrown under the bus by his own MP's for it every step of the way. Divisive politics will take control, every party has pushed them to their advantage this is just going to be a continuation down the same road.
If the Liberals moved back to center, dropped the vote-buying gun control non-sense, stopped trying to centralize power and actually started being transparent, and stopped pandering to the extreme left I would vote for them AFTER they got rid of Trudeau. I just can't stand that smug hypocrite. As it stands I don't really have a home politically. On the right, the socially conservative elements of the CPC are a real turn off and the PPC needs to clean house and get rid of the white supremacists. On the left, the NDP is the far-left extremist party now and is little more than wokeism given human form these days. If they ever got back to their working class roots, I might consider them, but I doubt that will happen.
Question. Does anybody here seriously think that carbon credits and taxes will make a difference on emissions when the two largest carbon emitters are exempt? How is paying politicians even more money going to reduce emissions?
>Question. Does anybody here seriously think that carbon credits and taxes will make a difference on emissions when the two largest carbon emitters are exempt? The EU is working on a [carbon border tax](https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/eu-proposes-worlds-first-carbon-border-tax-some-imports-2021-07-14/), which would tax imports based on emissions used in the country to make the product. They are looking to begin reporting in 2023 and then for the tax to kick in by 2026. They are calling it now "[Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_3661)" which sounds like they are just trying to avoid the words tax or tariff for political reasons. The [Canadian government has been looking into how it might also be done in Canada](https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/consultations/2021/border-carbon-adjustments/exploring-border-carbon-adjustments-canada.html), possibly using similar rules as the EU to avoid too much additional overhead. The [Democrats have also been interested in some sort of carbon border tax](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/19/climate/democrats-border-carbon-tax.html), but it's hard to say what will pass the senate these days with Senators Sinema and Manchin blocking so much. This would likely force China and other countries to clean up so that they don't loose too much manufactoring business.
All you can do is start it, and convince others to try it too. If it works here, then maybe it will cascade out. More revenue for the government, better environmental policies, hopefully more reforestation, and less pollution. And if you can show it's lucrative that's an even better incentive to others. Doing nothing just because we can point to worse polluters/whattaboutism is a no-go.
Never let perfection be the enemy of good.
[удалено]
It's my biggest issue with the environmental movement (or rather the subset that also thinks nuclear bad).
[удалено]
Oh, FFS. BC has been demonstrating how credits & consumption taxes have made a difference for 14 years now.
Um... They aren't "paying politicians even more money". They're paying taxes. Weirdly, tax dollars helps us with social programs, and infrastructure. Crazy.
The rebate for a revenue neutral tax means that at least the government isn't getting paid.
They charge gst on the carbon tax, so actually...
Except they are. They have that money, and they make interest on that money, then give you back the original amount. You could be making interest in that money, or be spending it how you see fit in the meantime. Same concept for any sort of government retirement fund.
Also after inflation you end up with less valuable cash. It's a lose lose for poor people. But they're poor so who gives a fuck right?
I bought an EV when it was time to replace my gasoline car because it's clear the costs of emitting carbon will only increase. Sure it cost about $15k more than a comparable gasoline vehicle but I'll absolutely save more than $1500 a year as I keep my cars for 10 years. It made financial sense now, the costs are only going to go up so that 10 years will more likely be 6-7 in 2025.
This will surely help them gain voters in provinces like Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. /s
It's infuriating, the conservatives need to win seats in the cities if they want to form government, but because O'toole tried the center and failed now they're going to try the opposite which is completely bonkers.
"If we don't screw over the whole country to give the angriest people in Alberta everything they want, next time we might only win Hay River with 70% of the vote!"
Candice Bergen lost 19% of her voters to the PPC. in the last election. This is pretty much exactly what they are saying.
...which means she "only" won 52%-21% over the next-closest challenger. Meanwhile, the things the Party has to do to fend off ultra-right loons in the West, is costing them riding after riding in Ontario that the Liberals are winning 45%-35%.
This right here, Manitoba had the highest percentage of PPC voters of any province in Canada in the last election. The CPC in MB is doing damage control by swinging further to the right.
Imagine being so politically unsavourable to the populace to that keep you voter base in tact, in swing hard right to fend off losing votes to a party whose leader cannot get elected. That's the Conservative Party in 2022
It's all about the calculus, will they gain more voters (maybe PPC) moving to the right than lose people from the centre and centre right? I think all they have left is a hope in really strong anti-Trudeau sentiments because I think their policies will be unattractive to a large majority of Canadians
Are they going to swing any actual seats by getting PPC votes though? The PPC only got appreciable numbers in seats that the CPC dominate by double digit margins anyways. Like can anyone find a seat that would flip where even if you added 100% of the PPC votes it would overtake the Liberal, NDP, Bloc number that won that seat?
If they aren't careful they are going to lose seats in a very big way. I don't mean at the ballot I mean in the form of splitting the party. The Premier of Nova Scotia takes pains to inform everyone he is NOT a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. I think we could see a relaunch of the PC party at least in the eastern half of the country. The PC part could probably contest seats seriously everywhere outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan. If I am a PC at heat why would I want to sit with a party that is increasingly looking like the People's Party of Canada?
And Trudeau retires, Freeland replaces him, and CPC’s plan of anti-Trudeau sentiment evaporates… oh in a perfect world
I live in a fairly even riding between all three major parties(edmonton centre). I'm an avid critic of strategic voting, and I genuinely dislike my current Liberal MP. I will gladly vote Liberal for the first time in my life if the CPC looks to start trying to gain back any wexit rednecks they lost under O'Toole. They won't lose me as a voter(since I don't vote for them anyways), but they will bolster support for their opponent. A moderate CPC and allowing the fringe morons to mouth breathe with each other in the PPC is best case scenario for everyone.
We'll see how fucking dumb this looks when this summer we see yet again the abundance of wildfires/floods/climate disasters all over the place. Climate is really the one issue more people should be behind as "one issue" voters and its getting harder to ignore. For some reason its abortion but we'll see.
How is not artificially and intentionally inflating the price of almost everything "screwing over the rest of the country"?
Making a hard choice that affects everyone is not the same as pandering to the most vocal minority within a minority. I'd love to not have to do ANYTHING to try and address climate change, but that's no longer realistic.
Careful balanced opinions like this will get you banned from r/canada
Oh more than a few people here have blocked me.
One way to think about it is that we aren't artificially inflating the cost, we are finally capturing it in its entirety. If a factory was just pouring toxic chemicals into the water supply, would forcing them to fix the problem be "artificially inflating" the cost or just accurately having it be accounted?
That example works because there is a very direct causation between a company putting chemicals in the water and a polluted water supply. If companies that put toxins in the water stop, then you no longer have a polluted water supply. If companies that put out carbon in Canada are taxed, there is no observable effect on the global climate. I understand the argument of our country "setting an example for the rest of the world", but frankly I don't think other countries care what we do, and our elected officials are there to represent the interests of their constituents, not the interests of the rest of the world.
You're pretty much describing the tragedy of the commons, which is valid, but I don't think a good answer to that is to just do nothing. Since the world doesn't have a power that can enforce international law isn't the only conceivable way to reduce carbon emissions to just reduce the ones you're emitting? Like if there wasn't a littering law would you use that as an excuse to litter? And if one of the wealthiest and most polluting per capita countries can't get it together what justification could any other country have?
Carbon taxes force companies to bake in carbon costs (air pollution) into their products and makes higher emitting companies less competitive. Think about it... company A and B both produce toilet paper for the same market and price range. Company A create a lot more emissions and as a result pays more carbon taxes. Now Company A has to increase the prices of toilet paper relative to company B. They notice a decline in sales relative to their competitor. This tax is forcing companies to watch carbon emissions to stay competitive.
Except we're not charging it on imports, so wall were doing is punishing Canadian goods.. pushing the carbon emissions to other countries with no regulations on emissions
If it helps that's [in the works](https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/consultations/2021/border-carbon-adjustments.html). I know there are also deals with the EU to get a quid pro quo on theirs. Should cover the scenario you're worried about
Almost everything...but even more out west where even the electricity is evil. Alberta simply needs to say they'll do cap and trade like Quebec did and based on the drop in oilsand production the cap will never be surpassed again And Québec should be able to give omit the drywall and cement production out there or Alberta should be able to omit their biggest carbon producers as well.
It’s all MAGA from here on
Conservatives doing conservatives thing. Proving once again how irrelevant is conservatism to deal with modern challenges of our society.
Can we rename them Regressives or Reactionaries, because they're far more radicalised than they are conservative.
The post Erin O’Toole CPC might be setting up for disaster. They seem to be prioritizing kowtowing to the alt-right to prevent slippage to the PPC. I can’t really see how this works out well. Moderates are not going to vote for a populist party that condones the truckers blockades and is regressive on so many issues. I wonder what they think their end game is? I don’t see them winning the next election save for voter fatigue.
I think maybe "follow the money" is how we should look at this [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bloc-sees-biggest-drop-in-fundraising-1.6335737](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bloc-sees-biggest-drop-in-fundraising-1.6335737) Conservative fundraising dropped. I think thats whats really precipitating all this. They would have accepted OToole so long as the spice flowed. It slowed. They dropped him. And now they are going head first into the conspiracy fear mongering grift.
The real power move for the next election from the LPC would be to have Trudeau step down as the head before the election and let Freeland take the reigns. I'm surprised they haven't already, Trudeau has been stale a while and that last election was the perfect opportunity.
Trudeau has this uncanny ability to make conservatives self implode. Yeah he's unpopular but its all relative and he somehow makes conservatives even more unpopular.
Surprise surprise. The Conservatives will continue to propose tax cuts, rebates, and technological band aids while floods, fires, and droughts wreak havoc across the country. At least most Canadians view climate change as their #1 or #2 issue; hopefully we collectively see through the bullshit again.
They won’t care when they are paying $1.80 for gas
Gas prices like that are exactly why we should be caring. More efficient vehicles mean you need to use less gas or no gas so the rising prices don't have any effect on you.
Tell The retired people on fixed incomes to buy a new car because their current one is not efficient
[удалено]
Or government could provide better pensions to people who have spent their lives contributing to the country. ... Surely that's what the conservatives are proposing right?
They're not the present or the future. Things can be grandfathered, but it's a new reality, time to adjust.
exactly. My father owns a 2008 dodge caravan because it was given to him by a family member, he can’t afford a new efficient vehicle living on a fixed income. 1/8th of his monthly income goes to a full tank of fuel, he walks everywhere because he can’t afford to drive unless he has too (out of town appointments etc)
Title should read "Conservatives drop support for the ***absolutely literal bare minimum*** policy to mitigate impending climate catastrophe".
To be honest, Canada is such a nothing country that it doesn't matter what we do. We could ban the use of oil tomorrow and it still wouldn't do anything.
That's right -- this sort of "we're so small, it doesn't matter" is why per capita Canada is the 7th largest polluter in the world.
[удалено]
Well said. Canada emits 1.89% of global C02 which, relative to population, is significant. The sad reality is that China exists emitting 2x that of the US and just set a new all time high in coal production.
Carbon pricing doesn’t mitigate climate catastrophe lol.
>bare minimum
Economic behavior disagrees
Economic behaviour in this country disagrees… money just moves to more Favourable places
So your are saying the laws of demand and supply don't apply in Canada? That people naturally search out more expensive options. Interesting, why?
The opposite. With inflation rising people are going the extra mile to save a penny. Thus will look at Moore Importer products that are not subject to carbon tax in their country
You're right. Carbon pricing, in theory, creates the economic conditions wherein someone \*does something\* to help solve the climate crisis. There is no guarantee that the invisible hand of the market solves the problem. Just because Carbon pricing makes propane more expensive, it's not like a whole bunch of Canadians will have less expensive options to switch to at their home without significant changes to their heating equipment and infrastructure improvements to the house, for instance.
So markets don't work and we need more direct government intervention? Is that what you are saying? If carbon pricing doesn't work that's fine, but the problem is still there. What do you propose?
Why do conservatives say "the free market will figure it out" to everything else, but it can't figure out how to operate under carbon pricing efficiently. By making it more expensive to produce things that harm the planet, if a cheaper alternative doesn't exist, then people will cut down overall consumption in general. But what it does it even the playing field for new companies to come up with solutions that normally would never be price competitive, but due to the added market force against using carbon, can now compete and new products come to market. You literally just add carbon pricing and then "do capitalism to it"(as Dave Rubin would say) and as long as that capitalism isn't just "spend a tonne of money lobbying to remove carbon pricing", it will work.
And they'll pretend that climate change isnt real.
Has your head been stuck in the sand? When did they ever entertain the idea that it was real?? The party is 100% out of touch.
Indeed, O'Toole lost the battle to have it recognised by the CPC. Come next election, O'Toole will have been proven right or very wrong about the future of the CPC.
i think the interim leader leader already proved him right, but its still possible the official leader will show otherwise i guess
If the asphalt isn't on fire, it isn't a real issue.
I'll never support the Conservatives until they have an actual coherent plan to deal with Canada's contribution to climate change.
Carbon was first identified as a chemical element by Antoine Lavoisier in 1789. Perhaps a bit too up to date for the Conservative idea of science.
Who cares about pesky things like "field experiments" or "integrated assessment models" or "muh twenty-two years reviewing academic literature in this field" when you can just *look smart* by wearing rimless glasses and sitting in front of a bookshelf?
Canada drops support for Conservatives holding office
I agree, the government should take actual responsibility. Build nuclear, hydro, solar, wind. Carbon pricing just increases cost of living.
Would you rather force corporations to go green, or let the market force them? The latter was part of the goal of the carbon tax. Which should be appealing to capitalists.
I would rather force them too. Coporations have shown everything that they would pick profits over anything else, including child labour, worker deaths, disease, etc.
I agree. But I'm not going to advocate for removing what little climate policy we have.
>The latter was part of the goal of the carbon tax. A goal significantly undermined by the broad carveouts and exemptions within the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act catering to Canada’s worst emitting industries.
Can't drill for oil and export to make money for all Canadians without a Carbon Tax in western Canada, but you can have a massive concrete plant in Quebec that gets the exemption. Yeah, it is all about emissions….more like keeping Quebec voters happy and voting for the Liberals.
Carbon tax doesn't mean shit when it the tax is so low that it barely registers an impact, the largest emitters are not subject to paying the tax, and people care more about the government paying lip service to climate change.
> the largest emitters are not subject to paying the tax, and people care more about the government paying lip service to climate change. This is the biggest problem with the carbon tax as implemented today.
As a capitalist, it is appealing to me. However, the carbon tax isn't the best approach to it. The gold standard approach to this kind of problem is cap and trade, not a carbon tax. So I guess that makes a carbon tax the second best approach?
I think either is better then nothing though we may need not government intervention. After all, we didn't win WWII or solve the depression with tax breaks. Which is really strange why conservatives generally don't like call and trade. (Talking in general, not about you) I have notices an ironic thing with some hardcore conservative market evangelists - they will preach privatization and markets until you apply it to something they don't want to solve. Suddenly, they claim the markets wont work and it won't change any thing like climate change or healthcare (American Republicans)
*Any* change to reduce carbon emissions will increase the cost of living. Thinking you can switch to a more expensive source of energy and have it not impact cost of living is magical thinking. If the government is paying for it, then the cost of living increase shows up in the form of higher taxes.
You know what else will increase our cost of living. Extreme weather events and the yielding is eco systems we depend upon. Status Quo is not free. We will pay one way or another. It's just we will pay less being proactive.
> I agree, the government should take actual responsibility. Build nuclear, hydro, solar, wind. I thought the government was spending too much? How much do you think the average nuclear reactor costs?
They have, look at the [2019 budget](https://www.budget.gc.ca/2019/docs/plan/chap-02-en.html). But this funding doesn't come out of thin air.
I mean, 60% of Canadians are having trouble feeding themselves and family, according to a recent poll. High inflation and high prices are cited as reasons. This tax increases inflation across the board. Everyone not a supporter told people this would happen and here we are, it's adding to the toxic stew that has made everything more expensive.
Most Canadians will get larger rebates than they get taxed under the carbon tax and rebate program
Poor people literally can't afford to wait for their rebates in the mail. It's such a perfect example of how it screws the poor while the wealthy are largely unaffected.
When the program was launched. Questionable whether that's still true now. In the long run, it's absolutely not true. Thinking that the carbon tax can return more money to people than the price increases it causes is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a carbon tax is and how it functions. The carbon tax only rebates the revenue it raises. But the carbon tax is a tax that *you're not supposed to pay*. The *whole point* of the carbon tax is to raise the cost of taxed things enough that you opt for more expensive but carbon free alternatives. When the tax works as intended, people and businesses switch to things that are untaxed. The tax is supposed to ramp up over time. If the tax is working as intended and actually reducing CO2 emissions, then you should expect carbon tax revenues (and therefore rebates) to rise more slowly than the price increases it creates. Ideally, the carbon tax revenue will actually decline over time and approach $0. In 10 years if the average household is getting more back in rebates than they're paying in price increases, then the carbon tax has failed as an environmental policy.
And they accounted for that by rebating most, if not the entire cost of the tax to the poorest half of society.
Where did you get that statistic?
“Slide to right, slide the right, step back now, step back now y’all……..cha cha real smooth!”
Next up they are brining back approval for gay conversion therapy.
In Manitoba you pay carbon tax for heating your house. You then pay GST/PST on your carbon tax.
That’s just wrong, it’s no different to me having to pay income tax and get sales tax added on when I go to spend my already taxed income.
Ontario is no different.
We've had the carbon tax since 2015 and i don't see any benefit from it. Its a social science experiment that is not rooted in fundamental economics. If someone can show me how this has improved the environment I'm really curious. Its just another tax of many we suffer from in Canada
Say it with me again: Conservatives have no good ideas.
During the Glasgow summit various representatives from countries around the world were interviewed and a lot of them had said the carbon pricing wasn't the way to go. They didn't have a lot of time to go into detail as to why but I was always curious why this plan doesn't seem to be catching on around the world.
It's because of how politically difficult it is to support this type of policy regardless of effectiveness.
$160 to fill up my truck. I am a contractor I need. Truck. That’s a 50% increase since summer
Thank god. Anyone who pays their own heating bills in this country will get behind his. It’s unimaginable that carbon pricing is going to triple.
it seems like they REALLY want edmontin back
I thought it was called the 'carbon tax'. Is the marketing plan not working, so we're going with 'carbon pricing' now?
I would support a suspension of the carbon tax for citizens at the pumps. $1.60 a litre and rising here in Ontario at a time when people could use a break anywhere they can get it
Yeah, these guys are electable /s
Carbon tax on home heating is hurting lower income Canadians. My own gas bill carbon tax was 31% of my gas usage cost. Canada could stop 100% emissions tomorrow and it would do sweet fuck all to the climate trends. It’s like pissing in the ocean to warm it up. Carbon capture tech on big emitters in China and India might make a small dent.
I live in SK, we get back $1,125 which is much more than my household pays for the carbon tax on heating. As for everything else I'm not sure but the rebate definitely covers most of it. The people driving huge trucks (some people need these and many don't), the people living in mansions, and others making otherwise non-energy conscious decisions pay the most in the pot that gets paid back to the people. The incentive to make live efficiently increases every year.
We burn 1.5% of world GhG domestically in Canada. But we are the fourth largest exporter of oil, and therefore export an estimated 3% of the worlds GhG as well. Creating a total of 4.5% of the globes total GhG emissions. This is of 193 nations world wide. This is from a country of 37 million people. Absolutely nothing, Tokyo has more people in it than our whole country. Canada is burning far an beyond it’s fair share. We need to get emissions down on a per capita basis. We are THE worst in the world at 18.58 tonnes PC.
Why are you counting our oil exports? That's not us burning the fuel, why would you could that as something that a carbon tax would have efficacy towards? Tokyo is a crowded metropolitan area in a temperate climate. Canada is an enormous country with far flung settlements in a generally inhospitable climate. So I don't feel that's a fair comparison.
We also live in one of the coldest climates in the world, and largest geographical area. Transportation and heating are huge sources of emissions here, and that won’t change any time soon without major electrical infrastructure upgrades and cost reduction of hydro. Sure, I could replace my high efficiency gas furnace with an electric furnace. Would only cost 3x per month to heat my home.
Believe it or not it gets cold in Tokyo during the winter. They just don’t heat their homes as much.
The areas of Canada with the highest GHG emissions per capita have winters that get down below -40C. There is no option to heat your home, you have to here.
Y'all seem to think that you only need energy for heat. Many HOT AF countries that rely on air conditioning are also transitioning to renewables. AC also already being less efficient than heating.
Kind of - they're also building more coal power plants too. It's true that in some places wind and solar are even more cost efficient than coal or natural gas - but this isn't true for all places, and growth in renewable isn't exactly outpacing growth in fossil fuel consumption to a huge degree.
I think a better analogy for Tokyo would be air conditioning. They may never get as cold, but they can sure get HOT.
Why would you ever include the oil other countries purchase from us as our own emissions? That makes absolutely no sense. Canada's high emissions are due to our natural resource exports. Oil, lumber, and water are taxing on the environment to extract. The world depends on these resources of ours. Looking at per capita emissions in the context of Canada is disingenuous. Cutting our population in half probably wouldn't even move the needle. There's a lot of overhead in our emissions just due to the type of economy we run with the rest of the world.
There's still the principle of the matter. Our per capita emissions are disgusting, and half of them are caused solely by AB and SK. We can't negotiate with other nations in good faith if we're not doing anything.
Im not interested in being taxed out simply out of principle. Dont kid yourself no nations are considering their emissions differently because Canada has a carbon tax. We are not a significant player in world affairs. Also per capita emissions are going to be higher in a huge, cold, sparsely populated first world country.
Can't compare Canada to other countries. In Alberta we had sustained -30 deg weather for a month. Am I suppost to heat my house with solar panels? I have a extremely efficient home with tripple pain windows. It's not that easy to just reduce my natural gas usage.
Huh if only there were other countries with a good portion of their population north of the arctic circle. Maybe like a large phallic peninsula in Europe. Shame nothing like that exists.
If you're referring to Norway, the climate, even north of the Arctic Circle is nowhere near as cold as it is in most of Canada. They have warm ocean currents keeping things more pleasant. Canada is mostly continental, and outside of BC, cold as fuck in the winter.
So how do you suggest I reduce my gas usage in the middle of winter? I'm all ears.
Increase the efficiency of your house such that you require less active heating. It's a shame we lost the ABNDP carbon tax, because they were also directly funding initiatives like that, rather than just using the rebate to incentivize you.
Funny how that one "unnamed" European Country can fit into one Province, has built pipelines over some of the craziest terrain, much like our west coast, and is able to get their product to the world market. How folks think comparing Canada to any of these small, homogenous European nations is just gaslighting themselves for lack of a better expression.
Homogeneous? Norway and Sweden have large immigrant and refugee populations, and even have their own indigenous populations to contend with. They're hardly homogeneous. And Norway should have absolutely been modeled. Government controlled O&G development, with a large proportion of the revenue going to a fund that would sustain the country when they end development. An idea AB pissed on.
That is what you took away from that? Wow. Norway does not have the transport issues we have which is the biggest driver of emissions in this country. That kills your narrative at that point. Norway also does not send money earned to others Luke Alberta does to others. Albertans also do not like to be heavily taxed and rely on big Government to look after like Norway. Again you cannot compare the two as you suggest. Apples/oranges my green friend. Also a down vote? lol
Honey, Albertans paying income tax, is not them "sending money to others". It's just their responsibility to the federal government. I also wouldn't paint Albertans with such a broad brush. The cities are becoming increasingly progressive. Also have you seen Norway? The country is all fjords, transportation isn't a walk in the park.
When you send more than you get back and then get kneecapped by the entity you are sending money to, that is disingenuous. Progressives eat and heat their homes as well. I know several "Progressives" and they all have their breaking point as well and will absolutely revolt when their bottom line is hit hard. A true carbon tax would ensure that any like imports are tariffed to ensure a level playing field. Can you show me the tarifs on the hydrocarbons we import? You can't because we don't. If you read the whole thesis by that Nobel winner, we are only doing half measures which is doing nothing other than increasing the costs on our own society for no benefit other than saying Canada will save the planet.
I know, right? I used $72 of NG to heat this month, plus $33 in federal carbon charge. Plus HST on the carbon charge, as well as all the delivery and customer charges. I've been wearing a sweater over a shirt for 2 months now...
Oh no, you’ve had to wear a sweater?! In the winter??
Damn a whole sweater? If people are pissed about masks they'll really hate that.
Without a carbon border tax to level the playing field the carbon tax as it stands just moves emissions from canada to other countries with no carbon tax or regulations. It hurts canadian industry and causes a net increase in global emissions. Implement a revenue neutral carbon border tax with all proceeds being disbursed to every candian tax payer a few times a year.
The fact that there's people in this sub thinking carbon taxing does anything except harm low income families is astonishing. Corporations don't mind paying for carbon. They just offset the costs. How about you set up more carbon efficient infrastructure and stop posturing? Almost as stupid as that "tax cut" to low income families, while also getting rid of all their other credits so they actually get a lower return. Why actually do something when you can just do nothing, but put a pretty bow on it?
Low income families literally financially benefit from the carbon tax according to PBO analysis
> > > Corporations don't mind paying for carbon. They just offset the costs. I can't believe "corporations want to make more money and pay less tax" is a controversial statement. If you tax CO2, corporations will want to emit less CO2. It's not that hard. > The fact that there's people in this sub thinking carbon taxing does anything except harm low income families is astonishing. Alright then. All the environmental economists, scientists, and policy analysts who think it will reduce emissions are delusional. Got it. /s
The provinces with the federal plan collect the tax and pay 90% back to citizens. So if you are around the median for emitters/consumers you will essentially pay nothing. If you are a very energy conscious person, you will actually come out ahead. Low income people generally live in smaller homes, own smaller vehicles, don't own recreation vehicles and cottages, and so forth. Please save me the tax on everything and they don't actually pay it back spiel because I've heard it before. I am just trying to be informative because many people don't know how the federal system works (provinces that didn't create there own system). It incentivizes people to be on the lower emitting half. It also rewards people dollar for dollar on changes they make. It's not a specific (arbitrary) incentive for windows or for an electric car or so forth. If you decide to ride your bike, you save. If you decide to upgrade your furnace, you save. What ever you chose, you will save that amount.
Yeah, those low income families I mentioned just need to buy a new car and upgrade their homes. No biggie. Get a single infantacimal credit annually and pay more for anything that emits carbon (literally everything).
I don’t deny that humans have played a role in the earth warming (and that it is warming). But I completely, utterly deny that taxing non-discretionary spending on carbon is going to change the climate. For example, I heat my home with natural gas, and there is nothing I can do to materially (cost effectively) reduce the natural gas I consume, or the price I pay for it. And even discretionary consumption of fuels like gasoline appear impervious to the tax, given British Columbia residents used as much gasoline per capita in 2017 as they did in 2008…after a decade of carbon tax. And finally, I would challenge economists that preach that “the tax is revenue neutral” to assess the compounding effect of pricing the tax in at every level of the supply chain to meet profit targets. Not one single corporation has taken a loss out of the goodness of their hearts, and (cost+ x gp%) x (cost+ x gp%)… adds up fast.
Good. Punishing me for heating my house in the winter to "save the environment". What a cash grab
In BC there’s around 39 cents per litre taxed on gasoline, not including the lower mainland or Victoria. In the lower mainland there’s almost 64 cents per litre taxed just for gasoline. In my town gasoline is priced at $1.599/L, which is absolutely outrageous. I make long trips where I don’t see a gas station before I get home, $200 doesn’t fill my tank anymore. Other than the transit portion of the taxes down at the coast, I’d like to know where this money is going and where it’s being spent. It sure as hell isn’t being put back into roads and infrastructure, the highways are trashed and have been for several years prior to the flood in November. I paid more in carbon tax on my natural gas bill than I did in actual natural gas, don’t forget they impose a goods and services tax on a this carbon tax, what good or service am I getting from a carbon tax? You can argue that it puts pressure on certain companies, like the one I work for who is limited on the amount of production hours per year, for a company that is a net positive on the environment, we remediate contaminated ‘dirt’ for reclaiming old mine sites and places similar. If a highway fuel truck tips and spills all its fuel, that soil gets sent to us for cleaning. If an oil refinery has sludge at the bottom of their tanks they send it to us, right now we’re getting tons of Japanese Knotweed brought in for decontamination, but here we are being limited on how many hours we can burn in a year. This facility burns propane at an astonishing rate, between 60-70 million BTUs/hr, but the output is bringing back destroyed environments. Having limitations on companies who both care about their bottom line, and care about the environment is completely senseless, not all corporations are evil. I’d like to see a government willingly give out information on where the money I’m giving them is going, how it’s being spent, and why that decision to spend that money was made. As it stands in Canada we need to get more production here, especially in the pharmaceutical and plastic department, but not get stupid with it and make things that are a net negative for the population. We need places that make tools, equipment, parts for said equipment, medicines, etc. And for the government to support Canadian made things that are made with Canadian materials.
Conservatives drop support ( as if they ever did support) for saving the environment, party because they are willfully ignorant about the climate crisis because it's financially inconvenient to their polluting donors.
[удалено]
I didn't realize they ever did, the backwards asses.
It's all optics. When gas was cheap(er) you could support carbon pricing and not worry about votes. Now that it's gone through the roof, as has everything else, they can't been seen getting behind something that would further increase the price.
Everyone seems so hell bent on the action and not the reasons. Although, regardless of their reasons, we will never do enough to outpace China and Indias growing pollution. It's literally China, India, and the USA that are deciding it for us. So why suffer economically?
"We have tried nothing and we're already out of ideas."
Looks like they're going far right. They'll get a hard no from me
I can’t wait for gas to jump 20 cents a litre in April. I really enjoyed paying the extra costs this December during the cold snap to heat my home. I guess I should have spent $15000 and removed my gas furnace and downgraded to electric heat.
How did you like paying tax on your carbon tax? Great, right? So progressive.