Alberta Carbon Tax Legislation Passed

carbontax

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Carbon tax legislation, which the opposition estimates will increase household bills by $1000 / year, has just been passed by the Alberta Legislature.

Alberta carbon tax legislation passes, marks first stage of climate-change plan

The new legislation will raise the price of heating bills and gasoline as an incentive to turn to green energy sources.

EDMONTON—Premier Rachel Notley’s government used its majority in the legislature Tuesday to pass legislation that includes a carbon tax and completes the first stage of Alberta’s landmark strategy to combat climate change.

The legislation gives legal teeth to the multibillion-dollar tax that is to take effect Jan. 1 and will raise the price of heating bills and gasoline as an incentive to go green.

It also lowers the small-business tax rate to two per cent from three and establishes an agency to fund energy savings programs.

The final tally was 42-39.

After the results were announced, Notley shook hands with government house leader Brian Mason and exchanged a thumbs-up with Environment Minister Shannon Phillips.

“I’m extremely proud of this piece of legislation and extremely proud of this government’s climate leadership plan,” Notley told the house just prior to the bill’s passage.

The carbon levy is to take effect Jan. 1. Gasoline at the pumps will rise by 4.49 cents a litre and diesel will go up 5.35 cents a litre.

The government estimates higher heating and gasoline fees will cost the average family an extra $443 next year.

Opposition members say the government is lowballing that figure.

This is going to pull at least a thousand dollars from every household in Alberta,” said Wildrose Opposition Leader Brian Jean.

Read more: https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/06/07/alberta-carbon-tax-legislation-passes-marks-first-stage-of-climate-change-plan.html

The Albertan government is offering rebates to poor people, which may or may not cover the surge in energy costs. If the horrific rise in deaths of elderly people in Britain is any guide, a lot of these rebates will miss the target. Poor people in Britain theoretically receive energy rebates – yet somehow far too many still have to choose between heating and eating.

Advertisements

333 thoughts on “Alberta Carbon Tax Legislation Passed

  1. Greens kill. It is that simple. Older people in England and now Canada. Children in Africa, Asia, and South America with their ban of DDT and golden rice. Don’t you wonder when they are going to come for you. H/T to the famous Neusmuller (sp?) essay.

    • Greens kill. It is that simple.

      Yeah. We better cut down all those forests, pour more plastic into the ocean, overfish those oceans and try to decrease biodiversity.

      You know. To stop all that killing.

      • What a willfully ignorant and off-base remark. Aside from your comment having 0% to do with the matter at hand, it’s been a long time since the green agenda was actually about pollution and saving the trees/whales/etc.

      • Twaddle. You don’t need to be a Green to be an Environmentalist. Indeed my experience is that Green Leadership are anything BUT Environmentalists.

        Your hyperbolic inference is just idiotic, and signifies all that is wrong with the debate (what’s left of it) these days. You morons will just destroy everything, including the Environment the Followers treasure, just because you (as a goup) singularly lack… any… wisdom at all.

      • I am sorry, But you missed the point completely. From green ideology they once were (to which you refer) they have become the Green Khmer, which is a different beast.

      • Aside from your comment having 0% to do with the matter at hand

        Good point.

        What does “Greens Kill, it’s that simple”, have to do with the passing of the “Climate Leadership Bill” of Alberta’s New Democratic Party Government?

      • Your hyperbolic inference is just idiotic, and signifies all that is wrong with the debate (what’s left of it) these days. You morons will just destroy everything, including the Environment the Followers treasure, just because you (as a goup) singularly lack… any… wisdom at all.

        Thanks for bringing the argument back to one of facts, and no hyperbole.

        So when you say “destroy everything” does that include all infrastructure as well as all wilderness areas?

      • “Green” isn’t about the environment any more.
        http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/

        Good point.

        Whenever I wan’t to know what a group is about, I look up what their ideological opponents are saying what they’re about, because that’s less biased than, you know, seeing what they are doing and standing for.

        Nevertheless, reducing greenhouse emissions, however not green you claim it is, will do a lot to reducing extinction pressure on many species and ecosystems. And Alberta should be congratulated on this legislation by people who are about the environment, no matter what political persuasion.

      • You make a wilfully idiotic remark, then get upset when the hyperbole is thrown back at you. It’s a bit late to start a polite argument you idiot.

      • Seth there are quite a few true environmentalists who’s work you may want to acquaint yourself with. I suggest you start with Jim Steele’s excellent site http://landscapesandcycles.net/

        Thanks TRM,

        I notice that the scholarly literature has produced nearly 15,000 papers and publications this year so far with the search term “global climate change” alone.

        That’s a lot of scientific reading to do. With an unrelated day job I find it difficult to keep up with the peer reviewed science.

        Is there something in particular about this advocacy literature that would make it more worth the interested amateur’s time than keeping up with the science?

      • You make a wilfully idiotic remark, then get upset when the hyperbole is thrown back at you.

        I’m not upset.

      • Trees are growing 30-70% faster (depending on the variety) now than they were 50 years ago, Seth, all due to the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

        So if your goal is to curtail CO2 for some crazy, unsubstantiated reason, the end result will be a reduction in tree growth.

        You claim that biodiversity is good yet you fight against the very thing (CO2) that supports it and makes it flourish.

        I’d say you’re uneducated when it comes to the carbon cycle.

      • Trees are growing 30-70% faster (depending on the variety) now than they were 50 years ago, Seth, all due to the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

        Gee, thanks for this bombshell, Rockyroad.

        Do you have a link to some of the papers that find and confirm this, so I can take this knowledge of 50% increase in forest production over the past 50 years to some of my skeptical friends?

        You know, so I don’t look like I’m making stuff up without having a science basis.

        I don’t want them to ask me if it includes tropical varieties, and point to this paper from last year: No growth stimulation of tropical trees by 150 years of CO2 fertilization but water-use efficiency increased, without having one of the responses from the vast body of research finding the opposite ready.

      • Seth: Please explain then how raising energy taxes will prevent forests from getting cut down, plastic from going into the ocean, overfishing. Also please tell me how warmer weather, if it happens, would reduce biodiversity. Was biodiversity higher during the last ice age?

        Raising the cost of energy does kill people. Cheap energy makes people’s lives better. It’s not a hard concept to grasp…unless you are a brain washed millennial addicted to victimhood, violent protests and demanding other people give you their stuff.

      • Seth,

        Please tell me how much additional warming this tax will prevent??

        Keep in mind that if the United States were to comply with the Paris climate accord, the reduction in temperature by the year 2100 will amount to 0.031 degrees C:

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full

        Now please tell me the temperature reduction for this paltry little tax and tell me how this will save some species from extinction???

      • Perhaps you need information or maybe a good spanking. Malaria was nearly eradicated from the earth due to the use of DDT. Greens succeeded in getting it virtually banned in the world. NOW one million (1,000,000) human beings , mostly children, die each year from malaria . Don’t believe me, Google the subject. Given this fact you have the colossal nerve to chastise me. I repeat GREENS KILL.

      • Please tell me how much additional warming this tax will prevent??

        It’s difficult to estimate what the long term affects will be.

        As Albertans investigate low emission power sources and technologies, those will be affected by economies of scale, and if they are good may become the way of doing things globally.

        Also in terms of international negotiations, once OECD countries start committing to cuts, we get a much better chance of China, USA and Saudi Arabia coming on board. Well China and USA anyway.

        Keep in mind that if the United States were to comply with the Paris climate accord, the reduction in temperature by the year 2100 will amount to 0.031 degrees C:

        That’s assuming that not technologies that come from the complying make global uptake, and that it has no effect on international negotiations.

        Those are both implausible.

      • “We better cut down all those forests”

        Yep.. and send them to Drax in the UK.. DOH !!!

      • “Seth June 8, 2016 at 11:32 pm It’s difficult to estimate what the long term affects will be.”

        That seems to be the case with just about everything the Greens have come up with relating to CO2 and CAGW.

      • “Seth June 8, 2016 at 11:32 pm

        Please tell me how much additional warming this tax will prevent??

        It’s difficult to estimate what the long term affects will be.”

        Hang on there. The science is settled, right? And carbon taxes are the solution, right? So, if a carbon tax is the solution to a problem then there must be some sort of idea what the effects, on climate, will be, right? I can tell you now the long term effects will be immediately evident, more expensive energy for consumer with ZERO benefit to the climate and maximum benefit to Govn’t revenue streams and carbon traders (Bankers). As is the case with all other carbon tax implementations world wide.

      • Seth — You believe nonsense so fiercely that it verges on mental illness. — Eugene WR Gallun

      • Perhaps you need information or maybe a good spanking.

        You seem to get excited by strange things.

        Malaria was nearly eradicated from the earth due to the use of DDT. Greens succeeded in getting it virtually banned in the world.

        I wasn’t aware of world legislation regarding DDT. Most of the work of the international court of justice seems to be about human rights and genocide.

        Can you point me to the legislation?

        Thanks!

      • Hang on there. The science is settled, right?

        Certainly the paper suggesting that the natural fall to the next ice age would override AGW disappeared by the early 1970s.

        It that the aspect of the science you’re talking about, or do you mean to imply that we have a grand unified field theory that I missed reading about?

        In either case, the consequences of policy don’t really fall under the bracket of “science”.

      • Seth: “I don’t want them to ask me if it includes tropical varieties, and point to this paper from last year: No growth stimulation of tropical trees by 150 years of CO2 fertilization but water-use efficiency increased,”

        CO2 has two distinct positive effects on plant growth, both well observed and documented : Increased fertilization (facilitating photosynthesis) and reduced evaporation water loss (stomata size decrease). Focusing on one of these and on one type of plant is a double cherry pick.

      • Affect: Noun:

        A subjective feeling experienced in response to a thought or other stimulus; mood, emotion, especially as demonstrated in external physical signs.

        Eg ‘It’s difficult to estimate what the long term affects will be.’ = ‘its hard to gauge the pyschological impact of…carbon tax…long term’

        …yet another Freudian slip?

        You are a bundle of laughs today, Seth.

      • CO2 has two distinct positive effects on plant growth, both well observed and documented : Increased fertilization (facilitating photosynthesis) and reduced evaporation water loss (stomata size decrease). Focusing on one of these and on one type of plant is a double cherry pick.

        So is Rockyroad wrong in his claim that *Trees are growing 30-70% faster (depending on the variety) now than they were 50 years ago*?

        And the correct thing is “Trees are growing faster, but it’s incorrect to say how much, and some of them are becoming more resistant to drought, but not in isolation of other ones growing faster”?

      • As if anyone is actually proposing to do any of those things.
        Sheesh, are you being paid to make greens look bad?

      • It has everything to do with the new carbon tax troll boy.
        Since forcing poor people to choose between heating and eating has already resulted in thousands of deaths.

      • Yeah. We better cut down all those forests, pour more plastic into the ocean, overfish those oceans and try to decrease biodiversity.

        You know. To stop all that killing.

        Seth, you start off your champion threadbombing effort with an out-of-context remark. Fine. It is the classic talking-point equivocation made by AGW proponents everywhere, that of equating pollution with CO₂ emissions. This thread isn’t about pollution OR emissions. It is about the deleterious and futile carbon tax from the Notley Government whom you so glowingly admire:

        And Alberta should be congratulated on this legislation by people who are about the environment, no matter what political persuasion.

        This thread reminds us of why congratulations are not in order. Even if the tax were to eliminate all of Alberta’s emissions, and again we are talking CO₂, it would make at best an immeasurable difference in the modelled global warming (equivocated as “climate change”). And before you ask me (or anyone else) to do YOUR homework, I would like to ask you, a self-professed amateur, to tell us where you get your bottomless capacity to spew talking points. And, begin by answering this: What is the ideal climate state that we have departed from? What is the perfect average global temperature? The so-called experts can’t answer that question, so why on earth would an amateur (again, self-professed) think he could? You have already shown your ignorance of the issues AND the “science”, by introducing yourself as one who cannot tell the difference between CO₂ emissions and “pollution”, so why should one find your question

        Is there something in particular about this advocacy literature that would make it more worth the interested amateur’s time than keeping up with the science?

        to be sincere?

        Your opening statement sets the tone. You came here to disrupt, not discuss. You came here to preen and strut. And boy, I’d say you did a great job. Congratulations. You’ve managed to stir up an entire discussion, never intending to discuss a damn thing. All reasonable attempts to engage you will fail, because you intend it to be that way. Which makes you more of a manipulative infant than an interested amateur.

        You need to come up out of your parent’s basement and discover the real world. Not some fantasy place based on 150 years of earth History, and intellectually mangled by a bunch of left wing politicians intent on buying feel-good credits for their own edification. You need to understand just how futile, cynical, and basically evil this Congratulatory tax of yours is. And maybe, just maybe, you need to move to Alberta and see the effects for yourself, because I doubt you even live here.

        And you need to notice that your free speech has not been assailed, as it would have been if some of us realists had decided to play on Grist, Skeptical Science, Think Progress or Katharine Hayhoe’s talking points Facebook Page. We must endure your blather, because it’s your right to be ignorant. But not at our expense. I know that you will bomb this reply like every other smart-assed comeback you have made here. In reality, young fella, you need to get a life. In the unreal world of threadbombing, you think you already have.

        Thanks for hiding behind a pseudonym…that makes you smarter than the rest of us who take our insults standing up. I’ll quote you one last time, seeing how easy it was to find your quotes:

        Quite the opposite: I’m pro science.

        By comparison the climate “skeptic” “community” are much more neo-luddite when it comes to science and especially scientists.

        You are pro-Seth. You aren’t pro-science. Like your equivocations at the outset, you have equivocated between science and scientism, analysis and sound bites. You have no clue about the Earth.

        Have at ‘er, sonnybubbles.

      • ‘Yeah. We better cut down all those forests, pour more plastic into the ocean, overfish those oceans and try to decrease biodiversity.’

        Well, since a Greenie/Progressive can’t seem to make a single statement without misrepresenting the opposition – and then of course, railing against the strawman – it’s almost pointless to engage one in conversation. NO ONE is advocating for any of those things. Certainly, not AGW skeptics. In fact, near as I can tell, most of us are more in the Pat Michaels mold – watching an issue we once cared about deeply being perverted and prostituted into a monstrously destructive social movement, which is morphing into a anti-humanist cult.

        The fact is, the DDT ban alone has killed more people than all the wars in history combined, pretty much since we’ve been throwing rocks at each other – and that’s just since the 70’s. Which is a good illustration of how total eco-religious-denial is – they’re still patting themselves on the back for saving the pelican (which somehow morphed into the American Eagle) – and they didn’t even do that. The cost of green legislation (particularly on the third world) hasn’t even begun to be calculated – especially since, no matter WHAT they do – it’s always, ‘just the beginning, just a bare beginning.’

        It’s an interesting psychological example of moral exhibitionism – the lengths they go to protect their warm fuzzy self image is starkly evident – Seth (despite his unrelated day job) has managed to troll the board with something like fifty snarky replies. But in reality, it’s really an extreme sort of snobbish elitism and maybe a dozen different kinds of prejudice, projection and bigotry.

      • Thanks to technological innovations in commercial agriculture and forestry, the land based biosphere is adding about 2 billion tons of mass per year, increasing biodiversity. Go to page 7, titled “Global Greening”.
        http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Nature_Rebounds.pdf
        Air quality in the U.S. is the best it’s been since at least 1980, probably longer.
        https://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html
        Power plant emissions of the odorless, colorless, atmospheric trace gas responsible for all life on planet Earth, CO2, are lower now than when Reagan was president.
        http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22372
        Here’s what Reagan would say about you:

      • I’m sorry to say that “affect” is NOT a noun, it is a verb.

        “effect” on the other hand IS a noun.

        G

      • I repeat. Would you please block this ignorant obstructive TROLL. I do not say that because he is attacking me personally but look down the thread and see what he does. Use your own judgement, it’s probably better then mine because I’m pissed that this piece of garbage is allowed to post on the best website in the whole wide world. I refer to when I said the same thing later in the thread. As for Seth: GREENS KILL., prove me wrong.

      • Seth June 9, 2016 at 12:45 am : “I wasn’t aware of world legislation regarding DDT. Most of the work of the international court of justice seems to be about human rights and genocide.

        Can you point me to the legislation?

        Thanks!”

        Stan Stendera original statement was “Malaria was nearly eradicated from the earth due to the use of DDT. Greens succeeded in getting it virtually banned in the world.”

        DDT use is regulated under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. It’s use is restricted. As for your remark about the ICJ, ignorant and grotesque.

      • Seth,

        Oil Change International, Washington, D.C., Founded 2005

        Staff includes:
        Alex Doukas, also worked with Pembina Institute Canada
        Matt Maiorna, also worked with Climate Change Action Network & Greenpeace USA
        David Turnbull, (s/o Susan W. Turnbull VIP, U.S. Democratic Party Committee) & David,Tar Sands Action Network

        Board of Directors,
        Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club USA

        http://www.priceofoil.org/about/staff

        Can do an internet search for more information.

      • Seth: Put a cork in it.
        DDT does not kill birds but mosquitos kill children with Zika and malaria. Global Warming is a made-up story to steal money. Fracking is safe and cheap energy allows food, medicine and sanitation for poor people. Sustainable forestry replaces slash and burn agriculture. Plentiful energy allows sewage pumping for treatment reducing disease for people and animals. Easy energy means refrigeration and stops epidemics from spoiled food. Effective insecticides save crops and feed kids.
        You and Bernie lost. The “Greens” stole your money and mine. Solar pollutes and traps too little energy to even pay the costs of the infrastructure it requires. Wind murders birds, disturbs sleep, destroys views and destabilizes grids.
        This contest is about power, as in money and authority, not as in winter warmth. It even steals winter warmth from elderly poor folks.

      • @Seth.

        “Yeah. We better cut down all those forests, pour more plastic into the ocean, overfish those oceans and try to decrease biodiversity. You know. To stop all that killing.”

        You don’t make any sense. Environmentalists don’t save trees, oil saves trees — partly due to plastic replacing wood in most applications, partly because oil based farming requires far less land, partly because we don’t burn wood for fuel any more, etc. Plastic in the ocean is fish food. Fisheries are managed by the fisherman not by environmentalists. Environmentalists are in fact against things like ocean fertilization which would help fisheries. All you give are examples where greens are hurting people and the environment.

      • Phaedo wrote:

        Stan Stendera original statement was “Malaria was nearly eradicated from the earth due to the use of DDT. Greens succeeded in getting it virtually banned in the world.”

        DDT use is regulated under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. It’s use is restricted. As for your remark about the ICJ, ignorant and grotesque.

        Phaedo, the stocholm convention came into effect in 2004, after which worldwide malaria cases have reduced.

        So this “getting DDT banned in the world” seems to have resulted in the change from increasing malaria rates to decreasing malaria rates.

      • You need to come up out of your parent’s basement and discover the real world. Not some fantasy place based on 150 years of earth History, and intellectually mangled by a bunch of left wing politicians intent on buying feel-good credits for their own edification. You need to understand just how futile, cynical, and basically evil this Congratulatory tax of yours is.

        Look Mike, I sympathise that the oil industry is dwindling, and that it’s difficult for a geologist to move from oil to other resources.

        So I’m sorry for your situation.

        But in the bigger picture reducing greenhouse emissions is a good thing, because it saves money rebuilding infrastructure, allows a whole bunch of development goals for at risk agricultural regions to proceed at a more achievable rate, and it preserves biodiversity – which is a huge resource of biochemical technology that we are losing at a horrendous rate before we have a chance to learn from it. It’s not “basically evil”. It’s just bad for your personal career.

      • Seth June 9, 2016 at 8:45 pm: ‘So this “getting DDT banned in the world” seems to have resulted in the change from increasing malaria rates to decreasing malaria rates.’

        The phrase used by Stan Stendera was ‘virtually banned.’

      • Seth June 9, 2016 at 8:45 pm: ‘Phaedo, the stocholm convention came into effect in 2004, after which worldwide malaria cases have reduced. So this “getting DDT banned in the world” seems to have resulted in the change from increasing malaria rates to decreasing malaria rates.’

        The chart you posted – without attribution I’ll note – is taken from a study published in the Lancet titled ‘Global malaria mortality between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis.’
        You claim that this show decreasing malaria rates. It does not. It show decreasing malaria mortality rates due to improved treatment programs. You need to publish something that shows rates of confirmed Malaria infection to put your case – note confirmed infections, not modelled.

      • Step 1. Jack up electricity prices on constituents including economically illiterate moronic majority voters and opposition voters.
        Step 2: ???
        Step 3: Leadership!

      • Seth (or whoever): ‘I wasn’t aware of world legislation regarding DDT. Most of the work of the international court of justice seems to be about human rights and genocide. Can you point me to the legislation?’

        Heaven’s no – it wasn’t legislation – they just threatened to cut off all funding to countries who didn’t comply. That’s extortion, not legislation.

        But I’m sure you knew that. You can’t educate someone who’s only pretending to be ignorant.

        But you have demonstrated the utterly despicable lengths people such as yourself will go to extricate themselves of all responsibility, even in the face of one of the greatest humanitarian crimes in world history.

        So go ahead and bask in your warm fuzzy self-image. Freebase it like crack.

    • Seth, Perhaps the IPCC will help you-

      ‘Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the worlds resources will be negotiated.
      Ottmar Edenhofer’

      http://www.azquotes.com/author/30831-Ottmar_Edenhofer

      ‘I notice that the scholarly literature has produced nearly 15,000 papers and publications this year so far with the search term “global climate change” alone.’

      Did they all support the meme?

      • Seth, Perhaps the IPCC will help you-

        ‘Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the worlds resources will be negotiated.
        Ottmar Edenhofer’

        Thanks for that translation of a response to an interview question taken both out of context and translated with some slant.

        If you want to appear especially honest, you should only put direct quotes in quotation marks. If it’s a translation, it should be made clear to the reader that it’s been through that filter.

        Did they all support the meme?

        About 98% of the ones that investigate what proportion of the current warming is attributable to human activity, would yield a middle estimate of more than 50%.

        In the recent past. It would probably hold.

        But I haven’t read them all yet.

      • Seth, Thank you for the response. ‘Thanks for that translation of a response to an interview question taken both out of context and translated with some slant.’

        perhaps you can include a translation that shows how it was taken out of context. My high school German is over 40 years old.

      • perhaps you can include a translation that shows how it was taken out of context. My high school German is over 40 years old.

        I’m assuming that your quote is from the heading of this article?

        You notice that already in German it’s paraphrased by the editor?

      • Seth. it appears to be this bit.-

        ‘Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.’

      • Well, you can see that the quote you made is a very paraphrased version of that.

        He’s talking about the difficulties of the negotiations that would be occurring and cancun. He’s saying that there will be countries there with a lot of wealth in fossil fuels that the negotiations will be to leave in the ground. And the immediate economic effects of that is what needs to be overcome by the negotiations.

        He’s not saying that environmentalism is a front for economic wealth distribution, which is what your quote sounds like. He’s saying that to achieve global environmental policy, the discussions and negotiations will not touch the environmental aspect … they will be entirely about wealth.

      • Seth: your paraphrase of Edenhofer’s statement is, as you probably know, completely wrong.

        “Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand.”

        Translation: “through climate politics we redistribute, de facto, the World’s assets. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious.”

      • Further:

        “Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit
        Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.”

        – “one must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. It has almost nothing to do with ecological policy, with problems of dying forests or the ozone hole.”

        A bald statement.

      • Seth: your paraphrase of Edenhofer’s statement is, as you probably know, completely wrong.

        “Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand.”

        Translation: “through climate politics we redistribute, de facto, the World’s assets. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious.”

        Chris, I was discussing the context of the passage, not translating that particular sentence.

        In isolation, the sentence you quote could have the meaning that you would like people to believe. But he was talking about the difficulties in negotiating climate politics.

        “Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit
        Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.”

        – “one must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. It has almost nothing to do with ecological policy, with problems of dying forests or the ozone hole.”

        A bald statement.

        If you stop there it might seem (as you appear to want people to believe) that the meaning of that sentence is that environmental benefit is not the goal.

        But if you read the entire thing, you do not get that impression.

        He continues after where you stop quoting:

        Nevertheless, the environment suffers from climate change – especially in the South.

        A lot will need to be done to adapt. But that is just doing much more conventional development policy: We will see a drop in agricultural yields in Africa with climate change. But this can be circumvented if the production efficiency is increased – and especially if African agricultural trade is embedded in the global economy. But then we have to see that successful climate policy needs different global trade and financial policies.

        The statement is now less bald, and all we’ve done is provide a very little context.

        Isn’t honesty a great thing?

    • Seth: Please explain then how raising energy taxes will prevent forests from getting cut down, plastic from going into the ocean, overfishing.

      The point that I was trying to imply was that Green policies target those things. In response to “Greens Kill”, rather than the original article.

      As perhaps you can see from the way it was a reply to that post, not the article. Or from the quote that I started the post with.

      Also please tell me how warmer weather, if it happens, would reduce biodiversity.

      Species have recently shifted to higher elevations at a median rate of 11.0 meters per decade, and to higher latitudes at a median rate of 16.9 kilometers per decade. (Source

      When a species’s range moves entirely off the pole end of an island or continent, or off the top of a mountain, it will have no range.

      Was biodiversity higher during the last ice age?

      Of course. Current species loss is about 1,000 times the background rate.

      But generally, both extinction and speciation rates are both high during warmer periods. However, because of pollution, overexploitation and habitat loss, many wild populations are at reduced numbers and therefore genetic diversity, which will limit the speciation during the current warming. Also the rate of warming, and the coincidence of habitat loss, pollution and overexploitation will exacerbate extinctions.

      With regard to the current climate change, during the quaternary, over which current species evolved, ranged in CO2 concentration from 170 to 280ppm or so. The current value of over 400ppm is new for all ecosystems. One would expect a few generalists to take over an many specialists to go extinct.

      • Seth.. DON’T PANIC

        There will continue to be PLENTY of world-wide CO2 emissions from China and other developing countries.

        The world’s food supply is ensured for many decades to come and atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase.

        Alberta are ONLY hurting themselves.

        If they are stupid enough to elect anti-progressives, that’s their problem. :-)

      • Seth.. DON’T PANIC

        I wasn’t panicing.

        There will continue to be PLENTY of world-wide CO2 emissions from China and other developing countries.

        China’s energy market is extensive enough that they have positioned themselves as the world leader in PV technology and other renewables while still making emissions.

        Alberta is better to align their economy with current and future requirements, so as not to have to shock their economy with rapid decommissioning of power sources later, and to remain in the market.

        The world’s food supply is ensured for many decades to come and atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase.

        There’s a famine right now in the horn Africa. While you’re organizing this ensured food supply to those already malnourished, I’ll wonder if you’re using the words “ensured” and “world” correctly.

        Alberta are ONLY hurting themselves.

        Probably not in the medium term, and not certainly in the short term. The RGGI states outperformed USA in general after implementing a carbon trading scheme, so it’s certainly not a given that a carbon tax hurts.

        But certainly an economy migrated away from fossil fuels is better future proof.

        If they are stupid enough to elect anti-progressives, that’s their problem. :-)

        Either you or them is mistaken.

      • Seth, you are goofy. Greens Kill. Let me explain that fact to you again. VAD (vitamin A deficiency) is a serious problem killing roughly 500,000 human beings (mostly children) a year. If you think I’m an anti green nutcase please explain why the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation strongly supports golden rice. How would you like to be a Mother in Africa with many children rationing out food with the blind child being the last in line? How would you like to be that Mother when the child finally dies? If you persist in this nonsense you become an accessory to genocide.

      • “I wasn’t panicing.”

        Look at yourself, dude.

        PANICKING like crazy.!!!!!

        Funny thing is.. you don’t even realise it

        The absolute DESPERATION in you posts is palpable…

        …. and frankly.. quite hilarious, :-) :-)

        Please keep going ;-)

      • Poor Seth

        Totally ADDICTED to climate Kool-aide.

        High pressure brain-washed.

        Big withdrawal symptoms in the near future.

      • RE: “Was biodiversity higher during the last ice age?”
        Seth: “Of course. Current species loss is about 1,000 times the background rate.”

        Of course ? You must be joking. Let’s ignore for a moment the fact you don’t know the difference between species loss rate and biodiversity.

        During the last ice age:
        -A huge chunk of the world’s landmass was covered in 2000m of sterile ice. Exposed land by a 120 meter lower water level did not make up the difference.
        -CO2 was a mere 180ppm, dangerously close to plant starvation levels. All plants grew anaemically and were extremely vulnerable to being wiped out by starving plant eaters.
        -It was much colder on most of the globe’s surface, making growing season much shorter.

        And yet, for you,
        1) “Of course” biodiversity was higher.
        2) We would like to return to that time as quickly as possible

        I’m done with you.

      • “It’s difficult to estimate what the long term affects will be.”

        I’ll bet!

        IOW, there’s no scientific evidence whatsoever that these taxes will have any effect at all.

      • Seth, you are goofy.

        Aw, shucks Stan.

        You’re goofy too!

        Greens Kill. Let me explain that fact to you again.

        Go right ahead.

        VAD (vitamin A deficiency) is a serious problem killing roughly 500,000 human beings (mostly children) a year. If you think I’m an anti green nutcase please explain why the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation strongly supports golden rice.

        While cute, this is a non-sequator. It is perfectly possible for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to strongly support golden rice, and also for you to be a nutcase.

        To make a logical inconsistency with you being a nutcase you would need a statement that implies you are not a nutcase.

        But certainly opposition to GM crops, and in particular golden rice is unscientific. It’s not a position that all Greens hold.

        How would you like to be a Mother in Africa with many children rationing out food with the blind child being the last in line? How would you like to be that Mother when the child finally dies? If you persist in this nonsense you become an accessory to genocide.

        Well I certainly wouldn’t want to be an accessory to genocide.

        But Bill and Melinda gates don’t hold the keys to truth. They’re right about GM foods and golden rice, but their vaccination policy has put a lot of vaccines *out* of the reach of Africans. So they’re wrong about that.

      • RE: “Was biodiversity higher during the last ice age?”
        Seth: “Of course. Current species loss is about 1,000 times the background rate.”

        Of course ? You must be joking. Let’s ignore for a moment the fact you don’t know the difference between species loss rate and biodiversity.

        There are different types of biodiversity. Species biodiversity is a very important one.

        During the last ice age:
        -A huge chunk of the world’s landmass was covered in 2000m of sterile ice. Exposed land by a 120 meter lower water level did not make up the difference.

        There has been movement in species ranges, but perhaps less speciation that you seem to think.

        -CO2 was a mere 180ppm, dangerously close to plant starvation levels. All plants grew anaemically and were extremely vulnerable to being wiped out by starving plant eaters.

        Dangerously close?

        C4 plants are tolerant to any CO2 level, but even plants with the C3 photosynthetic pathway won’t stave until less than half that CO2 concentration.

        -It was much colder on most of the globe’s surface, making growing season much shorter.

        Yes.

        And yet, for you,
        1) “Of course” biodiversity was higher.

        It certainly was.

        2) We would like to return to that time as quickly as possible

        Gosh and gee. I sure don’t think I said that. Nor would slowing the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration do that.

        I’m done with you.

        Perhaps that’s better for everyone.

      • I see that once again Seth is trying to pass off the work of models as if it were proven science.
        The only place where species are dying in large numbers are in those computer models.
        Out here in the real world, actual scientists, who make their living counting species, can’t find those massive extinctions the models have been predicting.

      • I see that once again Seth is trying to pass off the work of models as if it were proven science.

        Do you avoid aircraft, large bridges and tall buildings?

        After all, they’re only correctly maintained and structurally sound as calculated by models, not proven science.

        The vast majority of species are undiscovered. That doesn’t protect them from extinction. Quite the opposite.

      • Once again Seth demonstrates his utter lack of critical thinking skills.
        Models used to build airplanes and bridges work, therefore the global circulation models also work.

        Seth, give it up.

      • Assuming you are correct that the vast majority of species are undiscovered, then how do you know that they have gone extinct?

        As always, Seth has to resort to lies.

    • Seth, that paper uses Parmesan as a source. Her study has been debunked.

      ‘Her husband eventually responded to a follow-up email I sent a year later in which I expressed my frustration with their failure to allow independent verification. Her husband, Dr. Michael Singer, is a checkerspot expert who had shared in her research. Singer unintentionally confirmed Opler’s criticisms, “Her study did not find new northern, or higher populations of the species…There are no ‘new’ northern populations in Parmesan’s study. The study consisted entirely of re-examining populations known from past records and assessing which of them was currently extant or extinct. No ‘new’ populations were sought or found (emphasis added).” ‘

      Jim Steele
      http://landscapesandcycles.net/climate-doom–parmesan-s-butterfly-effect.html

      • Seth, that paper uses Parmesan as a source. Her study has been debunked.

        Thanks for your information, but you’re exaggerating to say that they used it as a source.

        It’s mentioned as a reference and discussed as a paper that used different techniques and got a different result.

        A previous meta-analysis (14) of distribution
        changes analyzed individual species, rather
        than the averages of taxonomic groups × regions
        that we used, and also included data on latitudinal
        and elevational shifts in the same analysis
        (18). It concluded that ranges had shifted toward
        higher latitudes at 6.1 km decade−1 and to higher
        elevations at 6.1 m decade−1 (14), whereas
        the rates of range shift that we found were significantly
        greater [N = 22 species groups × regions,
        one-sample t test versus 6.1 km decade−1, t =
        3.99, P = 0.0007 for latitude; N = 30 groups ×
        regions, one-sample t test versus 6.1 m decade−1,
        t = 3.49, P = 0.002 for elevation (18)]. Our
        estimated mean rates are approximately three
        and two times higher than those in (14), for
        latitude and elevation respectively, implying much
        greater responses of species to climate warming
        than previously reported (18). Most of the data
        we analyzed are from the temperate zone and
        from tropical mountains (table S1), where ecosystems
        are at least partly temperature-limited;
        different rates of change might be observed in
        moisture-limited ecosystems (19).

        […]

        14. C. Parmesan, G. Yohe, Nature 421, 37 (2003).

    • The green loony luvies are doing tremendous damage and indeed, killing people.and many endangered species of birds. The Audibon Society have reported that millions of birds are shredded each year by the luvies clunking, ugly wind turbines – thoughtlessly set in wind zones that are also migration routes. The self righteous, goody-two-shoes politicians like Notley are quite hypocritical – if they really believed the twaddle they spount, they would give up their flashy cars, stop flying first class, eat tofu, get rid of their central heating and ride bikes or walk everywhere. Hopefull the sensible majority in Alberta will vote out the loonies and put a responsible admin in place that will reverse this really stupid legislation.

      • The green loony luvies are doing tremendous damage and indeed, killing people.and many endangered species of birds.

        That’s great David, but you need to get some perspective.

        Turbines kill several hundred thousand birds in the US, but other buildings kill several hundred million.

        Cats kill over a billion.

        The Audibon Society have reported that millions of birds are shredded each year by the luvies clunking, ugly wind turbines – thoughtlessly set in wind zones that are also migration routes. The self righteous, goody-two-shoes politicians like Notley are quite hypocritical – if they really believed the twaddle they spount, they would give up their flashy cars, stop flying first class, eat tofu, get rid of their central heating and ride bikes or walk everywhere.

        Did you mother beat you with a wind turbine as a child?

      • It’s the “sensible” majority in Alberta who voted in the NDP in the first place.

      • Gees, never seen a cat kill a bald eagle.

        Please show.

        Yes, that would look unbelievable. Please show.

      • Buildings kill several hundred million birds a year?

        As usual, Seth just makes up whatever facts he needs.

    • “Raising the cost of energy does kill people. Cheap energy makes people’s lives better. It’s not a hard concept to grasp…unless you are a brain washed millennial addicted to victimhood, violent protests and demanding other people give you their stuff.”

      And so do heat waves. http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2016/04/28/indias-deadly-heat-wave-and-drought-the-numbers?

      The Indian government thinks CAGW is real – maybe you should go tell them that they are wrong, and that the devastation caused by the drought and heat wave this year is just more “natural variation.”

      http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4c4cbd50-2cfe-11e6-a18d-a96ab29e3c95.html#axzz4B4Ljoq5t

      • Raising the cost of energy does kill people.

        More than raising the cost of company tax by the same amount?

        How?

        Cheap energy makes people’s lives better.

        Not if it’s cheap because the costs are born by the taxpayer, land owner, farmer or even future generations.

        It’s not a hard concept to grasp

        Quite.

      • “Not if it’s cheap because the costs are born by the taxpayer”

        oh.. you mean like wind and solar…..

        I say let’s remove the subsidies and feed-in mandates…..

        Wind and solar are so cheap.. shouldn’t be a problem for them….

        right ;-)

        Silly bot, Seth.

      • “Not if it’s cheap because the costs are born by the taxpayer”

        oh.. you mean like wind and solar…..

        I say let’s remove the subsidies and feed-in mandates…..

        Wind and solar are so cheap.. shouldn’t be a problem for them….

        right ;-)

        Silly bot, Seth.

        Wind and solar are very cost effective, and as there is no fuel cost, they don’t fluctuate with the global fuel markets, which is better future proof.

        However, the cost increases after you get much over 30% of the grid in these kinds of renewable, as storage technologies, that are still very young, need to be used.

        The idea of a carbon tax in economic terms is to account for the externality that is global warming. The marketplace should take care of the rest.

      • No, carbon tax will ever reduce CO2 emissions unless it drives industries away.

        All it does is channel money into the hands of the bankers.

        That is its ONLY PURPOSE.

        Since industries move to other countries such as China, it is most probable that global CO2 emissions INCREASE.

      • No, carbon tax will ever reduce CO2 emissions unless it drives industries away.

        It turns out that some industrial processes and some energy sources are lower CO2 emissions than others.

      • Either Seth has no knowledge of how industry works, or he really fouled up his latest scan of his talking points data base.

    • In a country as cold as Canada the proper climate change plan would be:
      If you find it getting too hot for your liking please move north 200 miles. No taxes needed, no loss of freedom, no herding onto public transit.
      But that’s too rational for these dopes and would take the graft out of it so it would never be done.
      Sad.

      • No taxes needed, no loss of freedom, no herding onto public transit.

        Loss of freedom?

        For paying tax?

        Have you been imprisoned, but with less tax, the prison will have to close and free you?

    • Looks like some troll named seth has purposefully thread bombed this discussion.

      Thread bombed by refusing all evidence against his specious diatribes.
      An insistence that his private view of ‘green’ is superior without evidence.
      Replies to logical arguments with literal nonsense.
      Ignores even better german translations than his admitted 40 year ago language lessons. (though his discussion skills appear to be from an adolescent age.)

      Perhaps retire this article and repost it without seth’s anti-participation?

      • Replies to logical arguments with literal nonsense.

        …riiiight…

        Such as?

        Ignores even better german translations than his admitted 40 year ago language lessons.

        Read it again. You misunderstood even the English.

      • Oh no, let the article stand. Seth thinks his cleverness means he is “winning”, but he is only exposing himself for those with the eyes to see.

    • I am a uk national,born and bred. I do not know how to make a reply to the post so I am replying via you good self.
      Please will you ask the Alberta legislature (if there one still exists) who is getting paid to pass laws that are injurious to the inhabitants of Alberta without their vote?

      There is a sickness that is infecting the media world who have no conscience over the innocent.

      Please rebel.

      Roger Welsh

  2. No more Calgary Stampedes for me. I thought those folks were a bit nuts the first time I drove into town during Stampede Week (1967).

    Now I’m quite sure those folks are nuts.

    g

    • George, most of us in Alberta are not nuts. Premier Nutley (more appropriate spelling intentional) got elected by a horrible fluke created by a really inept and arrogant predecessor. I can’t find anyone who will admit to having voted for these wingnuts. Many of our recently elected officials are still children who have never lived outside Mommy and Daddy’s house, so they have no idea that the province actually needs to have jobs and profitable companies in order for tax money to roll in. (And these guys REALLY like taxes.) Most ran on a lark, thinking the NDP (Narcissistic Dimwit Party) didn’t have a snowball’s chance in the (obviously CAGW-induced) fires of hell of getting elected. I can only pray that we still have a province left by the time these lunatics get punted in three years, but Nutley is racking up debt faster than Greenland’s glaciers are supposedly melting.

      • Many of our recently elected officials are still children who have never lived outside Mommy and Daddy’s house

        If readers think that CanHardlyWaitForTheNextElection is being sarcastic or using jejune high school humor to describe what happened, guess again. In fact, it’s understatement. Those who had jobs were baristas or yoga teachers.

      • As Robert Wuhl said in the original and still funny education classic Assume the Position (youtube), “I sh*t you not.”

      • . “…I can only pray that we still have a province left by the time these lunatics get punted in three years,…”

        Judging by what happened in my province of residence, Ontario, when NDP was in power for 1 term, you should do some heavy duty praying every Sunday…..

        (Not that Liberals would be significantly better.)

    • George, I am an Albertan. Please don’t paint me with the same brush. I can’t wait to help send these guys back to the swamp after the next election.

    • George, you’re going to judge Calgarians on the basis of the Stampede? Seriously? That’s like judging Rio or New Orleans on the basis of Mardi Gras. Or climate change on CO2.

  3. Sewing the seeds of their defeat in the next election. But the damage will be done if they allow the new revenue to grow the bureacracy monster.

    • Joel – Given the potential for vote splitting between the two right wing parties, the Socialists may well win the 2019 election and continue to run the huge annual deficits as promised. Just have to hunker down till the winds of change blow in.

      • Seeds need proper care and nourishment. If the rationailists on the right doesn’t properly exploit the Left’s economic destruction of ABs economy, then they deserve defeat at the polls. Alberta just isn’t a liveable place without lots of carbon consumption to span the travel distances, survive the cold winters, deal with the ice-snow removal, and then run the grass and grain harvesting.

        ABs economic engine of mineral extractions is what pulled all of Canada through the world recession of 2008-2010, powered mostly by job growth in the tar sands extraction and oil business. The Left hated that. Now they have been given the power to castrate the part of Canada’s economy that saved its ass 7 years ago.

        Very similar to what is happening in places like California, run by the Left. Private industry is seen as a capitalist enemy. The public sector and growing the beast is the goal. It is what happened in Greece. iIt is what happened in Venezuela. The socialist use economic destruction and welfare dependancy as the path to power.

      • Joel – with apologies – can’t argue your points but Oil SANDS – please? AOSTRA = Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority since 1974. They developed ways of extracting OIL from the oil sands including SAGD. Many in the company I was with for 3 decades worked in and around the business; or were supported indirectly by the oil industry in western Canada.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Oil_Sands_Technology_and_Research_Authority

  4. The people of Alberta voted ’em in, eyes wide open folks.
    What did you think would happen voting this crew in?
    Unfortunately, the Cons and Wild Rose did everything possible to not get voted in and hand the win to the dippers.

      • David – as in other regions, the Urban vote carries the day. Many folks in the cities need assistance and the left always promises more. Those of us in the country can only watch and wait for the tide to turn.

        An electoral map of the last Alberta Provincial and Canadian Federal elections is a pretty telling story of two different perspectives in this country. Kind of similar to the US flyover country versus the coasts (a gross generalization I know.)

        However, it seems, that many countries find their choice in an election to be between a rock and a hard place.

    • The PCs were in power way too long and deserved the drubbing they got. Complacent, entitled and definitely not conservative. Pity the NDP got in but it was mainly the urban centres that voted them in. We’ll see how they do in 4 years and if either of the other parties can get their act together.

    • It’s revenue neutral to the GOVERNMENT, not to the people. They increased the cost of energy, and off-set the revenue by decreasing income tax rates, so the poor and those retired on fixed income suffer disproportionately.

    • Hey good deal for U.S. since we import 40% of oil from Canada, should help keep our prices down. Thanks!!

    • John: I am not sure that is totally correct. You may have missed some of the exceptions and special treatment some industries like the Cement Plants have been given after the fact.

      The BC Carbon Tax is still a tax that is used to achieve “social goals” that would have otherwise used other government funds. It’s really just a neat way to transfer wealth in a socially acceptable way. If you look closely at consumption in BC, there was a two year dip, them a resumption of use as people got used to the increased cost. I did a number of “metering” studies years ago. They all tend to follow the same pattern. A drop in usage followed by a general return to similar usage – EXCEPT for the POOR. The low income people always get hit the worst and the “redistribution” system doesn’t make up for it. At least that is what I have seen. But then, I am long retired so maybe the world has changed. But I doubt it.

      • It hasn’t changed. But BC helps itself to”surpluses” run up by provincial car insurance and BC Hydro, not to mention the “premium” for health insurance. Our income tax may be low but the rest of it sure as heck isn’t!

      • Wayne,

        The decrease in oil consumption in BC coincided with the U.S. and global financial/housing crisis of 2008 – 2009, which devastated the provincial forest industry. Also, remember that the BC carbon tax was introduced at a rate of 2.4 cents a litre, which was a drop in the bucket given the fact that BC residents paid some 30 cents/litre in other fuel taxes at the time. To claim, as greenies do, that the new carbon tax in 2008 caused the drop in fuel consumption is totally false.

      • Jan Christoffersen June 9, 2016 at 5:39 am says:
        Just curious where you are pulling your numbers and info from?

    • BC is much like Washington State to the south, lots of hydro power. Pulp mills also use biomass burning (renewable) for heat and power.

      30 hydro power plants provide 86% of BC electricity.
      http://www.energybc.ca/map/bcenergymap.html

      Yes, you can live an exception when you have a climate and geography like the Pacific NW.

      How about the cold east side of the Canadian Rockies?

      Solar, hydro, and wind suck when the rivers freeze, its -25C, and daylight is 6 hours of low sun.

    • @ johnMacDonell, it appears to me you do not have family, friends, or families of friends trying to find work in BC, except for a few areas like the Okanagan ( all service industry driven like real estate) there is very little employment in BC due to the fact that BC is a resource driven economy and those sectors are being handcuffed by the water melons. The amount of regulations being forced on those industries are causing them to virtually being shut down and that includes the the spin off business that comes with the resource industries like grocery stores, accommodations and the list goes on. Shut down resource industries and you shut down the whole province . Thanks for for your tunnel vision, it is pathetic.

      • “Note that we are under the Canadian average.”
        Gee I hope that your numbers aren’t fudged like they are here where after some time the unemployed aren’t counted anymore and there is little correction for forced part time employment.

    • Without repeating what has been said about BC’s Carbon tax, for those that are interested, read the comments in this article:
      http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/03/12/BCs-Carbon-Tax-Shift/

      And I am a person from Alberta who fuels up in Alberta near the BC border on trips to southern BC, and then I often go a few hundred metres across the US border in Grand Forks to fuel up in the US for the return trip. Of course, that may change with Alberta’s added “Carbon” taxes over the next two years.

      Oh, and BC had to up their income tax rate to cover the shortfall that was occurring due to the Carbon Tax offsets exceeding the Carbon Tax income.

      Good thing Asia is buying BC. At least till the real estate bubble bursts like the US one did a few years back. But that could be 20 years out.

      Or next year.

      http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/06/vancouver-real-estate-bubble/

    • You’re pretty close to drinking government kool aid there. When the energy input cost goes up it raises the cost of everything. Food, shelter, everything. If you’re so poor you can’t afford those things then you’re right. So I guess you’re that poor or that financially illiterate. Talk to your parents about money. Quickly!

    • JohnMacdonell if you believe that article then you must be smoking some of that medicinal weed in BC. The reports say that fuel usage dropped. Well that was that was taken from lower fuel sales in the lower main land. Most people I know drive to areas outside this stupid tax to gas up and then save money with each tank fill. The other thing that the report does not tell you is that the border to Washington state is minutes away for most of this Green tax region and I know of people who drive down and fill their tanks and a number of jerry cans across the border each week to bypass this tax gouge. These two factors alone are misinterpreted by the “experts” as a reduction in fuel usage instead of a drop in sales to which it is. As for BC having the lowest income tax in Canada that is also a myth when you look at all of the “extra” fees that the government has legislated in. ICBC government insurance is a classic example of the fee gouge. When I was in Alberta private insurance was half the cost of car insurance in BC. When you look at the breakdown ICBC turns out to be nothing but a revenue cash grab for the BC government.

      • The cross-border drive isn’t worth it if only for fuelling. Costs to much fuel to make the return trip, plus the time involved, including the wait at the border. I grew up in Vancouver.

        It may work for those who plan to shop in Bellingham – bu you’ll need to buy quite a bit there, and dodge the questions at the border.

        In short – what you say doesn’t happen much.

      • Well lets still assume that John is right and less consumption there helps keep prices low down south, which means we get to drive more and in greater comfort/bigger vehicles while they stay at home more and drive put-puts. Thanks again!!

    • Oh dear, John forgets tell anyone that BC gets 95% of its electricity from HYDRO

      So any carbon tax is MEANINGLESS.

      Deceit, John !!

    • Hey, John, Why don’t let everyone know how much electricity BC gets from hydro. ;-)

      And why a carbon tax is therefore basically MEANINGLESS.

      • Yawn..

        They had basically zero carbon emissions anyway.

        A MEANINGLESS CAGW feel-good gesture.. nothing more.

    • Works as in, it brings in lots of money, and nobody has been able to prove to our satisfaction that it has killed anyone.

    • “Let’s cut the crap about B.C.’s carbon tax. The impact of the carbon tax has been overstated by people who love carbon taxes, and it’s annoying that the tax has generated so much uncritical praise.” — Marc Lee, pro-carbon tax economist.

      That is from a March 8, 2016 article written by Bill Tieleman, who “…is a former NDP strategist whose clients include unions and businesses in the resource and public sector.”

      So a big NDP promoter headlines his article with “Forget the Praise: BC’s Carbon Tax Is a Failure,” with the byline “Higher emissions, slow growth, regressive taxation. Sorry, what’s to celebrate?”

      http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/03/08/BC-Carbon-Tax-Failure/

      On the other hand, BC, with daytime electricity provided mostly by large hydro (known by the state of california to not be renewable), and night time electricity provided in part by low cost coal electricity purchased from Alberta’s soon-to-be-bulldozed coal-fired power plants, can claim victory over climate change. Or something.

  5. Looks like they just upped their chances for a recession in 2017. They’ve been skating on thin ice for quite a while, now.

  6. I love my Canadian friends, so sorry that they are being subjected to the largest lie ever conceived by evil men and women.

  7. Actually the whole package is worse than what Eric has shown. The Carbon Tax and several other taxes have been increased and are scheduled to increase in following years. The current government has raised other taxes from education/property taxes and income taxes and is running a huge deficit.

    Based on the budget released this spring, by 2018 my annual after tax retirement income will decrease by roughly $5,000 due to increased taxation, fuel taxes, and general tax increases and the increased cost of goods and transportation. I will not be one of the 60% or so of the tax payers that gets a rebate as my retirement income including my Canada Pension and Old Age Pension will exceed $47,500. Not complaining but this is just another Socialist “Transfer of Wealth” program.

    At least I can grow my own food out here in the countryside. But I still have to buy fuel.

    The biggest slice of the Carbon TAX will go to subsidize “renewable” energy:

    $3.4 billion on major renewable energy projects
    $2.3 billion on rebates for Alberta families
    $2.2 billion on green infrastructure, such as public transit
    $865 million to cut the small business tax rate
    $645 million on Energy Efficiency Alberta, a new agency that will work to increase energy efficiency
    $195 million to help indigenous people and to help communities dependent on coal adjust (coal is being phased out – last few years 50% of Alberta’s power was from coal).

    Oh well. It’s still better than Quebec and Ontario joining the “Carbon Trading” scheme with California. I wonder how long before scamming charges arise in that industrial enterprise.

    Thanks for the post, Eric.

  8. The Albertans who put the socialists in power deserve 100% of the misery they are now suffering.

    • What about those who didn’t? They are suffering, too. Despite their efforts to educate.

      • They have to fight like hell against the socialists and make the socialists pay it back. My suggestion is to institute a tax of 10% on the income of every member of the NDP Party. Yes…

  9. I don’t know what to call it, cognitive dissonance perhaps, or idiocy.
    What motivates politicians in places like Alberta Norway and Australia, places where the health of the economy is nearly totally dependent on the production and export of fossil fuels, turn around and punish their own citizens with pointless imposts as incentives to “go green”?
    Equally why are the voters apparently so supine?

  10. “….The new legislation will raise the price of heating bills and gasoline as an incentive to turn to green energy sources.”

    Green energy sources like solar? In a prrovince of a country known for how far north it is? In Canadian cities as far north as Calgary and Edmonton are? During the cold months from fall to spring?

    Green energy like electric cars? In a cold climate which batteries generally don’t like? With (I assume) few to no recharging stations? Nothing like puting the cart before the horse I guess.

    Here in Wisconsin, from what I can see, solar panels on roofs are few and far between with the sun being fairly weak and low in the sky for at about half the year. And plenty cold. Likewise with the near non-existence of electric cars and recharging stations. And no carbon tax.

    God help us if the idiocy of Alberta’s politicians is contagious.

    • CD in Wisconsin. It is contagious, like the plague! The province of Alberta caught it from the province of Ontario, who caught it from Europe. The same sequence can be applied to “Green” energy. Europe to Ontario to Alberta.
      Ontario has lost a total of 300,000 manufacturing jobs (incl. Kellogg’s, Heinz and Caterpillar) since the windmills and solar panels first started sprouting in the province ten years ago. Electricity rates have literally doubled over that same time period. Hopefully you Americans will learn something.

    • CD – I agree with most of what you say. But when I was out doing a tour of ski hills last winter in my 4WD SUV, I was shocked to see electric vehicle charging stations all over the place, including many at the front door of stores providing preferred parking to EV’s and Hybrids. Even in Oilyberta.

      In fact, they are placed all along the Trans Canada Highway in BC so you actually could go from point to point. And lots in the cities. I have no idea how long those things take to charge but the infrastructure availability continues to surprise me. I reckon EV’s may be a good choice for commuters but for people like me that live over 100 km from a major centre, I wouldn’t want to chance a winter commute.

      Zoom in, click on the icon, you get a photograph and description of the charging station. I have no knowledge of these things, I just keep seeing them.

      http://www.plugshare.com/#

  11. The final tally was 42-39.

    Perhaps it wasn’t as close as you’d like people to think.

    On page 1557 of this pdf, you can see the counts for and against the “Climate Leadership Implementation Act”, you can see that the actual final tally was 42-29.

    • Serth you mocked me above. In another venue I would be delighted to meet you in the parking… No, I’m not going there. Your mocking without refuting my arguments marks you a TROLL. Shame on you.

  12. Remember this?
    Our climate has accumulated 2,364,986,868 Hiroshima atomic bombs of heat since 1998 1 bomb per 3 people apparently but were all still alive and unworried.
    Will be interesting to see the excess winter deaths by next April.
    Eric to report?

    • apparently but were all still alive and unworried.

      It’s been over a decade since Patz et al’s estimate of climate change and human health put a rough figure of something like 160,000 deaths per year attributable the anthropogenic part of climate change.

      It’s likely that that figure has increased with increasing temperatures, but you seem to be claiming that not only has it improved, but the approximately million and a half dead since then have been resurrected. That’s the sort of think I would have thought would have hit the papers.

      It’s not every day that the Sahel and Horn of Africa and the poor parts of Southeast Asia have a zombie apocalypse.

      • Studies indicate 15% of current world-wide foodstuff production is due solely to increased CO2, Seth. That feeds many millions of people who would probably starve to death otherwise.

        So yes, the situation is improving because people need food to eat. Oh, and the value of said increase? World-wide foodstuff production is about $10 Trillion; 15% of that would be $1.5 Trillion, which is certainly worth consideration, isn’t it?

        BTW, satellite photos show the Sahel and other marginal areas have benefited greatly from the additional CO2 also, now able to support herds of sheep, goats and cattle whereas 50 years ago those CO2-starved areas were abject wastelands.

        Let’s hear 3 cheers for CO2!

      • Seth, ‘Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analysing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries [1]. The findings, published in The Lancet, also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.’

        http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-05/tl-tli051915.php

        Now that they have modelled deaths from AGW; have they counted the bodies?

      • Seth claims, “160,000 deaths per year attributable the anthropogenic part of climate change.”
        =========================================================================
        What drivel. No global increase out side of normal pre 1950 flux in hurricanes, tornadoes, severe storms, droughts, floods, etc… In the mean time the benefits of CO2 are known, massive and manifesting in real world observations, not some failed climate models catastrophe projections.

      • 160,000 people died from a 1 °C increase in average temperature? Most of which occurred on cold winter nights in the north. Seems wildly unlikely to me. Check your numbers Seth.

      • Seth, ‘Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analysing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries [1].

        The death’s in Patz et al aren’t due to heat exhaustion.

        Now that they have modelled deaths from AGW; have they counted the bodies?

        It’s an estimate, but it’s likely conservative, because not all of the consequences of AGW are known.

        Compare with “Greens Kill” or “Raising the cost of energy does kill people” from these comments. At least Patz et al did the numbers.

      • Just like the so called climate refugees, the models can predict thousands of deaths due to global warming, but out here in the real world, they don’t exist.

        Only by assuming that every bad weather event must have been caused by AGW can you get numbers like this.

        As always, Seth sites dishonest numbers and out right lies.

        But then, what other choice does he have?

      • You are apparently completely unaware that the Earth HAS NOT WARMED IN OVER TWENTY YEARS. You are also completely unaware the CO2 atmospheric levels have almost no effect global temperatures. I withdraw from the debate, if you argue with a pig you get in the mud..

      • “….It’s an estimate, but it’s likely conservative, because not all of the consequences of AGW are known…”

        Comedy gold.

  13. The effect of the British Columbia carbon tax will be much smaller that the effect of the new tax in Alberta. About 90% of BC’s electricity is produced by hydroelectric generation, so that is not subject to the tax. The Alberta electricity mix is hydro 2%, coal 55%, natural gas 35%, wind 4%. The Alberta tax will have a large effect on electricity prices, but the BC tax will have negligible effect on electricity prices. The Alberta government will be shutting down all the coal-fired plants.

  14. “This is going to pull at least a thousand dollars from every household in Alberta,” said Wildrose Opposition Leader Brian Jean.

    It will enrich the government and will do absolutely NOTHING else.

    • It will enrich the government and will do absolutely NOTHING else.

      It has already reduced company tax.

      It will also make low emission energy sources less marginal, so it’s difficult to see why it wouldn’t accelerate their uptake.

      So you might be using this word “NOTHING” incorrectly.

      • If it takes a tax to push people into doing something they wouldn’t normally do, that’s sufficient evidence the undertaking isn’t economically sound and doesn’t make sense.

        Not only are you a baron of bad advice, but you believe some crazy, unjustified cause is worth penalizing every family in Alberta $1,000 a year.

        I call it conspiratorial theft.

      • If it takes a tax to push people into doing something they wouldn’t normally do, that’s sufficient evidence the undertaking isn’t economically sound and doesn’t make sense.

        That depends on whether or not its correcting an externality.

        Not only are you a baron of bad advice, but you believe some crazy, unjustified cause is worth penalizing every family in Alberta $1,000 a year.

        The decrease in company tax will allow many of them to have a better living, perhaps even employ a few extra people who are members of someone’s family … and that brings in a lot more than $1000 a year.

        I call it conspiratorial theft.

        Tax. It funds roads, communication, health, education, law enforcement, border protection, and welfare.

        Call it what you like, it doesn’t make it so.

      • RockyRoad
        June 8, 2016 at 10:15 pm

        If it takes a tax to push people into doing something they wouldn’t normally do, that’s sufficient evidence the undertaking isn’t economically sound and doesn’t make sense.

        ==========================

        It is also totalitarian abuse of taxing authority. Governments justly tax to raise revenue to pay for their legitimate functions. Using taxes to influence behavior is corruption of government authority.

      • Seth why don’t you just admit you’re in love with high taxes.

        When RR states the tax :

        “…. isn’t economically sound and doesn’t make sense”.

        You imply it does :

        “That depends on whether or not its correcting an externality.”

        But previously you admit: “It’s difficult to estimate what the long term affects will be.”

        Which means there’s no evidence an “externality” is being “corrected”.

        Finally, we get to the truth:

        “Tax. It funds roads, communication, health, education, law enforcement, border protection, and welfare.”

        Huh, nothing in there about “cooling the planet”.

        Clearly a Freudian-slip admission that you’re totally aware that the tax has no environmental impact at all.

      • Seth why don’t you just admit you’re in love with high taxes.

        Because it’s not my position. I’d like to see income tax drop to rather than services increase if a carbon tax were implemented here. In Alberta its hypothecated for climate related development or for rebates.

        When RR states the tax :

        “…. isn’t economically sound and doesn’t make sense”.

        You imply it does :

        “That depends on whether or not its correcting an externality.”.

        That’s what I said.

        But previously you admit: “It’s difficult to estimate what the long term affects will be.”

        Which means there’s no evidence an “externality” is being “corrected”.

        No, that doesn’t follow. It means that I don’t know what the technological or global political impacts of this legislation will be. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t correct an externality at all.

        Finally, we get to the truth:

        “Tax. It funds roads, communication, health, education, law enforcement, border protection, and welfare.”

        Huh, nothing in there about “cooling the planet”.

        I was talking about tax in general. This particular tax will reduce greenhouse emissions compared to not having the tax, which, in turn, will facilitate moving to cleaner energy sources, allow those energy sources to benefit from economies of scale, and faciliate the development of cleaner technologies and processes.

        It will also improve Canada’s negotiation in the international climate policy, and may contribute to improved global commitment.

        Which, as you say, will warm the planet more slowly.

        Clearly a Freudian-slip admission that you’re totally aware that the tax has no environmental impact at all.

        I think that you merely misunderstood. Perhaps it is clearer now.

      • Translation: It’s a subsidy by any other name, but we are too dishonest to come out and say it.

      • “Because it’s not my position.”

        It’s not your stated position.

        “I’d like to see income tax drop to rather than services increase if a carbon tax were implemented here. In Alberta its hypothecated for climate related development or for rebates.”

        So you support taxing people then giving the money back to them.

        “No, that doesn’t follow. ”

        Yes it does.

        “It means that I don’t know what the technological or global political impacts of this legislation will be.”

        You seem to be the only one that doesn’t know what the impacts will be: People lives will immediately be harder as their disposable income goes to heat their homes.

        ” It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t correct an externality at all.”

        Yes it does.

        The oil& gas not burned in Alberta will simply be exported and burned in China or the US. No global decrease of greenhouse gasses whatsoever.

        Perhaps it’s clearer now.

  15. A lot of folks are leaping to judgment here, and not understanding the big picture.
    I’m no defender of the NDP by the way, quite the opposite, but they are playing a clever game here.

    1. Unlike the rest of the provinces, they have no sales tax. I haven’t run the numbers recently, but I believe they also have one of the lowest income tax rates in the country. So, even with these tax hikes, they will STILL have a lower than average tax rate in Canada. If someone has recent numbers that contradict this, feel free to set the record straight.

    2. They are in a serious cash crunch. Oil is the biggest contributor by far to provincial coffers, so the province is taking a double whammy. First the price of oil has tanked, and second a whole bunch of their production has been shut down due to the fires up north. They have very little choice but to run a combination of deficit and tax hikes. Might as well tax in a way that provides a political advantage.

    3. So why a big carbon tax versus any other kind of tax? Federal politics. Alberta wants pipelines to the coasts to get their oil to market. They need other provinces to allow the pipelines to go through. So, they are trying to make the case that they are shouldering more than their fair share of Canada’s carbon commit, in return for which they want Canada’s federal government to put pressure on other provinces to allow the pipelines through.

    I’m not saying that this is the right way to get anything done, just that this makes more sense than one would assume provided only a cursory examination of the facts.

    • @davidmhoffer, you said
      :1. Unlike the rest of the provinces, they have no sales tax. I haven’t run the numbers recently, but I believe they also have one of the lowest income tax rates in the country. So, even with these tax hikes, they will STILL have a lower than average tax rate in Canada. If someone has recent numbers that contradict this, feel free to set the record straight.

      Your question is a valid one but I also question the level of indirect taxes, such as taxes on booze/smokes/ groceries and other “luxury” taxes. Until we see all of that I just wonder if there is much difference between the provinces.

      • booze/smokes/ groceries

        I haven’t been there in several years, but these things have been cheaper in Alberta for a long time. I know people who drive one province over just to buy booze and cigs. A province flowing in oil royalties just doesn’t have to tax much of anything else.

    • davidmhoffer – couldn’t agree with you more.

      A Carbon Tax is a sneaky way of implementing a sales tax. It increases the cost of virtually everything since it hits transportation, heating, and all goods and services. It is really a clever way of putting a sales tax on everything without calling it a “sales tax”. Every Alberta politician has promised they would not initiate a sales tax, even though public opinion on it is moving.

      As you said, the Carbon Tax is really a clever way of getting to the same thing … plus … and I give Premier Notely full credit here … if Alberta wants a pipeline through Ontario to tide water in New Brunswick, a “Carbon” Tax to make the people controlling the pipeline route is not such a bad thing. A “Sales” tax wouldn’t be nearly so helpful.

      And given that Natural Gas will have to replace Coal, and provide back up for “renewables”, it should help the Oil and gas companies in spite of the “Carbon” tax which will just be a flow through for them. Farmers can’t reduce the amount of fuel they use and it’s exempt from the tax anyway.

      Nothing really changes except for the increased cost of goods for everyone. Call it what you want, it looks like a sales tax.

    • #3 “Alberta wants pipelines”
      Yes, politics understood. If the legislation was part of a inter-province deal, we could see the point. Going into negotiations now, another province is just a likely to say “That was nice, what you did. Do you have anything for us now?” Alberta seems to have given up bargaining leverage with nothing in return.
      As far as the federal govt. goes, does anybody really see the PM aiding and assisting the FF industry in any way, shape, or form?
      It would be nice if this action makes more sense than it looks, but I think not.

    • Any tax is separation of persons from their money based on threats of violence. All cash is fungible. The secondary justifications or purported uses for taxes are just plunderers’ games. The reason for a particular general tax is irrelevant except especially for new categories to maybe show exhaustion of taxpayers with increasing rates and total skim in areas of other past sold justifications. Always we will hear about highways and hospitals from friends of high tax skims – both of which were done privately before state usurpation – and never about taking your money to hand it to government busybodies, state “scientists,” and layabouts. A carbon tax is just a new channel for ever increasing tax skims. The uses aren’t even justified! This new tax atop all others is for your own good because . . . fossil fuels. Where will these funds really go?

      (There might have been a bit of “cleanest shirt in the hamper” argument in play in the above comment too.).

  16. It is actually a blessing, people only learn when they are hurt and a state dependent on fossil fuels with a cruel winter is the ideal experiment. Let them do the hard work and let the rest of us learn.
    Aussie elections might show they have a short memory unfortunately.

    • It is actually a blessing, people only learn when they are hurt and a state dependent on fossil fuels with a cruel winter is the ideal experiment. Let them do the hard work and let the rest of us learn.

      Yes.

      The states involved in the RGGI already did that once, you know, by outperforming the national average in unemployment rate and GSP.

  17. davidmhoffer make some good points, but I doubt that shutting down coal-fired plants and the carbon tax will make the Federal government put much pressure on other provinces to allow oil pipelines. Our boy Prime Minister Trudeau was terrified when he was told CO2 will cause droughts and shown a picture of a patch of cracked mud. The politicians actually think Canada will be harmed by a little warming. They get all their information from radical environmental NGOs. The FUND model by Dr. Richard Tol shows that Canada benefits from emissions by the year 2100 by 1.9% of gross domestic product, equivalent to a benefit of $190 Billion annually in 2015 dollars. The net benefits increase throughout the 21st century.

  18. Not normally one to comment on sites, but this article misses the more hilarious part of the NDP Climate agenda. The government proposed (and passed) a bill adding 1.00/GJ to natural gas consumption. Current prices in Alberta are around $1.70/GJ so its about a 40% tax to consumers with not options. Two consequences:

    -The forward power prices went up about 40% the instant it was passed (Alberta is gas, coal, wind for generation – Canada as a whole uses little coal or natural gas for power). So the consumer now has to pay much higher power prices AND heating prices. This was noted as an almost definite risk via several industry groups but ignored. All wind and solar is still hugely subsidized.

    -There are new massive penalties on coal generation (which was being phased out by super cheap gas naturally always and as such were unnecessary). All the remaining coal plants were under PPAs with the province and TCPL. However the agreement with the government allowed TCPL to turn back the PPAs to the government if legislation changed under their agreement. TCPL has turned them back. This cost the government an estimated $1bn for taking back hugely underwater power contracts AND makes them the biggest coal generator in Canada. Good times NDP.

    People have to heat their homes with NG in Canada. Power generation is a perfect analog as the country is littered with natural gas pipelines. Natural gas is super clean, super abundant and incredibly cheap. I’ve never understood the hate on for natural gas (or fracking for that matter) by climate groups. Its an amazing and simple fuel with minimal environment footprint during production or consumption.

    • If Canada were to shut down its extra heavy oil production the Venezuelan oil fields will take up the shortage. The two types of oil are identical, and compete in the US Gulf Coast market.

      At this time Venezuela is a basket case as the communist dictatorship installed by Raúl Castro, nominally led by Nicolas Maduro, struggles to overcome popular resistance to its inept and corrupt rule. Unfortunately, president Obama has been aiding the Castro dictatorship in the last 18 months, thus we see Castro emboldened, increasing repression in Cuba, and trying to implement a similar dictatorship in Venezuela.

      It’s hard to tell if the dictatorship will win, or the country will have a civil war. But eventually the current chaos should subside, and the Venezuelan Faja del Orinoco can supply the oil the Canadians decide to cut out of the market.

  19. Alberta’s Carbon Tax is a useless piece of “green” ideology that hits everything from charities, farms, which means food, transportation, more increase in food prices and consumer goods – everything across the board is impacted. Of course that means nothing to the green hate groups otherwise calling themselves environmentalists, yet have no knowledge of the environment, no understanding of actual science – but read whatever garbage on Facebook and believe every word from the green hate mob.

  20. And this will reduce global atmospheric CO2 by exactly 0 parts per million. It will have exactly no measurable benefit to anyone but will remove $1000 a year from their pockets.

  21. This is just pure insanity….

    There are 23 million households in Canada, which means this tax will cost the Canadian taxpayers $23 BILLION/yr meaninglessly…

    The higher energy costs will also increase the cost of EVERYTHING, so there will be an adverse multiplying effect throughout the Canadian economy, with: less savings, less disposable income, less consumer spending and less capital investments, lower corporate profits, higher unemployment, higher welfare payments, ahigher income taxes, increased budget deficits, etc.

    The higher energy costs will also make Canadian goods less competitive, leading to decreased exports and further exacerbating an already terrible economic situation.

    Even using IPCC’s inflated ECS numbers, Canada’s reduced CO2 emissions from all these meaningless taxes will probably save the world just 1000ths of degree C in CO2 warming over the next 20 years at the cost of $460 billion….

    Imagine what could have been accomplished had the private sector invested $460 billion in: developing new technologies, new factories, new mines, new oil fields, upgraded production facilities, hiring new people, etc….

    All Canadian Legislators should read Bastiat’s “The Broken Window Fallacy” and “The Law”…

    Leftists are destroying the world economy with their stupid “Green” agendas…

    • There are 23 million households in Canada, which means this tax will cost the Canadian taxpayers $23 BILLION/yr meaninglessly…

      And when the money comes in to the government, unlike other taxes which funds things, they just burn this stuff.

      It’s INSANE!

      • And that, Seth, is the worst part of it.
        All the money goes to is hiring more government agents who make up more rules and regulation to harass the citizenry, and think up even more ways to tax them.
        Now that you think of it, perhaps Alberta would be better off if the money was burned straight out. At least then the money would not be spent in ways to actively harm the citizenry.

      • Seth, have you considered the fact that “green” agendas are only affordable to the rich? (From a Maslow’s Hierarchy perspective)

      • You have to remember that as a leftist, Seth actually believes that funneling money to government is the source of all good things in the world.

      • And that, Seth, is the worst part of it.
        All the money goes to is hiring more government agents who make up more rules and regulation to harass the citizenry, and think up even more ways to tax them.
        Now that you think of it, perhaps Alberta would be better off if the money was burned straight out. At least then the money would not be spent in ways to actively harm the citizenry.

        I’m assuming you feel the same about income tax and sales tax?

      • You have to remember that as a leftist, Seth actually believes that funneling money to government is the source of all good things in the world.

        I’m not a leftist. I believe that market solutions are better than regulation. But unless you don’t like law enforcement, education, transportation and defence, then you need to fund those things.

        If a carbon tax raises funds, that’s less funds than need to be raised by other taxes, not money lost to the economy.

      • Lying TROLL. You refuse to address the reasoned arguments others put forward. Lying troll reading from talking points. You are disgusting.

      • Notice the technique of the left wing troll.
        Mention that government is not the source of all good things, and he immediately starts whining that you must be an anarchist and want no government at all.

    • Seth: ‘I’m not a leftist. I believe that market solutions are better than regulation. ‘

      Oh God, even worse. A Paul Ryan-style enabling bean-counter, passing himself off as a capitalist. A specialist in crunching numbers on a spread sheet.

      Just one more version of lying with statistics. I bet he’s a Tom Steyer fan.

  22. This disgusting ndp government is doing exactly what all leftist and ndp governments do: killing everything they touch.
    They only got in because of backstabbing, lying, and a “Progressive Conservative” party that was filthy riddled with “progressives”. They would NEVER have been elected in Alberta as liberals, so they just joined the Conservative party and hijacked it from within.

    So which ridiculous leftist government arm is paying YOU, “seth”?

    • So which ridiculous leftist government arm is paying YOU, “seth”?

      Just an interested concerned citizen.

      And you, which ridiculous neoluddite arm is paying YOU “CodeTech”?

      • Come on folks! This guy (or gal) is way too “clever” to be as naive as you suggest.
        Also note how fast he or she can come up with “research” to support a point (even if that study is nonsense, such as Parmesan). Clear access to a huge data base supporting CAGW.
        I just hope Seth is being paid well for hijacking these threads.
        Please don’t feed the troll.

      • Seth, you seem to have an incorrect definition of neoluddite.

        Neo-Luddism is a leaderless movement of non-affiliated groups who resist modern technologies and dictate a return of some or all technologies to a more primitive level. Neo-Luddites are characterized by one or more of the following practices: passively abandoning the use of technology, harming those who produce technology, advocating simple living, or sabotaging technology. The modern Neo-Luddite movement has connections with the anti-globalization movement, anarcho-primitivism, radical environmentalism and Deep Ecology.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism

      • phaedo,
        If you read Seth’s postings long enough, it becomes quite obvious that he doesn’t understand the things he posts.
        He’s got access to a pretty good cross referenced list of articles, charts and talking points.
        And is able to cut and paste from this library at will.

        Doesn’t mean he’s read, much less understood any of it.

      • MarkW: ‘If you read Seth’s postings long enough, it becomes quite obvious that he doesn’t understand the things he posts.
        He’s got access to a pretty good cross referenced list of articles, charts and talking points.’

        My guess is some association with the Sierra Club or some such. Or maybe this is just Seth Borenstein, sneaking on board and posting anonymously.

      • Well I can tell you this. “Seth” is like all of the fake sockpuppet commenters we get here, with a throwaway email address, and uses a proxy server to hide his/her identity, but I doubt it is Seth Borenstein. Borenstein might have strong opinions, but generally has enough integrity to stand behind what he writes, and to avoid grade school commentary hiding behind a fake name, fake email, and fake IP like this particular Seth.

        Unfortunately, as entertaining as Seth is, he/she has made a clear policy violation, and thus goes into the bit-bucket henceforth.

      • Anthony Watts: I doubt it is Seth Borenstein’

        I was sort of kidding about the Seth Borenstein thing.

        Although, I’m sure they are kindred souls.

  23. Seth, professional threadbomber, says:

    “Nevertheless, reducing greenhouse emissions, however not green you claim it is, will do a lot to reducing extinction pressure on many species and ecosystems. And Alberta should be congratulated on this legislation by people who are about the environment, no matter what political persuasion.”

    Yep. Congratulated for reducing perhaps a tenth of a percent of the global greenhouse emissions, while China and India add many times that amount every month. So, essentially, congratulated for doing nothing but garnering feel-good points and claims of “leadership”. Honestly, Seth, you need to give yourself a shake. You’re pretty snazzy at giving us a shower in your own excrement, but precious little else.

    • Seth, professional threadbomber, says:

      Oooh, wild accusation there from Mike Bromley the Kurd.

      Every person who advocates for sensible economic policy that considers future generations must be a professional, because no actual human would have compassion or ethics?

      You must live in a scary world Mike.

      They’re all around you! Watch out! They’re probably recording!

      How do you think all these professionals are funded?

      • “Every person who advocates for sensible economic policy that considers future generations must be a professional, because no actual human would have compassion or ethics?”

        This is the position of every skeptic and every advocate, so it is hardly a good point to make.

      • Anyone who advocates policies that are proven to kill people, in order to solve a problem that never existed in the first place lacks ethics and compassion.
        (That would be you Seth.)

      • Anyone who advocates policies that are proven to kill people

        Proven is a big call MarkW. What’s your very best proof that raising some of a Government’s funds by applying a carbon tax instead of income tax kills people?

        in order to solve a problem that never existed in the first place

        Science it what it is.

        It works. That’s how we have computers and cars and the internet and medicine.

        Either you’re wrong about global warming never existing, or hundreds of thousands of scientists have missed what you’ve spotted.

        I know which I think is more likely.

      • Future generations are going to have to pay for this nonsense. Billions waste on a nonexistent problem. Future generations will look back at people like you with contempt for causing higher unemployment, low standard of living, economic recession, and a monumental debt burden.

      • Proven, as in old people freezing to death because they can’t afford both heat and food.
        It’s happened Seth, every winter for the last decade.

        I love the way the mind of a troll works.
        Since we have computers and cars, therefore global circulation models must be correct.

        Sheesh, is there no depths you won’t plumb in order to find new means of embarrassing yourself?

      • Here you go Seth, you ignorant little child. This is what the ever-increasing hike in fuel prices due to “Green” subsidies for worthless wind and solar power is doing in then UK.

        The scandal of Britain’s fuel poverty deaths

        Thousands of people die each winter in the UK as a result of being unable to heat their homes. Are we doing enough to help them?

        The social cost of fuel poverty is massive, and growing. In the winter of 2012/13, there were 31,000 extra winter deaths in England and Wales, a rise of 29% on the previous year. Around 30-50% of these deaths can be linked to being cold indoors. And not being able to heat your home also takes a huge toll on health in general: those in fuel poverty have higher incidences of asthma, bronchitis, heart and lung disease, kidney disease and mental health problems.

        http://www.theguardian.com/big-energy-debate/2014/sep/11/fuel-poverty-scandal-winter-deaths

        And for your information, the Guardian is a very Left wing newspaper, heavily slanted towards faux environmentalism.

        Oh, and you might find this interesting too.

        Europe’s renewables investment hits 10-year low

        The reputation of Europe as a renewable energy leader has taken a serious knock as its investment dropped by 21% last year while global figures reached record levels

        http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/06/03/europes-renewables-investment-hits-10-year-low/

        Guess what – the Europeans have smelled the coffee, and Germany in particular is building new coal fired power plants.

  24. You know these enviro mental wackos have lost their minds, when they rally against a possible couple degree increase in temps…in the land of permafrost. NUTZ!!

  25. The joke on Alberta is that the oil boom brought legions of unemployed socialist voters from Eastern Canada to work there. I guess these new voters, numbed by nanny governments, didn’t get it. The unhappy part is that even a new conservative gov will find it tough to turn down tax revenue.

  26. If the horrific rise in deaths of elderly people in Britain is any guide, a lot of these rebates will miss the target.

    Advisors to Public Health England (PHE) warned of a “strong and flashing” warning light, and said trends over the last four years suggest the rise in deaths may now be the highest since World War Two.

    They said the elderly were now bearing the brunt of a growing crisis in the NHS and cuts to social care, with women suffering the most.

    Hmmm.

    • Aw c’mon Brandon, neither of those graphs you’ve presented mean anything and you’re smart enough to know it. Total number of deaths? What’s the overall age of the population. Did England have its own baby boom like the US? That could account for the curve in the top graph, couldn’t it? And, Crude Death Rate per 1,000 Living? Vehicular accidents? Suicide rate changes? Population trending older or younger? And, hate to be a party pooper but ultimately the crude death rate per 1,000 living is, well, 1,000.

      Now it’s time for me to go:
      Hmmm.

    • I could just as easily claim, and with probably more justification, that the increase in total deaths has to do with the recent increases in energy causing the elderly poor to freeze to death because they can’t afford to keep the heat on.

  27. Has the bureaucracy now already gotten too large – has it lost sight of where money actually comes from?
    I always thought it came from, in the broadest sense, obtaining some resource or other and adding value to it and selling it on to someone else – who may add more value or simply consume it.
    This measure is therefore requiring the greater overall use of ‘resources’ in order to create, support and maintain another legion of non-producers within ours/theirs/whoever’s society.
    And our present leaders seem entirely oblivious to that, they think its just some game they’re playing – handing out thumbs ups and applause etc etc.

    This blindness can only ever lead to disaster where there are so few actual producers that the whole house of cards collapses under its own weight. it has happened before, many times and we can all recount instantly a few examples.

    BUT, the Romans knew nothing of the Inca, who knew little of the Maya who knew nothing of the Himyar or they of the Rapa Nui etc. Get my drift? They were all local extinctions.
    Now however, we are headed into a global civilisation and effectively, at some point, there will be a single person ‘in charge’
    Now, what if that person was ‘having a bad hair day’, chief adviser assumed he knew so-and-so and his adviser assumed this that or the other about settled science and his adviser was on leave and their adviser was ill in bed and his chief scientist had put a decimal point in the wrong place or a cosmic ray had zapped though a memory chip and altered some data? What then?
    The guy in charge thus makes The Wrong Decision and because he’s in charge of everybody, we all go down the pan.
    It would be hysterically funny if not so heart rendingly sad

    • Has the bureaucracy now already gotten too large – has it lost sight of where money actually comes from?

      Yes.

      Marxism – which is the dominant political and economic philosophy today, disguised well though it is, examines a world in which production just ‘happens’ and the only variable is how the cake is sliced.

      This is characteristic of a ‘feminised’ society, where all the argument is about wealth distribution, and none is about wealth creation.

      It can only exist in a rapidly expanding economic system. Once production flattens out due to resource depletion and other effects, Marxism becomes a wasteful exercise in squabbling over a smaller cake each year.

      And some of the derived economics – e.g. Keynesian – become invalid as today’s debt cannot be serviced by tomorrow’s far larger economy, as economic growth stalls.

      Misguided attempts to solve this by importing larger populations in the hope of creating a larger economy, don’t work either. If production is limited by external factors other than labour shortages, it merely compounds the problem.

      Western society of the 21st century is running into the inevitable conclusions of actually believing that – or at least following the diktats of – an emotional narrative based on stupid assumptions (Marxism) – no matter how politically successful and attractive to the hoi polloi it may be.

      Like Christianity, Marxism puts the pleb in his place, and defines his existence. With Christianity, his virtue as a good citizen is rewarded in an after life, in Marxism, his political correctness is rewarded after a global revolution. In Christianity, his utter inability to be anything other than cannon fodder in someone else’s Game of Thrones, is justified as part of some Higher Purpose. In Marxism, his utter inability to be other than what he is is ascribed to oppression by those who clearly are not as he is. This doctrine comforts, distorts and twists the pleb into a creature of hate and resentment against the very processes and social norms that allow him to exists.

      And if by means of rare privilege, amoral behaviour or just plain luck he acquires wealth, he will immediately support the nearest and most convenient left wing Cause, as a means of virtue signalling that despite now being completely privileged, and definitely one of the people he warned you about, he is really one of the good guys after all.

      However this is, in the final analysis, all completely as irrelevant as working out the accommodation precedence in the Titanic’s lifeboats. Reality, as in ‘whatever is the case’ is supremely indifferent to what we may misguidedly consider it to be. All the Marxist theory in the world is no use to you if there is no food in the refrigerator and anyway the electricity is off.

      The world is changing, rapidly. That which will survive is that which is most able to discard dysfunctional ideology and deal pragmatically with issues of survival.

      We are about, as a Western society, to test the relative importance of moral high ground versus plain survival.

      And if the ‘virtue signalling’ moral high ground gets swamped by a rising tide of counter ideological third world greed and envy, perhaps the actual high ground of technologically competent and highly organised ‘strength signalling’ is where we want to be.

      Not because its right, but because it works, and ensures surviaval.

      • “This is characteristic of a ‘feminised’ society, where all the argument is about wealth distribution, and none is about wealth creation.”

        You’re not wrong and all the signs are there-
        http://atimes.com/2016/06/last-weeks-jobs-report-was-the-new-normal-not-a-blip/
        Pretty similar in sclerotic Oz where we’re facing an early Federal election whereby the choice is all about how much lead in the saddlebags the grandkids will have to carry from the infantilism and mindboggling economic ignorance of the current generation. The Marxists have found the answer to what happens when you run out of other people’s savings. Just print some more.

        Comical to watch them getting all huffy when the industrious Chinese cash their copious IOUs in for Oz real estate, driving exorbitant asset prices ever higher. The fallacy of composition that we can all a borrower rather than a lender be, completely eludes them.

    • Civil servants rarely have any money sense. A couple of years ago I heard of a rugby club that built an extension to the club house, that the president (an ex high level civil servant)tried to sign a tender for without letting the club members know beforehand. He thought he was getting a good deal, and assumed he had the authority, he certainly had the experience.. It was decided to do the job in house using local builders and club members. They did it for just over a third of the original tender. Sometime afterwards it came out that the reason it went over a third was because the club members that worked on the job were paid double their normal daily rate !. This (Ex) president had been signing off big government contracts for years……….

    • The guy in charge thus makes The Wrong Decision and because he’s in charge of everybody, we all go down the pan.
      ==============
      A great argument against centralized government. When the Jing makes a mistake, everyone suffers. If the government is global and the mistake is big enough, civilization fails.

      • When a private sector company makes a mistake, it’s competitors step in to take advantage of it, and the consumer does not suffer.

        When government makes a mistake, taxes are raised to pay for the clean up and government goes on, now even bigger than before.

  28. The only upside of a Carbon Tax is that it is quickly repealed…never to be re-introduced.
    The political suicide of Green Labor in Australia being a textbook example of this process.

    • Only to be replaced with an ETS starting July 1st, the day before the federal election.

  29. More for Gummint, less for citizen who can be bothered getting out of bed in the morning.

  30. Eric, are you sure about energy rebates for the poor in UK? I live there and no of no such deal.

  31. Just what Canadians need! Higher heating prices! And all in an attempt to make the place colder!

    Not logical! But ideological!

    Most of the assistants to the Alberta socialist government are imports from Ontario. They are all ideologues.

    • You need more propaganda too, right? I understand that some that this Act amends the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act to broaden the accepted use and purpose of the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund to encompass’ education initiatives and outreach programs’.

  32. Its all here “as an incentive to go green.”
    It really just needs to say “as an incentive to buy our cronies products, who in turn line our pockets.”

  33. With Alberta and Ontario putting in a gas tax, the purpose of which is to reduce GHG emissions, it seems like this will be easy to see if it works. How much gas was consumed in 2016 by Albertans and Ontarians vs 2017. Naturally there will be a noticeable drop right? If that doesn`t work, I suggest they raise the tax until they can actually see a significant reduction and a forced switch to EVs

    Lucky folks, being able to take this noble cause and run it in the noses of other, more wealthy Provinces!

  34. This will do nothing to fight the boogeyman climate change. It’s a cash grab and will be repealed when the Dippers are turfed for good next election.

  35. The new legislation will raise the price of heating bills and gasoline as an incentive to turn to green energy sources.
    =======================
    Simple question. Where can the average person in Alberta actually buy these green energy sources?

    Are they available to be delivered to your home? NO.
    Are they available at the store? NO.
    How about at the gas pump? NO.

    The only “green” energy sources available are custom build solutions, with payback times in the range of 20 years, which is the best case replacement time. In other words, by the time you get finished paying for the “green” solution, you have to replace it. You never make any profit and the very best you can hope for is to break even.

    No company would ever invest in a scheme with such poor investment payback. Which means the only way it can happen is if the government diverts resources from heath-care, pensions, and infrastructure such as roads and bridges to subsidize “green” energy.

    And for what purpose? Is Alberta too warm? Isn’t Alberta in point of fact one of the coldest places on earth where people live? Isn’t Alberta one of those places where winter temperatures routinely reach -40C (-40F), where people die of exposure in wintertime if they are stranded outside? Where for large parts of the year, the only thing that grows on the ground is ice?

  36. I would note that Canadians seem more intelligently political than most Americans, but they seem to have many of the same problems. Hillary Clinton is running on many of the same silly proposals, but they are not yet a major issue in the US elections. Just think, we Americans could have the same problems as Canada and Australia! If we really try we can emulate the EU! Just be ignorant or fanatic enough to vote Democratic.

  37. “If the horrific rise in deaths of elderly people in Britain is any guide, a lot of these rebates will miss the target.”
    Rebates missing the target is the target, actually. You don’t need death panels if you simply kill off the weak through judicious use of blackouts during heat waves or cold snaps. They know well what they are doing: they are reducing health care costs.

  38. They’ve graduated from population control schemes, including selective child policy of planning regimes.

    • From your link:
      “Greenhouse gas emissions are reported in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2 eq), determined by multiplying the amount of emissions of a particular gas by the global warming potential (GWP) of that gas.”

      So it’s a made up number, not an actual one.

      • Are you saying CO2 eq isn’t a useful unit for comparison?

        Yes, it’s an equivalent number based on the some made up GWP (global warming potential). It’s not actual CO2 emissions. One could argue the GWP of CO2 is zero based on the eighteen year pause.

      • Yes Reg, it is a made up number, like everything else in climate science. There are many fools who believe this sort of nonsense.

    • How will road tax be covered? What effect will BC’s carbon tax have on temperature if there is supposed to be an effect on temperature?
      John are you a urban dweller? I have urban dwellers are generally ignorant how the world works.

  39. The new legislation will raise the price of heating bills and gasoline as an incentive to turn to green energy sources.

    Where I come from, that is usually called a stick, not a carrot.

  40. “The Alberta Climate Panel forecast that the proposed measures will cause emissions in 2030 to be 50 Mt of CO2 equivalent less than the status quo case. The plan would reduce the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by 0.026 parts per million. Using the TCR of 0.85 °C as given in Table 1, the global temperature reduction would be 0.00007 °C by 2030, which is insignificant and undetectable.”
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/AB_carbon_tax_Economic_Impact_Gregory_Summary.pdf

    • Ken: Typical Friends of Science nonsense. You can do better than to use them as a source of info.

      The objective in AB is not to reduce atmospheric CO2. Nor is it to eliminate emissions in AB. The Carbon Tax needs to be much larger to achieve that. BC’s tax is larger than AB’s($30/tonne vs $20/tonne) – but BC’s tax must be larger, too, to effectively eliminate emissions.

      The intent is to reduce the growth in emissions in AB. Big difference. AB is Canada’s worst emitter. They are trying to make the transition gentler. Kind of a “soft landing”.

      Under the plan, AB’s emissions will still grow, but more slowly. At least for the next several years.

      And the population will be nudged to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

      • You are beyond stupid. CO2 has no measurable effect on the climate. CO2 is a valuable gas in the atmosphere and for global biosphere health should be 800 ppm or greater. You are stupid and deluded.

      • John, I am the author of the report at the link and author of the paragraph. If you go to the end of the report you will see links to the full technical report and the excel spreadsheet with the calculation. I am also the webmaster of the Friends of Science website. We use measurements and data, not IPCC nonsense in all of our reports, so our credibility is vastly superior than that of the discredited IPCC. If you think there is something wrong with the report, let me know and I will fix it.

      • John:
        So, I will burn 6 or 7 cords of wood next year instead of the usual 4 or 5, putting more wood soot and CO2 into the air to fertilize my pastures and adjacent forest in my rural setting; thus increasing my CO2 out put and offsetting the pittance of propane I use to heat water. But that is ok because wood is “renewable”. The fact that I will be putting more particulates into the air and more CO2 is not relevant because I might use a few litres less propane? Propane that is clean burning and running around 25 cents a litre right now. Yes, the Notley plan will increase the cost of propane, as well as the cost of electricity. I reckon the CO2 police will show up one day and say I can’t use my wood heat.

        As far as other fossil fuels, I won’t see any reduction living many kilometres from anywhere. My tractor will still need the same amount of fuel as always. So will my farm truck and SUV that I need to get to town – cars don’t cut it out here – I often have to plough my own way to the highway in the winter.

        So, some city folks might reduce their in town trips, but when it’s 30 below outside, it is unlikely the use of Natural Gas will be reduced although it will be 40% more expensive to heat a house. I wonder how long it will be for that to hit home to voters this coming winter.

        Everything will cost more.

        Industry might find some ways to reduce fossil fuel use through efficiency.

        To reduce CO2 emissions, individuals will have to reduce their free time travel to the mountains and lakes. It will have a big impact on the tourism industry.

        The law of unintended consequences. The Carbon Tax will have a negative impact on the economy. It seems that is the main issue of discussion in the news in Alberta these days. All the negative impacts on people. (I know you will say the BC tax had no impact. That is another discussion with lots of back and forth so let us pass that one by.)

        Out of curiosity, just what level of Carbon Tax would you like to see – or just ban the use of all fossil fuels outright or phase out over what time period?

        Perhaps you could say what you think should be done and why?

        Lay out your plan.

        Thanks.

        (Did you see where the Alberta Carbon Tax revenues are to be spent? Do you agree with the plan?)

  41. “The Albertan government is offering rebates to poor people, which may or may not cover the surge in energy costs.”

    Trust me, it won’t cover it at all. A number of years back when I lived in an apartment with all electric utilities ComEd gave a discounted rate if you had an electric hot water heater which, of course, I did. Fast forward to now where I live in a two bedroom duplex. I don’t have a big screen TV, seldom listen to TV anyway; don’t have a home computer or video console; don’t use outdoor lighting; and most of my indoor lighting is either flourescent or LED which I turn off when I leave the room. My stove, hot water, and heat are gas, yet during winter, when I’m not using AC the electrical bill seems inexplicably high. The only explanation I can come up with is that my home medical oxygen equipment is an energy hog. I have an electric O2 concentrator which feeds me pure oxygen 24/7 through a 40′ plastic tube. Atop the concentrator sits a pump which receives excess O2 from the concentrator and proceeds to pump up travel (portable) O2 tanks to 2,000 psi. It takes about 2-4 hours to fill a tank. I reasonably suspect that equipment sucks up the juice.

    The ever beneficent ComEd has a registry of consumers with medically necessary (sometimes critically necessary) electrically operated medical equipment. Like a fool, I got the doctor’s certification and filled out the requisite paperwork to be on this stupid list. What does the patient (and ever patient consumer) get for their trouble? Nothing. Nothing at all. There’s no reduction in rates. There’s no guarantee of a speedier re supply of electrical service following an outage. Hell, it doesn’t even offer protection against a disconnect for a late bill payment. The only purpose behind this stupid registry that I can possibly imagine is that it’s merely a self-absorbed feel good policy on the part of the reptilian ComEd management.

    And, speaking of disconnect, allow me to go into greater detail. In 2007 my job of 23 years was eliminated when my employer determined that my medical condition was a greater liability to the company than it was to me (I tend to dispute that). Fearing that every other employer in this solar system would probably agree with my company (er, my company no longer) I embarked on a quest for Social Security Disability. I was approved. On learning of this my loving older sister asked, “What trick did you use; who did you know to get that?” Nothing and no one dear sis; I qualified for it – in case you hadn’t noticed my strained behavior at times.

    Now, I enter the Medicare Part D doughnut hole at the end of May at which point it’s hasta la vista for their 80% script payments. [BTW: Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble but SSD doesn’t provide Medicare till 29 months (they’re hoping you expire in the interim) ‘after’ you’ve been approved.] During the duration of the doughnut hole (which lasts till renewed again the following year) my prescription drug costs can exceed $350 USD per month.

    In the presence of meeting those bills, paying the mortgage, and sundry other expenses; all paid thru SSD checks; I tend to pay my electrical bills late. So, what does ComEd do? They send me a letter ‘requesting’ a $160 USD security deposit. Huh? I mean, I’ve lived in my duplex for almost 15 years; never had the electricity disconnected; and certainly need the electricity to operate my medical equipment for chrissake. They’ve certainly indicated they’re quite willing to turn it off if they don’t get paid. And, it’s not exactly like I can run away, El Chapo style, and elope with a different electrical provider. The bills get paid; they’re just late. I’m on a fixed income of SSD which is why they’re late: I have to juggle costs. But, these vipers who possess the never ending threat of a disconnect, suddenly want a $160 sec dep on top of that?!

    Now, I’ve taken way, way, way too long to explain why poor people are never going to be really compensated for the deprivations the vapid, human hating, Eco warriors are going to visit upon them. [Seth (at the beginning of these comments) – you know who you are.] But, anybody who truly has experience in – the system – knows how it truly works. And, I’m quite fortunate compared to most. My SS payments are $1,882/month. I know some who only receive $500/month. These billionaire-making; ruling class feel good; quasi-religious; authoritarian green initiatives will devastate those people.

    • It’s your oxygen equipment. Paid electric bills for a relative who was on disability and used oxygen.

      • Thanks Barbara. Yeah, I was pretty certain of that.

        When all else is said and done the most valuable thing each of us must retain is our autonomy. Keep up the good fight against those who endeavor to take it.

        Best wishes to you.

        Tom Judd

  42. My father would have called this ‘Golden Goose abuse.’ The gummint sees only a possible fat revenue stream, and has no clue about the hardships this will impose on the taxpayers. A lot of ‘discretionary spending’ will disappear, which will have the same effect as watering down the petrol.

    • Anthony,
      Please do not ban “”seth.”” The small bridge troll is very amusing. It also gives a measure of how effective the indoctrination has been.

  43. Stan:

    CO2 has no measurable effect on the climate. CO2 is a valuable gas in the atmosphere and for global biosphere health should be 800 ppm or greater.

    So say you.

    Credible, peer-reviewed evidence, please? (Sorry, Friends of Science will never qualify.)

    • The eighteen year pause is clear evidence. First they (Climate Scientists) said a five year pause wasn’t statically, relevant, the seven, then ten, then it passed thirteen. Finally they admitted there was a pause and claimed the “missing heat” is buried somewhere deep in the oceans. Then with the Karl paper they eliminated the pause by manipulating ocean temperature data.

      It’s pretty clear they are either clueless or corrupt. My bet is on corrupt.

    • Try history. Over the last 100 million years temperatures have gone up and down. CO2 has gone up and down.
      At no time did the two ever move in unison.
      As others mentioned, the recent pause while CO2 levels went up by 30%.
      The fact that the current temperature increase over the last 150 years, when plotted on a yearly basis, against the CO2 increases, shows no correlation between the two curves.
      The fact that it has only risen by 0.8C in the last 100 years, with half of that warming coming before the big rise in CO2 started.
      The fact that at least half of the 0.4C increase that has occurred during the time CO2 was rising has been attributed to things other than CO2.

      I realize that you are one of those trolls who only accepts science that comes from carefully pre-selected scientists whose jobs depend on maintaining the myth of CAGW, but doesn’t mean the rest of us are equally blind.

  44. Guest: “I’ve never understood the hate on for natural gas (or fracking for that matter) by climate groups. Its an amazing and simple fuel with minimal environment footprint during production or consumption.”

    You won’t ever understand it. There is no understanding it and that’s because it’s religion – nothing more. Just another whackadoodle brain-fart meme which unfortunately went viral. You probably won’t ever understand why some people think it’s an essential idea to put women in black bags either.

  45. I live in Alberta. I did not vote for these guys. Nether did 60% of Albertans.

    What makes me angry is that we are paying (via tax $) to hear advertisements trying to equate this new bill with air quality.

    To top it off, we, Alberta, don’t even emit enough CO2, that if CO2 cause global warming, that we could make any noticeable impact on global CO2 levels. Even if we completely turned off all our CO2 emissions, it would make no difference. But now, just as the oil price is starting to recover, and our hurting economy with it, they (the socialist government) is going to beat us down with this BS.

  46. When heating fuel and gas become to expensive to use people will go back to burning wood, peat and poop. So your clean air wont be cleaner… DUH!

  47. There’s no point arguing with a Climate Cultist. They BELIEVE. They’ve got their black Nikes on, drunk the cyanide and are waiting for the comet. The only problem is they want to take the rest of us along on the ride.

  48. Carbon tax – if you want to demonise carbon, realise that if you thus kill coal mining, you will also kill iron mining because with no coal you won’t be able to make steel.

    No steel means no engines, no ball bearings, no cars, no trucks, no trailer, no tractors, no combine harvesters, no ships, no Ford class aircraft carriers, no navy (apart from wooden sailing ships), no airplanes, no wind turbines, no axles, no shafts.

    No steel means no civilisation.

    Welcome to the stupid age.

      • I believe the troll is claiming that you can sequester the carbon that is being produced by the blast furnace.
        That it will double the cost of iron to do so doesn’t matter.
        All that matters is that the troll and his friends get to tell each other that they are righteous and saving the world.

  49. Another example of politicians following pseudo-science and ignoring real science. It is impossible for carbon dioxide to warm up the world because demonstrably the greenhouse effect attributed to it does not exist. The short range global warming/cooling cycle is all controlled by ENSO and leaves no room for the greenhouse warming to exist at all.

  50. That ‘Seth’ thing is no more than a Robot and you all got sucked in.
    There was another one on here a couple of months back with the same layout of replies, just try a bit of slang or ‘Typos’ and see the bafflement or non response.

    • Amusingly Seth was the ancient Egyptian god of chaos among other things (He was also Claudius to Horus’ hamlet)

  51. Never thought Alberta would be bullied into the scary global warming con game . Well revenues are down and some might even fall for the green wash . If they think they bought off green lobbyist’s they are mistaken .
    Can’t wait for the next election .

  52. BC carbon tax now costs more than the natural gas commodity price . Another Liberal Party heist .
    But hey some people don’t seem to be mind being robbed as long as the story appeals.
    The carbon tax has been so ineffective tax payers get to have Site C dam built at a cost of $$billions . Maybe BC will ban all natural gas use like the dim wit Liberals in Ontario plan to do .

    The Conservatives could run a chimp in the next election and likely win .

  53. From this article:
    “If the horrific rise in deaths of elderly people in Britain is any guide, a lot of these rebates will miss the target. Poor people in Britain theoretically receive energy rebates – yet somehow far too many still have to choose between heating and eating.”

    Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather
    By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
    September 4, 2015
    https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
    [excerpt]

    Canada has lower Excess Winter Mortality Rates than the USA and much lower than the UK. This is attributed to our better adaptation to cold weather, including better home insulation and home heating systems, and much lower energy costs than the UK, as a result of low-cost natural gas due to shale fracking and our lower implementation of inefficient and costly green energy schemes.

    The problem with green energy schemes is they are not green and they produce little useful energy, primarily because they are too intermittent and require almost 100% fossil-fueled (or other) backup.

    The Alberta Climate Change initiative seeks to reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase the use of green energy. In Europe, where green energy schemes have been widely implemented, the result is higher energy costs that are unaffordable for the elderly and the poor, and increased winter deaths.

    European politicians are retreating from highly-subsidized green energy schemes and returning to fossil fuels. When misinformed politicians fool with energy systems, innocent people suffer and die.

    • Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather
      By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
      September 4, 2015
      https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
      [another excerpt]

      UNITED KINGDOM AND EUROPE

      The Guardian examined Excess Winter Mortality after the 2012/13 hard winter. A total of about 50,000
      Excess Winter Deaths occurred that winter in the UK.
      http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/nov/26/excess-winter-deaths-up-29
      http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health2/excess-winter-mortality-in-england-and-wales/index.html
      [excerpt]:

      “Each year since 1950, the UK Office for National Statistics has looked at excess winter mortality…
      Excess winter mortality was 31,100 in England and Wales in 2012/13 – up 29% from the
      previous year. Figures for Scotland were also released recently showing a much smaller increase
      in winter deaths, up 4.1% to 19,908. In Northern Ireland meanwhile, the raw numbers were low
      but the increase was large – a rise of 12.7% to 559 deaths.

      The methodology behind the maths is surprisingly simple; the ONS take an average of deaths in
      winter (those in December to March) and subtract the average of non-winter deaths (April to
      July of the current year and August to November of the previous year). The result is considered
      ‘excess’. “

      In the milder climates of western and southern Europe, the Excess Winter Mortality is greater than in
      the colder northern climates, where people are more accustomed to colder winters and homes are
      better-designed to keep residents warm.
      http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/10/784.full – See Table 2.

      Also energy costs in Europe are much higher due to their early adoption of inefficient and costly green
      energy schemes, forcing the poor to make difficult choices – in the UK this is called “Heat or Eat”.

  54. This is even simpler to comprehend than all of this.
    Alberta does not have a provincial sales tax. Any time any politician brings it up, they fail re-election. It’s become something of a game, as leftists understand how to manipulate Albertans, and sadly too many fall for it. They mention something about a PST, and everyone gets upset. Then they announce that they won’t be doing it, and everyone breathes a sigh of relief.
    Then along comes a new type of politician. They cheated their way in, which in itself isn’t new. They gamed the system, which also isn’t new. They used social media and other things targeted at a younger, “hipper”, more gullible electorate. That was new.
    And now, by stealth, and under the name of “carbon tax”, they’ve managed to implement a sales tax in Alberta.
    According to the Sun poll today, 85% of Albertans do not want a carbon tax. The only real question is, what mental deficiency is afflicting the other 15%? Well… they’re primarily younger and more gullible.

    You can make all the claims you want, and point to all of the “peer reviewed” propaganda out there. CO2 levels are NOT something to worry about. NONE of the dire predictions about it have come to pass. NO actual warming has occurred for a long, long time, which SCIENTIFICALLY disproves the “AGW” hypothesis. It’s not a theory. It’s not “settled science”. It was a hypothesis and has been disproved. Only people who are ant-science and have no concept of physics, heat transfer, and reality believe that it’s true.

    And just like governments all over the world, the leftist media hype has given them license to steal from the people, and that is exactly what they are doing. Despicable louts, all of them.

  55. The new surge in carbon taxes and cap and trade taxes in ALBERTA and ONTARIO are primarily introduced to provide tax revenue and have very little to do with fighting climate change. Canadian annual temperatures are actually cooling in Canada and North America as a whole .

    REGIONAL PATTERN FOR ANNUAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES TREND SINCE 1998-2015 PER ENVIRONMENT CANADA RECORDS

    • ATLANTIC CANADA – DECLINING
    • GREAT LAKES & ST LAWRENCE -DECLINING
    • NORTHEASTERN FOREST –DECLINING
    • NORTHWESTERN FOREST –DECLINING
    • PRAIRIES – DECLINING
    • SOUTH BC MOUNTAINS – SLIGHT RISING,ALMOST FLAT
    • PACIFIC COAST- RISING
    • YUKON/NORTH BC MOUNTAINS -SLIGHT RISING, ALMOST FLAT
    • MACKENZIE DISTRICT- SLIGHT DECLINING, ALMOST FLAT
    • ARCTIC TUNDRA – FLAT ( ANOMALIES HAVE DROPPED 3 DEGREES SINCE 2010
    • ARCTIC MOUNTAINS & FIORDS -RISING BUT FLAT( ANOMALIES HAVE DROPPED 4 DEGREES SINCE 2010)

    • CANADA WIDE ANNUAL TREND – DECLINING TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ( 8 OUT OF 11 DISTRICTS COOLING ,2 WARMING BUT ALMOST FLAT, ONE COMPLETELY FLAT)

  56. Only an outdated socialist political party like the NDP party in Alberta would significantly tax its citizens during growing unemployment, currently at 7.2 % for gasoline and heating fuel while its annual temperatures are declining in order to fight non existent local global warming and to pay for new renewable energy electrical projects because it is unnecessarily shutting down its coal fired plants while still having its own local coal reserves , not to mention the oil sands . Talk about unnecessary taxing of ordinary people in order to support wasteful spending by a party out of touch with reality about climate in its own province and in the country..

    • Ask Dr. Ball about the removal and shut down of weather monitoring stations in Canada. More than a little bias is likely, and not in the cooling direction.

    • John Macdonell

      “Canada isn’t the world(whose temp is rising) – but its temp trend is similar to the world’s, ”

      John, My comment clearly applied for the last 18 years only . I do not dispute the figures going back 68 years, but that is not the story the last 18 years . . Have you not experienced the cooler weather in Canada and North America as a whole for the last 18 years . The same decline has taken place in US compared to the rest of the world . My data comes from the same Environment Canada date set. So we are just looking at different time periods . I get their data monthly and seasonal bulletins every 3 months from EC.

    • JOHN MACDONELL

      Not only does the ENVIRONMENT CANADA data set show that there is no global warming or global warming threat during the last 18 years , but NOAA CLIMATE AT A GLANCE data set for all of North America shows that the trend of temperatures anomalies from 1998-2015 is negative or cooling at – 0.12 C/decade for the entire continent . This data set includes Canada .

      My only reason for bring the temperature issue up is that we need to be more cognitive that what is paraded as global warming threat may not be that at all in other significant parts of the world like North America . and our weather is not responding at all to increased carbon levels world wide but is going the opposite way . Placing an extra tax burden on the citizens is not justified . when we do not even understand the real weather or the science. yet.

      • The same NOAA data set shows that the trend of Contiguous US Average temperatures JAN-DEC is declining or cooling at -0.22F/decade. Yet there is similar push by the Democrats for some form of carbon tax to fight a non existing global warming threat in the United States . The same game is being played in Alberta and Ontario.

    • John Macdonell, why does your data start at 1948? I can tell you why this was chosen, but I want to hear your explanation.

      • David,

        That’s what was on the sites. I believe that’s when Canada began officially recording climate data.

  57. I finished splitting 6 cords of wood for this winter. I have 600 lbs of Utah low sulfur Coal.
    We only had 1 non burn day last winter and I’m going to burn a lot in the evenings this winter.
    I burn coal in the evenings on the weekend. It heats the house faster, and longer. At night it won’t bother my neighbors. In three some odd years global cooling may begin for maybe 11 years. I’ll have my wood burning stoves to help myself out… I’m not banking on global warming, I’m banking on global cooling.
    Self Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson.

  58. @Seth, the most commonly referred to source on tree growth and C02 is: “The direct effects of increase in the global atmospheric CO2 concentration on natural and commercial temperate trees and forests” Eamsu and Jarvis 1989. Page 44 states; 20-120% and average of 40%. Whether doubling C02 will actually do this is still up for debate and what is happening empirically is another story. I fear that that reference has been changed from ‘C02 doubling would cause 40%…’ to ‘C02 increase have caused 4o%’

  59. Now that these morons have driven the energy cost up even more, I foresee that there will be a rush of people doing what I have just done: install a wood heater to heat my house.
    Now I will be going into the woods and cutting down trees for heat; as opposed to what I used to do, which is heat with gas.
    Do these, no doubt university educated idiots, not know that Spain, Italy and Greece used to be heavily wooded? These woods were cut down largely to provide heating and cooking fuel.
    Also do they not know that whales were hunted almost to extinction to provide lamp oil? Kerosene, a fossil fuel, saved the whales. Can we now look forward to a resurgence of the whaling industry?
    God must love morons; he created so many of them

  60. Just read through (most) of the responses here and I really only have one comment;

    Man is having an impact on the environment. Significant or minor can be argued but there is some impact.

    The only sure way to reduce the impact (if indeed necessary) is to reduce the number of people.

    If those who claim they want to save the environment REALLY are sure that it is necessary, lead the way by killing yourself. You have no right to make demands on others so this is really the only option. Show us all just how dedicated to the cause you are.

    Still here? Still consuming resources? Still harming the planet?
    Thought so…….

    • ‘The only sure way to reduce the impact (if indeed necessary) is to reduce the number of people.’

      One of the most common, unspoken beliefs fostered by Greens. If Green DOESN’T kill, at least they want to get rid of most of us.

      And I suspect you’re right – most of them aren’t going to see themselves on the side that has to go.

Comments are closed.