Canadian Climate Revolution: Voters Rebelling Against Trudeau Carbon Taxes

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, his wife Sophie Gregoire, and daughter Ella-Grace wave as they board a government plane in Ottawa, Monday August 29, 2016. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
No kids,

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Economist worries that Canadians are electing powerful state politicians opposed to Trudeau climate policies.

Can Ontario’s new leader wreck Canada’s climate-change plan?

If Alberta supports him, he might do

The Economist explains
Jun 27th 2018 by M.D. | OTTAWA

DOUG FORD says his first official act as leader of Canada’s most populous province, Ontario, will be to kill the cap-and-trade programme put in place by the Liberal government that his Progressive Conservatives defeated earlier this month. As of June 29th, the date of the handover, Mr Ford promises that what he describes as “the cap-and-trade carbon tax” will be gone. The climate-change programme is provincial policy, but it also forms part of Canada’s national plan, which crucially depends on each of the 10 provinces and three territories reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. In withdrawing Ontario, the second-largest emitter after energy-rich Alberta, will Mr Ford wreck the national climate-change plan?

Polls indicate the United Conservative Party led by Jason Kenney will replace the climate-friendly New Democratic government in Alberta next year. Mr Kenney is promising to end Alberta’s climate-change plan. Imposing a carbon tax on Canada’s largest province will be tough. Taking on Alberta at the same time could well prove impossible.

Read more: https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/06/27/can-ontarios-new-leader-wreck-canadas-climate-change-plan

Greens cannot win, because green victories are self defeating.

I have got no doubt Canadians would love to move to a green energy future. Who wouldn’t want a magic source of energy which keeps people warm in winter without polluting the Earth?

Trudeau won with a promise to kickstart Canada’s green energy revolution. But all Canadians have seen is higher costs, job losses and precious little green progress.

For believers in green energy, people who after all the disappointments still genuinely believe green energy is a viable replacement for fossil fuels, the failure must somehow be Trudeau’s fault. Only an incompetent could fail to realise our inevitable low cost green future.

People who aren’t blinded by dogma are aware that green energy is not a viable replacement for fossil fuel. Even green energy advocates who make a genuine effort to investigate the issue, like Google Engineers in 2014, discover to their horror that there is no viable route to affordable green energy using anything remotely resembling current technology.

Believers will continue to be swept up by the lies and false promises, but green victories are short lived, and always end in disappointment. The growing Canadian revolution against Trudeau’s green fanaticism was inevitable.

Advertisements

135 thoughts on “Canadian Climate Revolution: Voters Rebelling Against Trudeau Carbon Taxes

  1. Trudeau’s actions have proved once again that no one can change facts by political edict. It might feel good to say a carbon tax (for instance) will solve all the environmental ‘problems’, but if the science isn’t real nothing will happen except the taxpayers (citizens) will be poorer.

    • Or as Ayn Rand puts it: “You can ignore reality. But you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”

    • The Canadian people have been SEVERELY harmed by the eco-virtuous elites. Add to that, Trudeau’s anti-business, Pro-NAFTA, anti-Trump Tariff tough guy act … and Canada is soon to become a debtor-State … where it’s people shiver to death in the darkness of a long Arctic Winter.

      However, due to the bizarre Canadian anti-free speech laws … anyone caught complaining about their eco-abuse … will be jailed in a Hudson Bay penal colony

      • Kenji,

        “… and Canada is soon to become a debtor State…” Um, I think we got there quite some time ago, along with the rest of the world.

        • What debt? $21 Trillion … $10T by each of our last two Presidents is just a drop in the bucket, eh? But we’re the economic powerhouse of the planet … Canada? Not so much. We can sustain (for a while longer) massive debt … but Canada tips over much easier.

          But we all know the solution to the national debt dilemma … tax the life out of the citizenry. Everyone gets their debts “forgiven” … except the common man. The populist population … WE … are the sheep who get shorn.

    • If President Trump started (S)hitting bars of Pure Gold, the left wing nuts would complain that he was stealing the wealth of the unknown universe !!

  2. Former Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper (Conservative), who kept the Canadian economy the strongest in the G8 when the global financial crisis was wiping out the rest of the west, broke with protocol to have an unannounced (to Trudeau government) meeting with John Bolton on Monday July 2. This probably to advise that the tide is turning in Canada politically.

    I suspect that Harper would like to get a favorable negotiation on NAFTA, probably accepting the US position on dairy, eggs etc. to give a huge support to the conservative party and get rid of the Gang Green that swept in after his defeat. The Liberals are strumpets and will throw out their policies to stay in power, but ‘Truedope’ as he is known these days is toast anyway.

  3. Canada’s energy plan seems to be working as well as Germany’s Energiewende. I am so glad the US missed having the Clean Power Plan, another solution for a faux problem.

    • There are those who are determined to shut down Canadian fossil fuels production. And many of the parties engaged in this have connections to the UN from both inside and outside of Canada.

  4. “there is no viable route to affordable green energy using anything remotely resembling current technology.” Why this is such a hard concept to understand I don’t know. Without a maga change in battery technology there is no way to provide energy at night when the wind isn’t blowing. I think we are a long ways off from having that technology.

    • Unicorn farms.
      Imagine it.
      Like a dairy farm, but instead with unicorns.
      Twice a day they go to get their flatulence harvested by automated butt-snorkles.
      The product is carbonless and burns to produce emission-free heat.

      The Wondrous Unicorn!
      PS: don’t tell PETA, because they’ll want to euthanize them to stop the human exploitation.

      • Only the eco-elites will be warmed by unicorn rainbow flatulence … the common man will resort to living in indigenous igloos … becoming one with nature as their average lifespans crater to about 41years. The eco-elites WIN, Gaia WINS … fewer human parasites burdening the Great White North

    • In the next two decades, we’re liable to see not only major improvements in batteries, but possibly end runs around batteries in the form of supercapacitors.

      Or not.

      But people have made fortunes in every generation since the 18th century by betting on the impossible. Or at least hard to do.

    • Residential just doesn’t use much energy at night. Typical residential power use is 30Kw per day (and that was before LED lighting.) So a Tesla Powerwall is perfectly adequate. My slightly dated 2011 Nissan Leaf has a 25Kw battery pack in it. That Leaf only costs $5k now.

      • Hate to say it, but the hallmark of a renewable energy advocate is in not knowing one electrical unit from another.

        • Bah, who needs accuracy when you can have precision. You know I’m 1,736,032.4739826% correct.

        • Yes! And the popular press doesn’t get it right either. But the worst is my own electric utility. On the back of their bill they had a glossary with a completely nonsensical definition of kilowatt-hours. It wasn’t “wrong” exactly because it didn’t make enough sense (using the phrase kilowatts per hour) to decide it was wrong.

      • There are many ways to reduce energy usage, but green energy does not make useful energy.
        And more green energy you make, the more useful energy you need.
        Or one way to reduce energy usage, is stop making green energy.

      • so its cheaper to buy a s/hand car and use the battery for storage power, cheaper than wall batteries

        • Why would you though? The battery would be dead before it’d pay for itself.

      • “25Kw battery pack ”

        Greg score a double bogey by not only getting the units wrong but actually getting the wrong units wrong as well. Would you buy a used 25 ergs/sq volt battery from this man?

        • I still prefer the olde English units – the proper British way I say – Ah yes, in my day we did everything in Fig-Newtons per firkin-hogshead. Harumph! Harumph!

      • “Residential just doesn’t use much energy at night.”

        You must be wintering in California or using natgas for household heat.
        Residential buildings use plenty of energy at night in winter. IF they are ‘green’ they will be using electric heat to keep warm… a lot of

      • Depends on where you live. In the south you need AC all night long.
        In the north, your heating needs are greatest at night.
        Lighting is one of the smallest areas of electricity demand.

        PS, what do you plan to do if it’s cloudy for two days in a row?

        • and, in both the south and the north, you need refrigeration … its a significant component of energy usage …

          • That’s what I’m doing right now – we have a local power outage, and I’m running a generator to keep out two ‘fridges cold, plus this laptop. 🙂

    • Over the years I have followed the development of a number of promising energy technologies: oil from turkey guts, compressed air powered cars, aluminum air batteries, Aquion batteries, etc. Some of those technologies even made it past the pilot plant stage into early commercial production. There’s always something that blocks their eventual success.

      Lately I have been following research on ammonia as fuel. Its main advantage, IMHO, is that it can be stored cheaply in tanks. It can be made by electrolyzing water using surplus power from wind and solar.

      Japan is currently very active in ammonia fuel research and development with a number of demonstration projects going forward. link

      Disruptive technologies start with a toe hold in niche markets. For ammonia fuel an example is remote telecom sites as a replacement for diesel generators. link link

      Right now in North America, nothing can compete with cheap fracked natural gas. Japan doesn’t have that advantage. I’m curious to see whether ammonia fuel can become practical there. I’m also not holding my breath. Every promising energy technology I have followed so far has failed to pan out. 🙂

      • commieBob – July 1, 2018 5:13 am

        Lately I have been following research on ammonia as fuel. Its main advantage, IMHO, is that it can be stored cheaply in tanks. It can be made by electrolyzing water using surplus power from wind and solar.

        Are you sure you are not having a “blue skies” dream, …… to wit:

        Ammonia is a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen with the formula NH3. The simplest pnictogen hydride, ammonia is a colourless gas with a characteristic pungent smell.

        Although common in nature and in wide use, ammonia is both caustic and hazardous in its concentrated form. It is classified as an extremely hazardous substance in the United States, and is subject to strict reporting requirements by facilities which produce, store, or use it in significant quantities.

        NH3 boils at −33.34 °C (−28.012 °F) at a pressure of one atmosphere, so the liquid must be stored under pressure or at low temperature.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia

        • From your link: “The global industrial production of ammonia in 2014 was 176 million tonnes …”

          One of the advantages of ammonia is that we have a widely distributed infrastructure to use it.

          • “we have a widely distributed infrastructure to use it.”

            Where is it being used as a fuel for heating, cooling or transportation?

      • Well, if you had an ammonia powered car, you’d have to be prepared to hold your breath for a long time in the event of a crash!

      • Good grief, ammonia at remote sites. They suffer from infrequent service intervals until a failure occurs. Then maybe someone dies from ammonia exposure.

    • Could you believe it? “Magic” is no part of reality, thus no part of science or technology.
      Play “Forever Is A Long T…”
      on Amazon Music
      “Forever Is A Long Time”

      Oh yeah
      Young is the day
      Still it’s the same
      The same old tomorrow
      Colors too bright
      So dream in black and white
      If you wanna rise from the hollow

      The future in sight
      The past in your head
      Nightmare or treason
      The father above you as you
      Walk through the ashes
      Don’t you run out of reason

      You keep waiting
      For your choice to be made
      There ain’t no bounty
      For the number of passions
      You rein in for love

    • “there is no viable route to affordable green energy using anything remotely resembling current technology.” Why this is such a hard concept to understand I don’t know.
      100 percent agree. Really frustrating that many of our politicians cannot accept what is obvious and they prefer to blindly accept whatever the greenies claim.
      Given all the failed efforts and enormous resources over a century to develop a viable battery for an electric car it is time to stop wasting taxpayer money.

    • CANDU reactors have the advantage of being able to use natural uranium, though at the expense of needing a large tank of heavy water. IIRC, India is adapting them for use with a thorium-based fuel cycle.

  5. LOL…and they have, what, 80 liberal MP’s from Ontario campaigning on making life more expensive

    Our liberals are campaigning on raising taxes, open borders, global warming, violence and discrimination

  6. Trudeau tried to bully the other provinces into implementing carbon plans by threatening to impose his own taxes. Most were cowed. Saskatchewan vowed to fight. Now we have Ontario promising to take Trudeau to the supreme court. Trudeau could well lose this one.

    This is complicated. The new Conservative premier of Ontario won because the former Liberal premier was so hated. That does not automatically mean that Trudeau’s federal Liberals are in trouble in Ontario. Canadian voters seem to like one party in power in Ottawa and another in the province.

    Having said the above, if Trudeau mishandles this he could be in deep trouble next federal election. It’s really hard to win federally without the Ontario vote.

    • Alberta will go conservative again soon, and I assume they’ll also scrap their tax at that point.

      • I think that will depend on American attitudes as much as anything else. For a while there was a concerted campaign against the oil sands because that oil was ‘dirty’. Notley traveled to Washington to grovel and try to convince folks that Alberta was an ecologically friendly oil producer. link It may have worked because I haven’t heard anyone complaining about ‘dirty oil’ as loudly as before. Of course, it could also be that the Republicans now control Washington.

        We’ll see what happens in the midterms. America is, by far, Alberta’s biggest market for crude. The Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion won’t be a factor. If the Democrats control one or both houses, Alberta may feel constrained not to push its luck.

        p.s. The Canadian economy depends on Alberta oil. Just saying.

    • I add that Trudeau has profitted politically from his nationalistic rebuke of the U.S.’s tariffs. The usual suspects have rallied behind him.

      • You say that like it’s a bad thing. Just what do you think the Canadian prime minister should do?

          • Since you can’t come up with a real answer, I have one of my own. He should do what he appears to be doing. It looks to me like he’s letting Chrystia Freeland run the show. At least he’s smart enough to realize that she’s waaaaay smarter than he is.

  7. “Voters Rebelling Against Trudeau Carbon Taxes”

    Amazing how many people are in the pay of big oil.

      • Rocky: Follow along for a bit and you’ll have your answer. MarkW is infamous here for being in the pay of big oil. Just wait ’til Chris says so.

        That, btw, was sarc/. Mark, Chris wants to know where is your cite for how many.

  8. Doug Ford has Trudeau by the “carbon tax” gonads.

    Upcoming federal election and all that. Does Trudeau campaign for higher taxes?

    Not likely, now that the cat is out of the bag.

  9. The Canadian voter will agree to anything,until they have to pay.
    Even the dumbest Canadian can figure out,winter cold,fuel expensive.
    More tax on fuel,still have to heat.
    So massive tax pain,zero environmental gain.

    The CBC types are over the top Gang Green,no exaggeration is too much for this cause.
    As the glaciers unite and begin to sweep south,our comrades at state media will still be blaming Climate Change while meaning global warming.

    Canada’s bureaucrats created the CAGW meme and intend to crush us dumb taxpayers with it.
    Western Canada needs a new flag,one with a Guillotine.Cuz it tiz our heritage.

    • I live in western Canada, Alberta to be precise. I fly the Hudson’s Bay Company flag, in protest. My part of Canada was a part of “Rupert’s Land” back before 1870 & post Confederation in 1867. I refuse to fly that rag flag we call a flag. Mine has the Union Jack upper left, red background & white HBC lower left.
      Buying Rupert’s Land from the Hudson’s Bay Company was Canada’s first ever debt. They got it cheap too, $1.5 million for close to 3.9 million square kilometers or 1/3 of Canada today. You Yankees paid $7.2 million for Alaska in 1867, at 670,000 odd sq miles, a darn sight more than our 1.5 million sq miles. Between family, I guess. Deal was signed in 1870, 3 years after Confederation.

    • the little commie broadcasting co. needs to be defunded immediately. This goobermint funded cluster f. . . has done more to dumb down Canadians than even the public school system. Kill it!

      • Yes, I fully agree.The educational institutions in Canada are a close second to CBC when it comes to propaganda. Even students who are becoming aware know they must use the curriculum material and regurgitate it in order to get a passing grade on assignments and exams.
        Putting an end to this is long overdue.

  10. Justin Trudeau and Kathleen Wynne and Kathleen McKenna were the best things that ever happened to the conservatives. In Ontario, the liberal party lost party status due to lack of elected officials. Come 2019, the entire liberal party will be ousted and resented for the next 40 years… I hope.

    • Jeff,
      I sincerely hope you are correct. May you treat the liberals to an old fashioned ‘ockey night style election in Canada, complete with the political equivalence of smash mouth checking and devastating boarding sufficient to make them not want to ever play the ‘carbon tax’ game again.

    • Although it is ironic, Trudeau’s poll numbers have taken a bit of a jump lately due to Trump tariffs. Before this he insisted Canada must be inclusive, accepting and loving. Now he can be seen to defend Canada’s interests, he can try to look strong, he can ‘appear’ to be a Nationalist when his political thinking is anything but.

      • Haha, yup, you got me there. Shows you how much I pay attention. Apparently it is ‘Catherine, as well. lol. Our spelling is proof enough she shouldn’t be there.

  11. There are two main reasons that wind energy sells for less than nuclear and fossil. The first reason is – Government subsidies, which everyone is paying for through their taxes. If you are upset about your high state taxes, if your state gis a green energy subsidy or rebate you are paying higher taxes to pass that money to them.
    Second reason is because wind energy is unreliable. Wind energy producers get long term contracts for very low prices for the energy they sell. In essence it is an auction and whoever will pay the most buys the contract. However no electric company really wants the electricity. They are forced to buy the electricity because of RPS – state renewable portfolio standards. or agreements to sell companies like Google 100% green energy. Because of the unreliable nature of the energy they need to run a backup power plant wasting fuel and adding to their expenses. Thus, the price of the wind energy is LOW, sort of like day old bread, the outdated meat or dairy products at the supermarket. The wind energy producers then brag about how cheap wind energy is. And the green whackos demand more of this cheap energy making your electric bill even higher than it was before wind was part of the mix.

  12. In Prince George British Columbia the city has some people working for them that like to use taxpayer money for toys. One toy is a Nissan Leaf which is next to useless in the dead of winter. Temperatures get into the minus thirties so with snow on the road, cold batteries, heater, lights, wipers like I said next to useless, no range. But hey they renewed the lease and no doubt trying to figure out how to suck the taxpayer into a Tesla.

    Now it gets even better, solar cells installed in the parking lot, built into the lot surface. This in the town at 54 degree latitude, long nights, sun low on the horizon in winter when its not snowing or behind clouds and covered in snow 6 months of the year. Wonder if they factored in the C02 produced in mining, manufacture, shipping, installation and keeping the cells clear of snow and ice. Will they use special snow plows with a gentle touch? What about disposal after their short life? The city uses a poor wearing eco friendly paint on bitumen roads so I wonder if they gave any thought to the toxic materials in solar cells leaching into the environment?

    http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local-news/city-experimenting-with-solar-road-1.23353038

  13. Standards, subsidies and taxes. The bane of the free market. Standards should only be used to prevent injuries or bad health effects. Subsidies should only be used to prop up a company that produces a domestic product that is key to national security. Taxes should only be used as a government income source. Too often however the government uses standards to interfere in the life of all its citizens. At the same time governments subsidize almost everything. Taxes are collected for all sorts of reasons. Ex: liquor and tobacco taxes, estate or inheritance taxes, gift taxes, company asset taxes, and carbon taxes.

    It is this last one that irks me the most. Carbon taxes are ridiculous. One of 3 things can happen. 1) The company can refuse to pay them and move out of the country or threaten to move out before they are enacted. In this case everybody loses. 2) The company can pay them and then raise their prices so that with business as usual no emission reduction of CO2 occurs. In this case only the company loses if it also exports its product. The consumers don’t lose because the carbon taxes are supposed to be given back to the public at large. However the general price level of all carbon related goods goes up so that inflation goes up. However since no decrease in CO2 emissions occurs, there was no reason to have the tax in the 1st place. 3) The company can change its source of fuel to a lower carbon entity at a higher cost and pass on its necessary price increase to its customers. The customers have no choice because all the competitors have to do the same thing. In that case there is a reduction in CO2 emissions but since the atmosphere needs more CO2 NOT less, everybody loses.

    It is this third scenario that factors into my main point. Even if you believe in AGW(human caused global warming/climate change) , here are the stark facts of trying to do anything about it. PM Trudeau in Canada plans on introducing a tax on the emission of CO2 and all greenhouse gases except water vapour, starting January 1, 2019.

    Canada puts out 1.5 % of world total of CO2 and has not had any increases for 11 years.. China puts out 31% of the world total and increased their output 4.1% in 2017 and is on track for an equal 4% increase after the 1st quarter of 2018.

    In 1991 Norway was the 1st country along with Sweden to introduce a carbon tax, and they have found that their tax was responsible for reducing their increases of emissions by only 2.32% compared to a 0 rate on carbon. However Norway’s CO2 emissions still went up. To top it all off Norway found that the carbon taxes reduced their GDP by 0.06%.In the Norwegian scheme there were so many exemptions that the effective coverage of the carbon taxes was only 64% of industrial production. The Norwegian price for carbon was around $25 Can per ton. Trudeau has promised to introduce Canada’s carbon tax at $20 per ton in 2019 and increase it $10 per ton every year until $50 per ton by the end of 2022. However the differing prices between Norway and Canada will not have any significant effect on the results because there is very little opportunity for any company in Canada in at least 7 of the provinces, to switch to a non CO2 producing fuel because those 7(except Manitoba,B.C. and Quebec) do not have significant hydro power; so the companies will simply pay the tax to stay in business. Theoretically this should not amount to any significant reduction in CO2 because Canada is different from Norway in a fundamental way. In Norway any firm has access to hydro elecricity.

    However we will take Trudeau’s word for it and assume that all 75% of planned reduction of Canada’s contribution to the 2030 targets will be met. Ireland achieved a decrease in emissions after 4 straight years of increased emissions despite a carbon tax. British Columbia despite having a carbon tax since 2008 has not achieved any decrease in CO2 emissions.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that that the average climate computer model forecasts an increase in temperature of 3C by the end of the century (82 years from now) if the world doesn’t reduce its carbon footprint. The said reduction of temperature goal is 1.5 C by end of century in order to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C.

    Canada has committed to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions per Paris agreement by 2030 of 33%. 33% of 1.5 % = 0.5% of world total

    In the 1st phase of reductions which will culminate by 2022, if all 75% of the planned CO2 emissions are met ; this will reduce our greenhouse gas footprint by 75% of 33% = 24.75% with the other 25% of 33% = 8.25% being part of a revised carbon pricing scheme between 2023 and 2030.
    75% = 0.75 and 0.5% = .005
    So you have 0.75 * .005 = 0.00375 Don’t forget that carbon trading and a carbon tax dont actually guarantee that any reductions will ever occur.

    But if the promised reductions do occur then you multiply by goal of 1.5C so that you have 0.00375 * 1.5 = 0.005625 C
    That is a reduction of a little over 5 thousandths of a degree C at the end of the next 82 years. Whether Canada will do any better is a function of how many exemptions and what discount carbon tax %’s are actually determined for each specific industry. Even so since this is the 1st phase only, Canada’s goal in this phase is to cut 75% of a third of its emissions which = 24% . There is a big difference between Norway’s result of 2.32 % reduction and Canada’s goal of 24%. However Canada’s emissions have been flat since 2007.

    Since China’s increase last year as per the above is .3 * .041 = 0.0123 or 1.23% of world total
    Canada’s reduction will be .75 * .005 = 0.00375

    That means China’s increase for 1 year is 0.0123/ 0.00375 = 3.28 times the amount of Canada’s reduction for each year if the emissions go lower in Canada to the same degree as the increased price effect after 5 years. Dont forget that Canada’s reduction is only at a maximum effect by 2022 because of the increasing price of $10 per ton per year. In the 1st year 2019 or any other year, the reduction could be the whole amount or any amount depending on how many firms simply pay the tax vs the number that switch to a non carbon or lower carbon fuel source. China has refused to decrease its output and only promised to try to limit their increases by 2030. China is not a developing country because it has 45% of the world’s skyscrapers.

    What will all of this cost Canada?

    Price of carbon by 2022 will be $50 per ton by 2022 and at 700 million tons = 35 billion $ Can. However since the carbon tax will start in 2019 at $20 per ton, the yearly taxes will be assuming no exemptions 2019= 700 m * $20 = $14 billion 2020= 700m * $30 = $21 billion 2021 = 700m * $40 = $28 billion 2022= 700m * $50 = $35 billion So total cost over 4 year period is $98 billion and assuming no other increases the yearly cost will remain at $35 billion per year indefinitely. Of course all this assumes that 100% of the emmissions will be covered. If as in Norway, only about 2/3 of industry is covered by the the new tax, then take 1/3 off of these figures which will then be a total of $65.66 billion over the next 4 years instead of the $98 billion that I stated above. However if Trudeau does exempt 1/3 of the emmissions either because the companies are individually not emitting much or they are key industries; that will reduce the actual temperature reduction to 0.00375 C
    So we are going to have to either tax $98 billion or have the companies spend more to switch to a lower carbon fuel, to save 3 thousandths of 1 degree C. The stupid part is that the higher the actual tax collected the more carbon dioxide emmissions occur and the less the temperature gets reduced. So in the end , part of industry will pay the tax and the rest will switch to a lower carbon source. Either way it raises inflation on all carbon source industries which then insidiously seeps into the prices of everything else in the country.

    This will still leave Canada short 66 million tons of its Paris commitment to cut by 2030 and Trudeau has said that Canada will meet its commitment by 2030.

    What will this cost each household in Canada?
    Minimum of $1100 Can and maximum of $2500 Can depending on whether they live in a hydro province or not. Also most provinces have promised to rebate all the money back to consumers. Well what is wrong if we get all our money back anyway, you ask? Well, 5 things are wrong. 1) You have created a federal carbon tax bureaucracy which will never go away. 2) the carbon part of the economy will have been price inflated, thus inflating the whole economy 3) you have given free money to those people that were not using carbon based sources of energy because when you give the money back you have to give it to everybody. 4) extra costs for each company affected in accounting for the taxes or in switching to a new fuel. 5) If the company is an exporter the export price will either have to be raised or a new government subsidy created to cover the company’s extra export price. The other huge consideration is that since the global warming/climate change subject is a big hoax anyway, the whole exercise will have been a worse than useless activity.

    THIS IS ABSOLUTE MADNESS.

    PS: Trudeau will take this fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Federal government rarely loses in the Supreme Court.

    • I should have said that any liberal Federal government rarely loses at the Supreme Court.

      • This carbon tax scheme is getting stupider and stupider. The government of Canada website says that there are ~ 600 industrial reporting facilities that report their CO2 emissions to the government. However they account for only 37% of all CO2 emissions in Canada. I guess the other 63% dont get taxed cause they dont report because they are too small.

    • Standards are necessary for an economy to work efficiently.
      The difference is who sets the standards.
      Computers are able to communicate because all the computer companies got together and agreed on a standard that they all follow.

      When government sets standards, those standards are usually set by people with no knowledge of the market and they are set at the behest and to the advantage of who ever paid the most to buy politicians.

  14. The Economist, which I subscribe to, has become a crank magazine. A bizarre mouth piece of the far left, with clear divisions in the news room, but the editors are simply ignorant political liberal cranks. And it gets worse every year.

    • I used to really like The Economist, which very much argued for a classical Liberal economy and society, based on real economics. In the last decade it has become “Progressive” on any number of key issues such as Climate Change and the EU, and so i have stopped subscribing.

    • The Economist is owned by the Rothschilds. If I were you I would dump that rag faster than a paper bag full of sour expectoration.

  15. What do you expect when ruled by people who can’t decide whether they are a he, a she , an it, or heaven knows what other options are available?

  16. The sooner everyone starts regarding green sources of energy as supplemental rather than primary, the sooner a sensible energy policy will be devised that utilises each source for what it is best at.

  17. Disagree with this statement, “I have got no doubt Canadians would love to move to a green energy future.” Actually, they want to move to Arizona.

  18. So in these carbon tax schemes, does the government owe you a refund after planting trees?

  19. James Coyne, a columnist with the National Post, wrote many articles against Harper’s Conservative government. Underneath it all, Harper was trying to restore the concept of limited government. An idea verboten in Ottawa
    I gave up reading what is supposed to be Canada’s business-conservative newspaper.
    However, I noticed a recent piece by Coyne bearing down on Trudeau’s alleged “groping” of a journalist in BC some years ago. The story was printed at the time and seems convincing.
    The issue is serious and would have already forced the resignation of a Conservative PM, or MP.
    If this is the start of a move to condemn Trudeau it has some implications.
    The Liberal Party finally realizes that the flake with the right name is unelectable.
    Could “they” be trying to get rid of him and elect (appoint) a new leader?
    In time for the next election, of course.
    Bob Hoye

  20. The big problem with renewables: low energy density, absence of dispatchability. Sorry, eh.

  21. Happy Canada Day to our friends in the Great (formerly-) White North! I tip my touque to ye eh?

    EW – it should say provincial, not state politicians.

  22. Please someone. Tell me how a factory which uses white hot gas flames to melt, bend and shape could possibly function without fossil fuel.

    • Yes , an industrial kiln that is used to make cement, lime, refractory materiels, metakaolin,titanium dioxide, vermiculite,iron ore pellets, aluminum oxide, ….etc would need a fossil fuel.

      • Plenty of kilns use electricity. As a potter I had 2 using a total of 90 kw when on (they cycle on and off to maintain the set point). The meter spun at supersonic speeds. Industrial kilns use fossil fuel because it’s cheaper not because it’s the only possible choice.

  23. I think left leaning politicians use virtue signalling to raise taxes and provide additional services with those taxes. Then right leaning people come in and cut taxes and those services that help a few people. They are portrayed as monsters for doing so of course.

    The conservative moto should be “Taking less so you keep more”

  24. NOKO, the leader in preventing “Climate Change”. If only Canada had a government like NOKO! The Dear Leader could save the people from themselves. How dare the voters go against SCIENCE! Who told them they could have a say in how they are governed? It’s a conspiracy! The oil and coal companies are telling them how to vote! Let’s make it a crime against humanity to disagree with the settled science of AGW.
    ( Will I get into trouble for adding a sarc…. all of the above are sentiments and ideas that the supporters of AGW have presented)

  25. There are now EU requirements for recycling of all consumer products. When crystalline silicon solar panels are recycled to completion, as required to recover the resource, they no longer have a net positive power output. It takes more energy to deconstruct a solar panel than it took to construct it in the first place. Since Canada is basically mimic-ing the EU “environmental” regulations, they are doomed to another green failure, especially at the far northern lattitudes of the great white north.

    The green experiment has failed.

  26. Putting a tax on carbon would bring in a lot of revenue to the government (mostly from the middle class) and take the pressure off of taxing the rich.

    Why do leftists want to make life easier for the rich and help preserve their wealth? Thought they were the party of the little guy?

  27. If these Bozos knew anything about future energy technology, they would be supporting Canada’s
    support for molten salt small nuclear reactors.They are the solution and are not far away.

  28. Trudeau recently approved recreational Cannabis for Canada, effective in October. That might make him a few friends.

  29. Solar power is only in the energy mix because of government subsidies. Without subsidies, solar is a non-starter and will remain a non-starter for decades. A carbon tax is simply passed on to the Canadian people, essentially, a redistribution of wealth that produces nothing of value in return. I would not expect the pockets of the Canadian people to be picked so easily. One can only hope the Mr. Ford can kill the cap-and-trade program, the sooner the better.

    Caltech’s Nate Lewis, Argyros Professor of Chemistry, whose work is at the leading edge of research on solar power, has said publicly that “I need to dissuade you up front from one important notion, that some low-cost process is magically going to take us away from fossil energy within the next 20 or 30 years. That’s simply false.” Lewis estimates that population and GDP growth could triple energy demand by 2050. He has concluded that “solar is … far and away the most expensive way we have of making electricity today, with costs ranging from 25 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour for photo-voltaic systems, that is to say solar panels. Solar thermal systems, … run 10 to 15 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is still too expensive. Nobody is going to pay that much for a substitution product, when they can get the original one for four cents a kilowatt-hour.”

    The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) recently predicted a century of non-warming in which CO2 does not play a significant role. CERN says that climate models used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to estimate future temperatures are too high and that the models should be redone. There is no urgency for converting prematurely to renewable energy sources. Labeling CO2 a pollutant is a huge mistake and causes research on climate change to go in the wrong direction.

    A carbon tax will do absolutely nothing to prevent future climate disasters that are fantasies conceived of by some climate scientists and aided and abetted by the liberals in the mass media. The beneficiaries will be solar panel manufacturers and connected politicians. Let market forces determine when to shift to alternate energy sources. Use the money saved by killing the carbon tax to buy warm clothing for the coming Little Ice Age Two.

  30. Canadians are becoming increasingly aware that the proposed carbon tax is nothing more than a money grab, especially since there’s no revenue-neutrality feature associated with it. Then after they hear that for Canada to meet its Paris commitments, it would have to shut down at least half of its oil&gas, transportation, agriculture and waste disposal sectors, they know there’s no way they’d be willing to face the economic consequences of such actions. But the real clincher is the fact that of the 10 leading oil producing countries , Canada would be the only one with a carbon tax. Even worse, the 4 largest greenhouse gas emitters—China, India, the US and Russia—don’t have any either. That’s when they start asking what sort of suckers are running their federal government.

  31. Here in Ontario we now have a brand new “Progressive Conservative” government with a very substantial majority over all other parties. So for the next four years the PC government will be able to introduce all of their policies. PC leader Doug Ford has said that the first item with be to do away with Ontario’s Cap-and Trade carbon tax equivalent, and to repeal Ontario’s Green Energy Act. This act introduced by the defeated and decimated Liberal party is responsible for much of the huge increase in the price of electricity and over-supply due to uncontrolled unnecessary solar and wind power introduced into the grid and given priority over existing hydro-electric and gas generators. The next election in Alberta must be held in May 2019 or earlier. It almost certainly will result in the existing NDP government being replaced by Conservatives, who have said that Alberta’s carbon tax will be ended. The Federal Liberal government has threatened to impose a federal carbon tax on any province that doesn’t have one, but the next federal election must be held by October 2019. I’d say it’s increasingly likely that the Federal government could be replaced by Conservatives at that time, so many “climate change” and carbon tax policies in Canada may be very short lived staring now.

  32. Canadians are nobody’s fool. Avril Lavigne is French Canadian but hardly speaks French. Get that PM Trudeau?

  33. How poignant, Fidel Jr flying off on a massive jet while preaching scary global warming .
    Ontario , Saskatchewan , and Alberta (after the next election ) will all reject the job killing meaningless carbon tax . British Columbia(BC) Liberals under Gordon Campbell rammed a “revenue neutral ‘ carbon tax fraud down BC throats. In BC you only get hard left or soft left and the Province is currently run by the three Green Party . Oh and the “revenue neutral ” and other lies didn’t last long . A general revenue cash haul that undermines competitiveness and helps the government eliminate the middle class .
    The BC Liberals did however facilitate and enable the biggest casino money laundering racket for over ten years . As long as they were getting their piece of the action those hockey bags of dirty money was openly encouraged as the BC Liberals supervised $100’s of millions in crime cash .
    Vancouver’s own Moonbeam wanted the greenest city and all that cash washed certainly set some records .
    Will anyone miss Moonbeam South and Moonbeam North as they both float off into the sunset on their tax payer bales of cash ?

  34. Unfortunately The Economist’s premise is that the world needs a climate change plan. If the premise is wrong or wrongly framed, their whole argument and article are meaningless. I think the whole thing is toilet paper because of the premise!

Comments are closed.