Carbon taxes start in all of Canada in 2 weeks

By Alan Tomalty,

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. B.C. and Alberta are at present, the only provinces that have a carbon tax. The federal price on carbon will harmonize with those and will be forced on any other province that does not implement one by that date.

Canada puts out 1.5 % of world total of CO2 and its level of CO2 emissions is as low as it was 20 years ago. Canada signed on to the Paris agreement on limitation of non condensing greenhouse gas emissions(CO2,methane,…etc) to a cut of 30% from its’ 2005 level of 732 million tons(CO2 equivalent) by the year 2030. That amounts to a promise to cut its’ emissions by ~220 million tons. 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 this year.

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 is around $25 Can per ton. Trudeau has promised to introduce Canada’s carbon tax or CO2 equivalent tax at $20 per ton in 2019 and increase it $10 per ton every year until $50 per ton by the end of 2022. 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. The others dont have to report because they are under the legal requirement of 50000 tons per year.

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.

In this 1st phase which was supposed to cover 75% (165 million tons) of the planned reductions until 2022 with the remaining 25% (55 million tons) being applied after that until 2030 and beyond. However since only 37% of total greenhouse gas emissions in Canada are generated by the 620 large greenhouse gas emitters; and only the large ones are required to report them to the Government of Canada; that is only 37% (amount tracked) * 705 (present day emissions) = 260 million tons is the amount tracked. However as a result of industry pressure, the rules have been again changed so that companies will be required to pay tax on only 20% of their emissions with some companies like in the cement and steel industries being required to pay tax on only 10% of their emissions. So let us assume the net overall % will be a 18% requirement. So you have to take 18% of 260 = 47 million tons which is roughly 6.66 % of total emissions of 705 million tons today,subject to tax for the 1st phase. For comparison purposes Ireland achieved a decrease in emissions only 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 30%. 30% of 1.5 % = 0.45% of world total

In the 1st phase of reductions which will culminate by 2023, this will instead reduce our greenhouse gas footprint by 6.66 % (if all of the top 600 emitters switch to a non carbon fuel;) instead of 30%. That will leave 93.333 % of the target reduction unchanged for the 2030 target.

However you actually have a 0.0666 reduction of 1.5%(Canada’s % of world total) = 0.1% which will be Canada’s contribution to world total reduction. Don’t forget that carbon trading and a carbon price dont actually guarantee that any reductions will ever occur. If the taxes get paid there is no reduction in emissions.

But if the promised reductions do occur then you multiply by goal of 1.5C so that you have 0.001 * 1.5 = 0.0015 C

That is a reduction of a little over 1 thousandth of a degree C at the end of the next 82 years. And the actual reduction in temperature will be negligble because most emitters will simply pay the tax. It is also a function of how many exemptions and what discount carbon tax %’s are actually determined in the future besides the already announded ones. Even so, since this is the 1st phase only, Canada’s goal in this phase is to cut 75% of 30% of its emissions which = 22.5% . However since only 37% industrial emitters have to report and the effective emissions subject to tax is only 18%; the real number is 18% * 37% = ~ 6.666 % However the difference isnt much because Canada’s emissions have been flat since 2007.

China’s increase last year as per the above is .3 * .041 = 0.0123 or 1.23% of world total

Since Canada’s reduction will be 0.1% (see above) of world total, that means China’s increase for 1 year is 0.0123/ 0.001 = ~ 12 times the amount of Canada’s (total 4 year reduction) for each year if the emissions go lower in Canada to the same degree as the increased price effect after 4 years(assuming that no Canadian emitters actually pay the tax and instead substitute a 0 carbon fuel in their manufacturing process). Don’t 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 Canadian companies if all pay the tax?

Price of carbon by 2022 will be $50 per ton by 2022 and at 705 million tons * 37% reporting * 18% effective emmissions subject to tax = 47 million tons . So you have 47 million * $50/ton = 2.35 billion $ Can. However since the carbon tax will start in 2019 at $20 per ton, the yearly taxes will be 2019= 47 million * $20 = $940 million ; 2020= 47 million * $30 = $1.41 billion ; 2021 = 47 million * $40 = $1.88 billion; 2022= 47 million * $50 = $2.35 billion So total cost over 4 year period is $6.58 billion and assuming no other increases, the yearly cost after that will remain at $2.35 billion per year until the 2nd phase starts before 2030. Of course all this assumes that there won’t be further exemptions to the 37% (% of CO2 BY firms that are tracked) * 18% (effective rate subject to tax) of emissions that are reported as of now. However the amount of tax will be less than that because some emitters will switch fuels. Assuming the 2nd phase has the same rules but only collects 1/3 more of the 1st phase; the additional total will add another 33% (25%/75%) and will be $ 3.1255 billion of tax every year until 2030. However that will not meet the Paris commitment to cut emissions by 30%.It will only reduce Canada’s emissions by 6.66 % + 2.22 % = 8.88 % assuming that none of the top 600 emitting firms pay the tax and all switch to a non carbon fuel.

So we are going to have to either tax $6.58 billion in the 1st phase or have the companies spend more to switch to a non carbon fuel, to save 1 thousandth of 1 degree C of world temperature as of the year 2100. The stupid part is that the higher the actual tax collected the more carbon dioxide emissions occur and the less the temperature gets reduced. So in the end , part of industry will pay the tax because switching to a non carbon fuel is impossible ( Ex: industrial kiln) 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. However a last minute appeal for exemptions to some of the smaller of the 596 largest emitters( because of threat of loss of jobs) has convinced Trudeau to make a 3rd category of emitters. In this 3rd category some of those 596 emitters will be completely exempt. This could lower the effective % requirement to as low as 15% which will reduce the cutback of Canada’s CO2 equivalent emissions in the 1st phase to 6.66 * 0.83333 = 5.5%. However since the government has not released the list of completely exempt firms, I have not changed the rest of the numbers. To further add to the confusion as of October 31, 2018 the news is :

There now appears to be 7 lists of largest CO2 emitters (596 firms emit > 50000 tons CO2) 1st list :firms that pay Carbon tax based on 20 % of emissions. 2nd list : firms that pay Carbon tax based on 10 % of emissions. 3rd list: firms that pay $0.91 per ton(NB coal being prime example) . 4th list Firms that pay $0 per ton despite being one of the top 596 emitters. 5th list natural gas stations face carbon taxes on emissions above 370 tonnes/ gigawatt hour, 6th list : oil on emissions above 550 tonnes/gigawatt hour and 7th list :coal above 800 tonnes/gigawatt hour . It is impossible to keep up with all the changes to this policy. The best that can be said is my numbers are based on a 18% effective emission rate. However it seems the number is around 15% now and dropping every day.

After the 1st phase this will still leave Canada short 173 million tons of its Paris commitment to cut by 2030 and Trudeau has said that Canada will meet its commitment by 2030. Well, the only way that would happen is if 37% 0f 732 million = 270 million tons and being 173 million short you divide by 270 million = 64% of the 600 largest emitters in Canada closed down and left the country.

What will this cost each household in Canada per year after the $50/ton price kicks in 2022?

Costs vary from province to province depending on whether there are large hydro resources in the particular province. Estimates are for BC, a low of $603 per household per year to the highest in Nova Scotia at $1120 per year. Minimum of $200 Can/yr and maximum of $475/yr Can for the 1st year. Some estimates are that the carbon tax alone by 2023 of $50/ton could add 1% to the inflation rate. The extra fuel tax of 11 cents per/litre by 2022 will most certainly increase inflation. That would mean a minimum of $500 per person or $1500 per household more per year. Since these costs are because of increased inflation; those costs will be borne by everyone every year going forward.

Also, the federal government has promised to rebate all the money back to consumers. That is delineated in the table called Climate action incentive payments for the 4 dissenting provinces on not implementing their own carbon taxes. Those 4 provinces are Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario and Saskatchewan. As an example for an individual in Ontario you will get $154 for the 2019 taxation year and that amount will increase approximately $70 per year until 2022. Well, what is wrong, if we get all our money back anyway, you ask? Well, 7 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) As well as everyone getting the same rebate cheque, that cheque will not cover the costs of the increased inflation to those people that are buying and using products from the carbon based side of the economy.The reason is; because of No.3 above, that the people who are not buying and using products from the carbon side of the economy are getting some of that money that would have gone to those that were using products from the carbon side of the economy. In addition, because the rebates will come from the taxes collected on a separate fuel tax, the top 620 emitters that produce fuel will have to pass that cost on to the consumers of that fuel. By 2023 that extra fuel tax will be 11.05 cents more per litre of gasoline,and adiffering amount for other fuels in addition to the taxes already being paid on different fuels. Interestingly there will be no extra taxes on diesel. However the producers of diesel that are within the top 620 emiiters of CO2 will pay the carbon tax per ton of CO2.

So the inflation will go up in 3 different ways. a) taxes paid per ton of CO2 will be passed on to the consumer, b) if emitter switches to more expensive non carbon fuel, the extar costs again will be passed on to the consumer. c) the consumer will pay directly at the pumps,in 2018- 2.21 cents / litre more on gasoline; 2019 – 4.42 cents / litre; 2020- 6.63 cents / litre; 2021- 8.84 cents/ litre; 2022- 11.05 cents/ litre 5) extra costs for each company affected in accounting for the taxes or in switching to a new fuel. 6) If the company is an exporter the export price will either have to be raised, or obtain an exemption on that % of the company product exported, or a new government subsidy created to cover the company’s extra export price. 7) Consumers in the 3 provinces with large hydroelectricity resources will end up paying a lot less than consumers in the other provinces. THIS IS NOT FAIR. 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. 8) The top 620 emitters that don’t pay the carbon taxes and instead switch fuels will still pass this extra cost on the consumer and that inflation won’t be reflected in the rebates that the consumer will get back on their tax return. So in the end the consumer will pay more through the 3 different inflation paths than he/she will get back in rebates.

To top it all off the provincial and federal taxes on fuels amount to a carbon tax already of $160/ton. Furthermore PM Trudeau is pursuing a free trade ageement with China which will result in some of our top 620 CO2 emitters to build facilities in China and by offshoring production, they will be able to escape the carbon taxes completely. This will result in a global increase in CO2 emissions. So the carbon tax will have the opposite effect of its’ goal.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 18, 2018 10:14 pm

Time for the yellow vests, out in the millions.

Reply to  Karabar
December 18, 2018 11:47 pm

True, Ever known of a government that has abolished taxation in any form or manner?

The only one I can recall is the one that Abraham Lincoln abolished and that was the income tax that used to finance the civil war!

Oh and Donald Trumps government.



Reply to  Roger
December 18, 2018 11:53 pm

The UK is still paying income tax introduced as a temporary measure in 1795 for the Napoleonic wars!

Peta of Newark
Reply to  griff
December 19, 2018 1:47 am

Being at war with the French is a national pastime for England – and vice-versa.
After many many centuries, it made both nations what they are and any idea that Peace will break out anytime time soon is even more absurd than the theory of the GHGE.
And equally disastrous

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 19, 2018 3:01 am

I notice you correctly said England, as Scotland currently still part of the UK was a long standing ally of France, particularly when France won the Hundred Years War. Only after the reformation and Union of the Crowns did Scottish soldiers fight against their former alley. At this point France started losing these conflicts. General de Gaulle acknowledged Scotland’s friendship with France during his exile in WW2. I also think there was a form of dual nationality between France and Scotland until it was terminated by the Entente Cordial in the 20th century.

D P Laurable
Reply to  griff
December 19, 2018 5:56 am

No, it was introduced for the Great War (WWI).

Bryan A
Reply to  Roger
December 19, 2018 10:09 am

Sounds like Canada could become Paris part Doux in a matter of weeks

Reply to  Bryan A
December 19, 2018 10:20 am

Next up … “Disputation of ‘Gilets Jaunes’ on the Power and Efficacy of Carbon Indulgences”

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
December 19, 2018 10:22 am

Part Deux…Doh

Reply to  Bryan A
December 19, 2018 10:31 am

part Doh?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Roger
December 19, 2018 4:15 pm

Roger, you should know a tax was abolished in New Zealand in the mid-90’s. The tax was the TV license which was then taxed with GST. It was proven that a tax on a tax was illegal and the TV license was abolished.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Roger
December 26, 2018 5:51 am

Germany still pays champagne tax for the largest German battleship in WWI which was shot uncontrollable at the first exit from harbor.

Steve O
Reply to  Karabar
December 19, 2018 4:28 am

It won’t happen. Canadians are a funny bunch. Formally, the plan is to be revenue neutral. Canadians don’t actually expect that to happen for very long, but many are still in favor of it. Canada is one of the those rare countries very well positioned to benefit from both fossil fuels as well as global warming, but they are so easily manipulated by their desire to look virtuous on the world stage.

Canadians will be more poor, their prices will be higher, and increased costs will shift production to China where goods will be made from plants powered by coal, AND freight will carry to goods half way around the world… but don’t Canadians look great!

Doug James
Reply to  Steve O
December 19, 2018 6:19 am

Justin Trudeau is a SJW of the worst stripe. He has all the buzzwords covered with legislation or proposed legislation. He is a danger to Canada and proposes Camada become a post-nationalist country ergo open borders with free migration. Third or fourth generation elite out of touch on nearly every topic. He did legalize pot though.

Steve O
Reply to  Doug James
December 19, 2018 8:02 am

Canadians have started to figure out what they have with JT. That trip to India opened a lot of eyes. He’s like the high school kid who is “Prime Minister for a Day” except that he really is the Prime Minister.

Wayne Milligan
Reply to  Doug James
December 19, 2018 5:28 pm

Trudeau’s BFF and Svengali, Gerald Butts, was Pres and CEO of the ENGO, WWF-Canada from 2009-2012. While there he opposed the Northern Gateway pipeline and oil tanker traffic off the North coast of BC. Canada, with a large O&G sector has cleverly elected a PM whose top advisor is an eco-activist with experience in obstructing pipelines and tanker traffic.

Reply to  Steve O
December 19, 2018 8:32 am

Trudeau is the very definition of the Chinese term Baizuo- stupid white social justice warrior. They must be laughing their butts (pun intended Gerald) off as they plan new coal plants to supply power to the new factories they need to produce goods that used to be made in shuttered Canadian factories.

Reply to  Steve O
December 19, 2018 8:58 am

Speaking about Canadians being a funny bunch…and in line with the French/English war.

Did you hear about the war between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia…
the Newfies were lobbing hand grenades, the Nova Scotians were pulling the pins and throwing them back.

“Jesus Christ with a hockey stick that was awful”

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Steve O
December 20, 2018 4:22 pm

Hmmm. Making jokes about a Prime minister a majority of Canadian nimrods voted for!!! What did y’all polite folk think you were going to get? You kicked Harper out because he wasn’t fuzzy-cute, ruled his cabinet like a general, didnt have warm fireside chats in a cardigan and didnt run around kissing babies. He did save Canada from the recession that poleaxed the rest of the world an lectured to the rest of the G8 why they were doing so badly. He brushed off climate change cancelled Kyoto, and really was a more presentable Trump that the world is suddenly realizing they need. He is an economist of the pre- post normal kind in a field that’s lost even more of its way than it had to start with. A drama teacher in a college that is an inside joke, yeah that’s the ticket to replace this this mean spirited savior who us no fun! I truly was casting about for another country to live in until conservative Doug Ford booted the soshulist wreckers out of Ontario.

December 18, 2018 10:29 pm

:So the carbon tax will have the opposite effect of its’ goal. THIS IS ABSOLUTE MADNESS.” That very beautifully sums up the whole political chaos behind these incredibly ignorant and mentally stunted reactions to a non-existent problem.

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
December 19, 2018 12:31 am

Even empty headed Trudeau knows that a tax can’t change the weather, but I believe the goal is to acheive more government command and control over their citizens lives, while encumbering capitalism.

The sad part is the opposition Conservative party, though they claim to oppose the tax, once in power they will not dismantle or eliminate it. They’ll find excuses to maintain it. The Canadian Conservative party is almost as socialist as the Liberal party.

Canadians have made this bed.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Klem
December 20, 2018 4:30 pm

Well when we had no-nonsense Harper, we kicked him out for a soshulist drama teacher. Bernier would be the guy to vote for in the uocoming but he’s just going to split the vote with what’s his name as conservative leader and the bolsheviks will squeak in. This country used to be a gem.

Old England
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
December 19, 2018 2:33 am

The Carbon taxes Will achieve their UN goal – to De-industrialse the developed world and bring an end to the ‘capitalist industrial’ economic model that has prevailed since the 19th century.

Why politicians in the developed world are so keen to trash their economies and lower their citizens standards of living whilst heading towards a globalist, marxist-socialist construct is beyond me.

Unless the people make their views very clear then there is little hope – maybe we all need to take a leaf out of the way that France’s public approach it.

December 18, 2018 10:31 pm

You nailed it exactly what will happen, no reduction of emissions and it will attack the middle income earners in Canada. I think what most people are waking up to is the ridiculous developing status of China in the Paris agreement and the IPCC framework.

The estimates of China’s current CO2 emissions per capita is anywhere from 6.8 to 13 metric tonnes. Oh but wait they agreed at COP24 to do the measurements properly but it isn’t enforceable so I am sure they will be extra careful 🙂

It doesn’t matter what you think about CAGW there is some absolutely crazy politics behind the policies. I assume eventually Canada will wake up and take a sharp jump to the right at elections like everywhere else.

Timo - Not that one.
Reply to  LdB
December 19, 2018 8:17 am

“Canada will wake up and take a sharp jump to the right” Well so far the Opposition leader Andrew Sheer believes in Global Warming, so there is little hope for our country. We will just have to learn to live in a third world sh*t hole country.

December 18, 2018 10:47 pm

Carbon taxes will move industry to China, where new coal powered plants will be built. Canada spends billions and CO2 goes up.

The only way for Canada to meet Trudeau’s Paris commitments is to buy carbon credits from China, India, and the US. Each of these countries will get billions to convert coal fired electricity to natural gas. Canada spends billions and Liberal middlemen get rich arranging carbon credit deals.

Meanwhile the greens are trying to shut down the LNG industry in Canada.

Reply to  joe
December 19, 2018 2:11 am

A proposed solution to importing un-taxed carbon is an import duty on the carbon content of (mostly) Chinese goods. link

Donald Trump’s presidency has already rattled free-traders’ nerves. Why risk giving the protectionists another opening?

It would be foolish to think they aren’t considering such a tax. America has made much much more progress on reducing CO2 than has China. There’s an excuse.

Canada, a small country with zero bargaining power, should consider its dependence on the Chinese market. By arresting two Canadians , the Chinese have demonstrated their willingness to be nasty. link National security considerations should dictate that America and Canada onshore the manufacturing that previously fled to China.

IMHO, China has made a serious error by demonstrating its willingness to exert its power for a political purpose.

John Endicott
Reply to  commieBob
December 19, 2018 12:51 pm

what you left out of your comment there commieBob, (and which the link you provide did mention) is that Canada arrested a Chinese business person first (in order to hand them over to the US). Was that Canada demonstrating “their willingness to be nasty”? Did Canada make a “serious error by demonstrating its willingness to exert its power for a political purpose” when it made that arrest?

Basically China arresting Canadians looks like a tit-for-tat for Canada arresting Chinese on behalf of the US.

Reply to  John Endicott
December 19, 2018 2:10 pm

Basically China arresting Canadians looks like a tit-for-tat for Canada arresting Chinese on behalf of the US.
What it shows is that the rule of law does not apply to foreigners travelling in China. You can be kidnapped and held hostage by the Chinese government to try and force the Canadian goverent to violate international treaties.

John Endicott
Reply to  Ferdberple
December 20, 2018 5:26 am

What it shows is that the rule of law does not apply to foreigners travelling in China

It’s a totalitarian regime, any foreigner who thought the rule of law applied was deluding themselves. This isn’t the first time that China has detained people for their own purposes, it won’t be the last. The same holds true for just about every totalitarian regime on the planet. You want to travel to a totalitarian regime, you do so at your own risk.

Reply to  John Endicott
December 19, 2018 5:46 pm

Canada was following its extradition treaty obligations to the United States. On the other hand, Canada’s willingness to turn over its citizens has been criticized. link In that light, there was no apparent political motive in Canada’s decision to hold the Chinese executive to face extradition proceedings. The action was completely consistent with past performance and with the law.

The Diab case I linked above should never have resulted in extradition. link

The accusation that Canada acted politically is just bunk. Are you an agent of the Chinese government?

John Endicott
Reply to  commieBob
December 20, 2018 5:20 am

The accusation that Canada acted politically is just bunk. Are you an agent of the Chinese government?

You can always tell when someone knows they don’t have an argument, they start tossing accusation at those they disagree with. Such intellectual dishonesty reflects poorly on you.

John Endicott
Reply to  commieBob
December 20, 2018 6:19 am

You are so busy casting aspersions (“willingness to be nasty”), that you are missing the wider picture and ignoring key details in order to do so. China doesn’t act in a vacuum, China isn’t randomly picking on Canadians for no reason, let along out of a desire to “be nasty”, they are (as they see it) retaliating in kind for the actions Canada took against their citizens.

Tit-for-tat retaliation is SOP for China, we’ve seen it time and again (most recently with the Tariff wars with the US – when US raised tariffs on China, China’s immediate reaction was to go tit-for-tat, dollar-for-dollar in raising it’s own tariffs on the US). It doesn’t matter (to them) that you don’t agree with their justification of their actions. As China sees it, Canada detained their citizen based on a political reason (note for the willfully dense, I did not say Canada acted for their own political reasons, but they were acting on behalf of the US which is in a trade war with China. It’s the US’s political reasons, from China’s perspective, that was being acted on. Canada, as far as China is concerned, is complicit in the US’s “attacks” on them. Again note for the willfully dense, I’m not saying the US was in fact attacking China by asking Canada for extradition but that is the way that China sees it) so they retaliated in kind by detaining Canadian citizens not out of some vague desire to be nasty, but because Canada, as they see it, hit them first.

John Endicott
Reply to  commieBob
December 20, 2018 6:32 am

In other words, rather than cast aspersions (which is a game anyone can play, as I attempted to demonstrate by turn your own aspersions in the opposite direction but you clearly didn’t comprehend the point) try to see the big picture and understand what events lead to the actions taken. You find, in international affairs, country’s rarely act for no reason or out of a random desire to be malicious. Whenever you find yourself ascribing motives like “being nasty”, chances are you are ignoring some event or events that lead to that action taking place. Even taking into consideration the events that lead to the action taking place, you may still find yourself in disagreement with the action being taken, but at least you won’t look like such an intellectual dishonest fool when you do so.

Reply to  commieBob
December 20, 2018 12:02 pm

John Endicott said:

Was that Canada demonstrating “their willingness to be nasty”? Did Canada make a “serious error by demonstrating its willingness to exert its power for a political purpose” when it made that arrest?

That sounds like you’re accusing Canada of acting politically. As I said before, that is bunk, for the reasons I already stated. Maybe you missed my point.

John Endicott
Reply to  commieBob
December 20, 2018 12:29 pm

commieBob learn to comprehend what you read (did you flunk English when your teachers explained what a “?” at the end of a sentence means? hint: questions are not statements). And in a prior post I explained for the hard of comprehending what that post was attempting to showcase (IE turning your aspersions of motive 180 degrees around to show that anyone can cast aspersions). The only way those questions are “accusing Canada of acting politically” is if you believe the answer to those questions is in the affirmative. But that would be *YOU* (the answerer of the questions) making the accusation and not the person asking the questions.

John Endicott
Reply to  commieBob
December 20, 2018 12:31 pm

Maybe you missed my point.

Clearly you missed mine. Go back and re-read with some comprehension and perhaps you’ll pick it up because, after several posts, I’m running out of ways to explain it to you.

Reply to  commieBob
December 21, 2018 1:51 pm

… what a “?” at the end of a sentence means …

It looks like you are posing a rhetorical question.

December 18, 2018 10:48 pm

I refuse to pay carbon tax but if the corporations are forced to pay it (which they will be) they will raise their prices and I will end up paying the tax indirectly. It is difficult living in a country where well-meaning, but ill-informed people voted for a ‘leader’ who has done nothing in life, has no worldly experience and couldn’t spell photosynthesis let alone understand it.

December 18, 2018 10:50 pm

The names of those responsible for creating this absurdity should be made public. I suspect the history of its inception, development and route to the political traction it now has will prove to be a very murky one. Is there a keen investigative journalist out there with loads of bottle willing to risk taking on this task?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alasdair
December 18, 2018 11:08 pm

We all know the names. James Hansen, Michael Mann, 1000’s of other groupthink climate scientists, Maurice Strong (now dead),George Soros, Anybody else serving on any IPCC committee, 97% of all main stream media, 190 heads of governments around the world including PM Justin Trudeau of Canada including his main advisor Gerald Butts, and Trudeau’s Environment Minister and my own MP Catherine McKenna and people like Bill McKibben who run blogs preaching global warming.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 19, 2018 12:06 am

I forgot the name of Al Gore. He is the head of the Church of Climatology. See my tweets for what the Church of Climatology has done.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 19, 2018 12:48 am

Your environment minister actually sits on a Chinese government development council, and is paid to do so. She is a Canadian cabinet minister and she works for the Chinese government.

In the US that is called treason.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Klem
December 19, 2018 2:05 am

I would call it treason in Canada as well but PM Trudeau breaks his own government’s laws on immigration and calls the illegal migrants “irregular migrants”. Trudeau has made up his own laws on migrants and he signed for Canada on the stupid nonsensical UN migration pact. Trudeau believes in open borders with welfare cheques handed out as soon as you apply as either a refugee or migrant or whatever else you want to call non immigration people that want to skip to the front of the immigration line.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 19, 2018 12:34 pm

Buying Votes.

nw sage
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 19, 2018 6:05 pm

Here’s an idea – those “refugees” at our southern border can be ‘temporarily’ housed in Ottowa until we have determined they don’t qualify as refugees. Then, we can send tweets to Trudeau to return them to their home country for us. Canada can then be a friend on Facebook!

Reply to  Klem
December 19, 2018 5:28 am

Here’s a link. It’s Ezra Levant (he’s a **** disturber) so I’m not sure what it really means.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Klem
December 19, 2018 9:50 am

In the US, Treason is the offense of waging war against the US or providing aid and comfort to a foreign entity with which the US is currently at war with. In the case of China, neither is true. However there are other laws in the US that forbid a Federal Government cabinet member from working for a foreign entity. Frankly I’m surprised that Canada does not have similar laws.

Reply to  Paul Penrose
December 20, 2018 12:54 am

Three words. Conflict of interest.

John Endicott
Reply to  Paul Penrose
December 20, 2018 12:19 pm

Paul, close. the actual wording is:

Article III section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

It doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to be at war with the enemy being aided. There’s an “or” between “levying war” and “adhering to their enemies”. “Fruits or vegetables” doesn’t mean vegetables are also fruits. It’s two distinct actions listed there, the second action does not depend on the first action being in operation (IE the aid doesn’t require the war from the first action listed). Enemies would be foreign entities (governments mainly but not necessarily exclusively) that are openly hostile to the United States. During the “cold war”, the USSR was our enemy, but we weren’t officially at war with them. Giving state secrets to the USSR would have been treason. Iran is an enemy, even though we are not currently at war with them. Giving them the plans for one of our weapons systems (an ICBM for example) would be an act of treason.

Damon C. Poole, II
December 18, 2018 10:54 pm

It is also sheer stupidity to try and tax or regulate CO2 especially when doing so will have no net effect on alleged man-made warming!

James Bull
December 18, 2018 10:56 pm

I’m sure the Canadian people will be able to procure yellow vests to show their support for the good tax their lords and masters in the government have decided to give them.

James Bull

Reply to  James Bull
December 19, 2018 12:10 am

James –

Canada is doing the rebate which is the trick Macron didn’t employ. No yellow vests. This is death by many small pricks.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Derg
December 19, 2018 12:29 am

Also Canada is not putting a special further tax on diesel like Macron did.

Reply to  Derg
December 19, 2018 1:43 am

we have many both small pricks and big pricks here in Oz, all vying for their place at the trough

PS, did one of your pricks upset someone in China? I see the Chinese site Alibaba has a notice up that due to excessive delays through Canadian customs, they are no longer taking orders or shipping *anythning* to Canada.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Karlos51
December 19, 2018 2:07 am

ya Canada arrested the CFO of Huawei on orders by the US for breaking IRAN sanctions

Alan Tomalty
December 18, 2018 10:56 pm

Anybody that wants to start a yellow jacket movement here in Canada follow me on Twitter and email me from Twitter.

Rick Kargaard
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 19, 2018 5:26 pm


Philip Schaeffer
December 18, 2018 11:08 pm

Article by “Guest Blogger”

Who exactly is the guest blogger?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
December 18, 2018 11:17 pm

They forgot to put my name on the article Mod??????????

[yeah I screwed up. I remember typing it originally, but must not have hit update at the time. Fixed about three in the am Pacific time ~ctm]

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 19, 2018 11:35 am

Thanks mod.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 19, 2018 6:37 pm

“Standards should only be used to prevent injuries or bad health effects.”

I stopped reading right there anyway.

December 18, 2018 11:31 pm

The Anglo Saxons and Celts people are slow to anger, but we come from a warrier background. We will when the time comes take revenge on those who are trying to destroy our economies.


Reply to  Michael
December 19, 2018 12:28 am


December 18, 2018 11:34 pm

A – I like and admire the French, once riled they get off their butts and do something about it. A minority of folks in other countries talk, but little chance of action.

B – Free market. Has no one noticed the rapid corporate consolidation over the past 20 years, and increasing in pace. Eight corporations make and control almost everything we eat and drink. It’s an illusion.

Oh that reminds me, to save the bank’s going to the government for funds if the balance sheet is threatened either by a run on withdrawals or bad loans, or market collapse, the reserve banks passed an act allowing the bank’s to transfer any cash deposit and term deposits of customers straight to the bank’s balance sheet. In New Zealand they call it the haircut provision. I guess that’s why they call it a free market.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Ozonebust
December 19, 2018 12:26 am

“Free market. Has no one noticed the rapid corporate consolidation over the past 20 years, and increasing in pace. Eight corporations make and control almost everything we eat and drink. It’s an illusion.”

The world is now a global village. China now has 4 of the largest companies in the top 10 based on profits made. There are always new companies that start up from nothing. Witness Facebook, Google etc. There are now more companies around the world than ever. Companies merge and they split up. Your 2nd statement does not pass the snuff test. It is completely wrong. I see this all the time. Leftists always worrying about corporate concentration. The old corporate concentration bogeyman has been with us since corporations were 1st invented in 1600.

Another Ian
Reply to  Ozonebust
December 19, 2018 2:06 am

Re the “free market” and who is noticing

“It’s Happening – This is “THE” Fight, There are Trillions at Stake…”

Reply to  Ozonebust
December 19, 2018 9:04 am

“Eight corporations make and control almost everything we eat and drink. It’s an illusion.”


December 19, 2018 12:07 am

Furthermore PM Trudeau is pursuing a free trade ageement with China which will result in some of our top 620 CO2 emitters to build facilities in China and by offshoring production, they will be able to escape the carbon taxes completely. This will result in a global increase in CO2 emissions.

Lots of very interesting info in that article, thanks.

This conclusion is wrong however, because governments aren’t static. They know very well that too much taxation drives business out of the country. So the second some large corporation starts even thinking in passing about moving off shore, the politicians are on their door step, hat in hand, wanting to know what they can do to keep the jobs in Canada. Pretty soon there are exemptions being handed out, or subsidies, or tax breaks, and its to protect jobs dontcha know, so its all good. Shrewd corporate negotiators walk away form the table with more in concessions than the taxes cost in the first place. Then there are the foreign companies that the politicians are trying to attract into the country, they’ll get even bigger “incentives” if they will just put their new plant or office in Canada.

Keeping track of all these exemptions, subsidies, tax breaks and other concessions of course creates an entire industry unto itself within government, and the complexity of it becomes a barrier to entry to all but the largest corporations who have the armies of professional negotiators to deal with the red tape. So the two begin to feed off of each other in a mutually beneficial relationship, and this is where the true damage to the economy happens. In another land, they might call it a swamp.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 19, 2018 12:43 am

“So the second some large corporation starts even thinking in passing about moving off shore, the politicians are on their door step, hat in hand, wanting to know what they can do to keep the jobs in Canada.”

That didnt stop the 60000- 100000 US companies that relocated to China, so why would it stop them from relocating to China from Canada? The only ones that can’t do this are the power generating companies and the natural resources companies. However many of the top 620 CO2 emitters in Canada fall under the last 2 categories.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 19, 2018 1:55 am

same here in Oz, they gigglingly take the concessions and once the money dries up, go offshore anyway. I remember the tale of Kodak here – the most productive and profitable division in the world.. they held out their cap, the government of the day poured money into it, the workers took reduced wages – anything to keep it running, then Kodak said ‘thanksbai’ and fled taking all their aussie tax payers money with them.

George Daddis
Reply to  Karlos51
December 19, 2018 8:51 am

Karlos, I’m right with you about the foolishness of governments enticing industry with tax breaks. Ziggy was correct that Kodak did not respond well to the transformation to digital; despite the fact that Kodak invented the digital camera; management assumed they could introduce new product technology at their own pace like they did for the previous 100 years.

George Eastman established “regional” companies like Kodak Aus, who were each responsible for producing and supplying virtually the entire range of Kodak products for their part of the world.

Because of cost pressures, CEO Kay Whitmore decided to move from an “International” corporation (independent companies each responsible for their region) to a “Global” company; acting like a single entity with each “plant” making a reduced range of product based on what they could do best. (I was involved in coordinating the necessary standardization of packaging worldwide including quadrilingual graphics.)

When later faced with competition for the first time with traditional products (e.g. Fuji greatly undercutting the price of color photographic paper which was a staple of Kodak Australia), Kodak was finally forced to look for efficiencies within and across plants.

Unfortunately, even as Ziggy admitted in his op ed, Kodak Aus. was NOT the most productive sensitized goods plant, and with the development of more efficient global supply chains the smaller and thus less cost effective plants were closed one by one around the world as the corporation reduced its size. (Film and paper coating equipment is very capital intensive and coating wheels varied in size and speed around the world; that and differences in volume explains much of the relative product cost differences between plants.)

At the time of Kodak Australia’s closing, Kodak Park in Rochester NY, a contiguous manufacturing site 4 miles long and from 1/2 to 1 mile wide at points was the most efficient. The downslide of course continued and Kodak Park is now one of New York State’s “Enterprise Zones” with Kodak reduced to a landlord (for those parcels they were not able to sell off) for new startup companies.

I have fond memories of my friends in Oz during my career at Kodak.

Reply to  George Daddis
December 19, 2018 9:25 am

Thanks for that clarification – What I heard was second (third?) hand from the media, so the chest beating and trumpet blowing about our great success was probably the usual BS that goes on here, inflating our importance.

I had ties in other ways with photography from lecturing in the science side to working in wholesale. Funny company.. I kept my contact to a minimum as I always felt I was disturbing someone who was deep in slumber.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 19, 2018 10:32 am

Companies don’t relocate for any single reason. The companies world wide that have defected to China have mostly done so for cheap labour and lax regulation (no workers rights, no environmental laws, etc). China has a lot of weapons to attract business there aside from taxation. Taxation would be the icing on the cake, my point being that the icing can be scraped off. Company might move anyway for other reasons.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 19, 2018 11:47 am

A free trade agreement with China will simply allow China to sell more goods to Canada without import duties. It is those duties that are preventing local firms from relocating because they can compete with Chinese manufactured products. Once the duties come off, and if the manufacturing process is labour intensive then the Chinese plants have an advantage. (Witness the 60000 -100000( I dont have exact number) US firms that took advantage of that advantage. Carbon taxes are a side issue in this scenario, but my point is that the carbon taxes won’t be paid by the relocated Canadian manufacturing plant to China. Both the proposed free trade agreement and the carbon taxes are the 2 straws that may break the camel’s back. Unfortunately Canada is the camel.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 19, 2018 12:41 pm

Wages are just one factor in production. Others such as cost of doing business and labor productivity are equally important.
Thanks to rampant corruption, cost of doing business in China, as well as most other 2nd and third world companies is very high.
Thanks to untrained works (and corruption) labor productivity is also low in these places.

If you want your companies to be competitive, reduce taxes and regulations to reasonable levels. Until that is done, you will have continue punishing your consumers twice.

Julian Flood
December 19, 2018 1:51 am

In 2013, Suffolk (the original English Suffolk) had a ‘greenest county’ policy. As we’re the home of Sizewell A and B I thought we were already doing our bit and that this was a waste of money. The problem I faced was the general ignorance of the facts by almost everyone. So I did the research and, as it was panto season, hit on a vivid metaphor for how much Suffolk was contributing to the over-heated end of life on Earth.

Enter the Chihuahua of Doom.

Using the standard atmosphere model which cools at the rate of 3 deg C per thousand feet, the most recent CO2 sensitivity and an approximation of the CO2 emissions by the county, I worked out that if we wanted to remain at the same temperature as today, offsetting Suffolk’s contribution to global warming, everyone in Suffolk would have to move up by eight inches. I contemplated the issue of Elton John stack-heeled boots to the whole population, but discarded this as too ridiculous, and settled on everyone’s right to stand on top of a small chihuahua, the eponymous Chihuahua of Doom. Well, it was panto season. So I put a motion to council to abandon the policy.

I learnt several things from this exercise. One, the local Press does not have a sense of humour, two, the local Press was totally hostile to my political party, three, most councillors are unable to follow even the simple science of ‘as you go up it gets cooler’. And four, don’t joke in politics, even during panto season, it’s better to be dull dull dull, because being dull does not give your enemies the chance to attack.

One good thing though. When a planning application came in for an open-cycle gas turbine at Eye I was approached by several councillors from various parties to explain what was going on, so I sent them all a briefing note — I even got several thank you replies. I spelled out the dangers of unrestricted renewable energy from wind power and how this was destabilising the Grid with the subsequent risk of blackouts, necessitating the building of inefficient back up power. And how much money some people were going to make in an emergency.

And now our half-witted government is intent on building Sizewell C, the wrong way of making Suffolk the greenest county. Sometimes you can’t help fools.


Flight Level
December 19, 2018 2:12 am

The horror is of a unspeakable magnitude. On the old continent we still live with the stigmates of the past fascist era. It was tragically real indeed.

Happens that CO2 is an unavoidable byproduct emission of necessary to life metabolism. Which ceases only when the body is disposed of and not even putrefaction subsists.

By accepting taxation of CO2 as part of it’s legal system a government, any government, implicitly regulates the right of life.

Which is why those who preach in favor of such exactions coincidently also lobby for the suppression of self-defense means, including the prohibition of privately owned guns.

Furthermore, the suppression of petrol vehicles allows a very fast modulation of mass mobility since electricity can not be stored as strategic survival reserves.

There are no coincidences. Just chains of mutually related events of which we might not perceive the interaction before it becomes self-explanatory by the facts.

Reply to  Flight Level
December 19, 2018 8:26 am

On the old continent we still live with the stigmates of the past fascist era.

Even worse, you still live with the stigmates of the past communist era, which was arguably much worse than the shorter-lived fascist era.

Flight Level
Reply to  CapitalistRoader
December 19, 2018 5:57 pm

Sadly yes CapitalistRoader….

Main problem, the young generation does not realize how “un-cool” the situation really is…

Forming an easy to harvest by do-gooders prey.

December 19, 2018 2:20 am

“the carbon taxes are supposed to be given back to the public at large. ”

Sounds like a way to get the middle class to fund the well-being of the poor. Bet many of the rich like and support this tax.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  kramer
December 19, 2018 12:31 pm

This is misleading:

“the federal government has promised to rebate all the money back to consumers.”

In reality, the government will take it’s cut to manage and enforce this program. I would be surprised if it was less than 30%. Some of that 30%(+/-) will generate CO2 emissions as bureaucrats drive to work, fly to meetings, occupy heated office buildings, and consume food and products produced with the help of fossil fuels. . . . But they will be well paid bureaucrats.

Flight Level
December 19, 2018 2:26 am

” I even got several thank you replies. I spelled out the dangers of unrestricted renewable energy from wind power and how this was destabilising the Grid ”

Yep. Those who decide do not have even a tiny fraction of the knowledge required to understand thee above sentence.

Politics is a very dangerous way of doing things because it substitutes knowledge by popularity.

What would your reaction be if the cabin chief makes the following pre-flight announcement:

-And now Ladies and Gentlemen, we will proceed to the democratic election of our flight crew, first officer and captain, no specific qualification is required from the candidates.

Sounds silly, right ? Precisely what happens in politics.

December 19, 2018 2:54 am

In that case there is a reduction in CO2 emissions but since the atmosphere needs more CO2 NOT less, everybody loses.

Do you really believe this yourself?
The CO2 level has not been above 300 ppm in at least the last 800 000 years, and now 400 ppm is not enough?


Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
December 19, 2018 3:46 am

Why start at 800,000 years ago for measuring CO2? For the vast majority of earth’s history it was several times what it is now. I’m going to need more evidence than computer models to believe there’s some looming disaster if the atmospheric CO2 content goes up by .0001, .0002 or, good heavens, even .0003! Life on earth will do just fine and only the plants will notice.

Reply to  GeoNC
December 19, 2018 8:12 am

Why start at 800,000 years ago for measuring CO2?

Because the ice-core data goes only 800 000 year back. Before that we have to rely on proxy data which are more uncertain. The proxy data indicate that we have to go about 15 million years back to find CO2 levels comparable to today.

Furthermore, the level continues to go up by 2 to 3 ppm every year.

I am not crying that this is the end of the world, but I think that all well informed, good thinking and honest people agree that we do not need to put more CO2 into the atmosphere right now.


Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
December 19, 2018 9:48 am

If putting less CO2 in the air means a lower standard of living for billions of people, then no, we can’t agree on that. Just like pretty much everyone running around claiming higher CO2 is going to cause a crisis, I refuse to change my lifestyle to result in an insignificant drop in CO2. Seems to me the crisis mongers have a deficit on conviction when it comes to their own lives.

And I’ve seen no definitive science that would make your opinion good, well-informed or honest.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
December 19, 2018 10:09 am

Where do you think all that carbon came from before it was locked away in the earth as coal, oil, and gas? Yes, of course, the atmosphere. We are just returning it so that it can once again be used by the environment. Almost all living things on the planet are carbon-based lifeforms after all.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
December 19, 2018 12:00 pm

Plants are optimum at 1000 ppm. If we burned all the fossil fuels in the ground tomorrow we could never get the CO2 level that high in the atmosphere. And even if that was possible, at 1000 ppm CO2 ; the water vapour on average still outnumbers CO2 by 10 to 20 X. And N2 and O2 outnumber it by over 1000 x instead of 2500 X. You are asking me to believe that each molecule of CO2 at 1000 ppm will heat up 1000 molecules of N2 and O2. That is junk science. We have witnessed a greening of the earth proved by satellite observation in the last 30 years. That can only be a good thing. The bedwetting alarmists that worship at Al Gore’s Church of Climatology want us to start building our arks now for the coming worldwide flood caused by CO2. Absolute nonsense.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
December 19, 2018 12:16 pm

‘I think that all well informed, good thinking and honest people agree that we do not need to put more CO2 into the atmosphere right now.’

Internalize this Jen – you’re wrong.

Rick Kargaard
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
December 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Sorry to disillusion you but ice core data is also proxy data as is tree ring data.

Reply to  Rick Kargaard
December 20, 2018 2:06 am

there is 0.04% CO2 in the air.

To grow 1 acre of Paulonia trees at the maddeningly slow rate we see today because the poor trees are starved, the trees have to strip all the CO2 from 5 cubic kilometers of air.

Grasp that. That’s the amount 1 acre of Paulownia take, what they process to amass the amount of carbon they add to their bulk each year. In other words we can weigh the trees dry mass, work out the dry mass of an acre, work out how much carbon they added to thei bulk and from this calculate how many volumes of air at 0.04% it took to make that one acre – and the answer is 5 cubic kilometers !

Now being aware that most plants can grow substantially faster (using less water to do so) at 2 times, 4 times, 5 times the amount of CO2 in the air you’ll realize they could do with more. Being aware that obviously there isn’t 5 cubic kilometers of air for every acre of trees despite them using that amount, it all clearly adds up to one conclusion –

There is way too little CO2 in the air.

None of the claims of CO2 ‘s warming potential hold water. Throw it to a physicist, ask them whether gasses are basically refrigerants (they are), ask them, don’t refrigerants actually take heat and shuffle it to colder places, that being their very nature and the answer will again be yes. Ask them by what mechanism can a refrigerant in an open system act as a heating blanket, not moving heat but trapping it and if they understand their subject they’ll tell you it cannot.

We need more CO2. More CO2 = more life on Earth. If we go the other way and strip it to under 0.0028% (or if the greedy bloody plants do it themselves) we will see the deaths of C3 plants – shortly followed by the mass starvation of a whole lot of life forms.

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
December 19, 2018 4:52 am

CO2 is the substrate for all life on Earth. All life on Earth is dependent on photosynthesis.
Plant photosynthesis and growth always increases strongly with higher atmospheric CO2 levels.
Ask anyone involved in providing maximum plant growth in controlled conditions, such as hydroponics or greenhouse based agriculture.

For 10s of millions of years, plants have been evolving toward improved methods of extracting CO2 from an atmosphere that was becoming severely depleted in CO2. Plants that became more effective at CO2 procurement meant better survival for the species.

A universally known fact based on many decades of scientific observation, more CO2 in the atmosphere will produce more life on Earth.

Reply to  bwegher
December 19, 2018 8:31 am

I agree that more CO2 lead to more plant production, which may be beneficial.

The problem is that that is plant production is not the only variable here. Warming and ocean acidification must also be taken into consideration.

Do you really mean that we are in a hurry to reach 500 or 600 ppm CO2?
If not, you should agree that it is better that Canada and other rich countries put less, not more CO2 into the atmosphere.

We will probably reach that level anyway because developing countries have a good excuse to continue to emit CO2 for another generation or two because they started later and have not caused the current elevated level.

The actions taken now will hopefully have an effect to stabilize the level before it goes even higher.


Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
December 19, 2018 9:35 am

Warming: A few tenths of a degree is a good thing. There is no downside.
Acidification: Isn’t happening.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  MarkW
December 19, 2018 12:18 pm

Ocean PH has decreased from 8.2 to 8.1 Whoopeddoo. The scale is logarithmic. In any case the oceans have changed acidity PH numbers many times over 4 billion years. At 8.1 PH the oceans are still alkaline and far from the scale of 7 PH which divides the acidity from alkaline. Furthermore since man puts out only 4 % of nature’s CO2 that puny amount can never affect the world’s ocean acidity. When CO2 was 10 times millions of years ago than what it is today, the oceans did not become acidic. Read the following article which debunks this whole scare of ocean acidification.

Reply to  MarkW
December 19, 2018 2:48 pm

Alan says:

Ocean PH has decreased from 8.2 to 8.1 Whoopeddoo. The scale is logarithmic.

Yes, and if you had known anything about logarithmic functions you would have known that what looks like a small change on a logarithmic scale, actually is much larger.

A change from PH 8.2 to PH 8.1 is a change of 20% in the hydrogen ion activity.

Reply to  MarkW
December 19, 2018 2:59 pm

Alan says:

Furthermore since man puts out only 4 % of nature’s CO2 that puny amount can never affect the world’s ocean acidity.

With all due respect, that is nonsense.

There is indeed a large bi-directional carbon flow between the atmosphere and plants. Plants take up about ten times as much CO2 in the photosynthesis process as the human emissions. The problem is that almost all of that same carbon is released back to the atmosphere when the plants die and rot.

The number that make sense is the net flows, i.e. plant uptake minus plant emissions, and if we look at that we see that the human emissions are dominant.

Human emissions are about 37 billion ton Carbon annually. Worldwide net uptake from the atmosphere to plants is approximately 10 billion ton. The net flow from the atmosphere to the oceans is about 8 billion ton. Other sources such as volcanoes and rock weathering are negligible.

This gives an annual buildup of approximately 19 billion ton in the atmosphere, and virtually all of it come from human emissions.


Reply to  MarkW
December 19, 2018 9:34 pm

Alan says:

Furthermore since man puts out only 4 % of nature’s CO2 that puny amount can never affect the world’s ocean acidity.

Alan, you are right that the I gross a large bi-directional carbon flow between the atmosphere and plants. Plants take up about ten times as much CO2 in the photosynthesis process as the human emissions. The problem is that almost all of that same carbon is emitted back to the atmosphere when the plants die and rot.

However, the numbers that make sense to compare are the net flows, i.e. plant uptake minus plant emissions, and if we look at that we see that the human emissions are dominant.

Human emissions are about 37 billion ton Carbon annually. Worldwide net uptake from the atmosphere to plants is approximately 10 billion ton. The net flow from the atmosphere to the oceans is about 8 billion ton. Other sources such as volcanoes and rock weathering are negligible.

This gives an annual buildup of approximately 19 billion ton in the atmosphere, and virtually all of it come from human emissions.
See figure 6.1 in
And figure 9 in:
(You must multiply ton carbon with 3.7 to get ton CO2)


Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
December 19, 2018 9:45 am

Jan please supply the evidence that shows CO2 is harmful at any level below 8000 ppm.

Rick Kargaard
Reply to  mkelly
December 19, 2018 5:40 pm

Show me the data that proves a 0.1 drop in ocean pH. The error bars are probably at least plus or minus 0.1 considering the volume of ocean water.

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
December 19, 2018 9:29 am

Do we believe that? Yes, because that’s what the data shows.

There have been thousands of experiments showing that plants grow better with higher CO2 levels.
Most greenhouse owners pay money to increase CO2 levels to 1000 to 1200ppm.

Are you going to argue that these people are wasting their money?

Tom Abbott
December 19, 2018 4:41 am

From the article: “To top it all off Norway found that the carbon taxes reduced their GDP by 0.06%.”

I think that is definitely going to happen. The question is how much will Canada’s GDP be reduced.

The politicians have a new toy to play with: The Carbon Tax. It’s perfect for them in so many ways. They get to virtue signal and increase the money they get to spend all at the same time. What could be better for a politician.

December 19, 2018 5:04 am

If these pols had a brain and guts, they would be pouring money into those half dozen comapnies that are developing molten salt nuclear reactors, which can be manufactured and sited most anywhere at low cost and rapidly produced – power cheaper than any other technology and safer than any other technology. The devleopment of one of the first companies, Transatomic Power has ceased due to lack of funds. Pwerhaps no loss, actually, since other designs, notably Moltex Energy, are better and cheaper designs and can be commercialized much sooner. Subsidizing these companies is chicken feed for a large nation.

Reply to  kent beuchert
December 19, 2018 6:36 am

Yes, where is the funding for MSR’s, the obvious long term solution?

Relatively simple “back of the envelope” calculations reveal that renewables lack the capacity for any really significant CO2 reductions (EVEN IF WE HAD ALL THE ELON MUSK BATTERIES WE NEEDED for power plant back-up). See this rare presentation from a sincere AGW advocate:

One hears virtually no AGW “scientists” proposing widespread nuclearization of the world’s power supply. That’s because they DON’T REALLY believe in AGW…but they do understand the current corrupt science funding paradigm. And most of them are very partial to socialism (they WILL be the brains behind the controlling elite after all).

Short of spawning total economic catastrophe, a worldwide 10,000% emergency build-up of nuclear generation capacity is the only way to achieve AGW goals…do the 4th grade math. The current nuclear generation capacity can only support 10% of our current transportation sector requirements. It’s a sad joke to suggest renewables can do it.

Development and FULL SCALE FUNDING of MSR’s (molten salt reactors) WOULD be in full swing by now if AGW really was the reason for increasing governmental control of the energy sector.

The REAL reason for AGW, of course, IS government control of everything.

This disruptive tax is just another step on the long march to worldwide socialism. It will have ZERO effect on the climate…and they know it.

Steven J Hill
December 19, 2018 5:12 am

Breathing to soon be taxed, stand by for amount considered…….

December 19, 2018 5:24 am

However the general price level of all carbon related goods goes up so that inflation goes up.

Inflation is a devaluing of the currency caused by the government supplying more than is needed. Tax-driven price increases are not inflation. The results may look the same and both are caused by governmental distortion of the economy, but the mechanisms are different.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Gary
December 19, 2018 12:28 pm

Inflation is the increase of prices in the economy. After carbon taxes , general price level will increase. Without the rebates demand will fall and thus inflation will come back down. That will lead to a depression because consumers will have less money to spend. With rebates the demand will stay the same and the inflation level will not come back down. You are correct that inflation is ultimately driven by money supply but that doesn’t stop me from naming a general increase in prices INFLATION.

December 19, 2018 5:51 am

Great! Now they can increase the bailout of the Canadian oil industry during these depressed prices and over production.

December 19, 2018 6:01 am

1. Where were/are all those yellow vests made…China?

2. Does the Carbon Tax have a success clause that says it ends when the earth’s temp DROPS by 1.5 degrees C?

Reply to  Yooper
December 19, 2018 10:02 am

Yooper? Where in 906 do you reside?

I am in the east end.

Reply to  mkelly
December 19, 2018 10:45 am


Reply to  Yooper
December 19, 2018 1:48 pm

According to family lore my grandfather was the first white child born in what is now that zip code. One of the ladies that lived out your way used to play in the female baseball league that the movie was based on.


Reply to  mkelly
December 20, 2018 6:01 am

Once this kicks in I expect you’ll see a whole lot more Ontario license plates at your local gas stations. The last time I was at the new “M” store more than half the cars were from across the river…

Doug James
December 19, 2018 6:20 am

Justin Trudeau is a SJW of the worst stripe. He has all the buzzwords covered with legislation or proposed legislation. He is a danger to Canada and proposes Camada become a post-nationalist country ergo open borders with free migration. Third or fourth generation elite out of touch on nearly every topic. He did legalize pot though.

December 19, 2018 6:51 am

Based on your arguments, to be effective the tax should be higher.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  trafamadore
December 19, 2018 12:30 pm

There is also a separate gasoline tax starting in April 2019 increasing 11 cents a litre after 4 years. That won’t stop us driving our cars so it wont decrease CO2 emissions.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  trafamadore
December 19, 2018 12:32 pm

They can tax us all they want but the decrease in world temperature will be 1/1000 C.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 19, 2018 1:51 pm

Alan, if what they say is true there should have been a change in the specific heat of air. Until that happens this is all BS.

December 19, 2018 6:59 am

Welcome Canadians and your investment.

You don’t have to support a Caribbean dictatorship in order to enjoy sunshine.

PS. Mexican asylum seekers cite extortion as the main reason for wanting to become a U.S. resident. (see latest WSJ article on the scale of that “authorized crime”) Add Canada to the world’s top list of authorized crime centers.

John the Econ
December 19, 2018 7:13 am

Prime example of the Progressive War on the Middle Class. The rich aren’t effected in any material way. The poor will get subsidized. The middle class will get most of the bill and will suffer the most with a diminishing standard of living, and over time will transition into being poor.

December 19, 2018 8:23 am
December 19, 2018 8:24 am

“The middle class will get most of the bill and will suffer the most with a diminishing standard of living, and over time will transition into being poor.”

Poor =dependant. Upon the government. That’s what all governments want. Control. It is self empowerment. Unfortunately governments have the Midas touch in reverse, everything they touch turns to shit. Even national defense, which is the best in the world here in the US, is so expensive that only a country as rich as ours can afford it! First rule of organizational behaviour, the larger the organization becomes the less requisite variety it has to deal with all contingencies. And the number one goal becomes self preservation,ie, more empowerment, irrespective of the original intent of its founding whether it be government or business.

December 19, 2018 8:31 am

Standards aid the free market, provided they are VOLUNTARY standards.
No government imposes the ANSI standard on the computer industry, yet almost all electronic and software companies adhere to it.
Their products couldn’t communicate with each other if they didn’t.
The companies adhere to the standard because their customers demand it.

December 19, 2018 8:37 am

Increased taxes don’t cause inflation, only when government prints money faster than the economy is growing, does inflation occur.

Increasing taxes causes the price of the taxed commodity to increase. This means consumers of those products have less money to spend on other things. Which causes demand and hence the price of those other things to fall.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  MarkW
December 19, 2018 12:33 pm

Not if you get the money back in rebates.

December 19, 2018 9:14 am

I think that somebody should be asking the Canadian government –
“What percentage of scientists say that paying a carbon tax will stop the climate from changing?”
The answer would be “Zero! Zero per cent of scientists say that paying a carbon tax will stop the climate from changing.”
It should be relatively cheap to prove me wrong. Just ask 100% of scientists to answer the question.
Another important question to ask would be:-
“What percentage of scientists say that any action by humans will stop the climate from changing?”
Once again the answer would be zero.
The people saying that paying a carbon tax will stop the climate from changing are economists and sociologists. They are Evidence FREE believers who live in an Evidence FREE world.
They live in a world of academic fantasy and as such their pronouncements should be treated as just that – academic fantasy.

John Robertson
December 19, 2018 9:22 am

The promise of an imposed tax on Carbon dioxide, means nothing to the average Canadian,it is just more mouth noises from our parasitic overlords.
Until it bites,most will ignore it.
Once it is imposed and adds to the ever increasing cost of living here,then taxpayers will pay attention.
How much colder does Justine want Canada to be?
The timing is brilliant,heart of winter & we have a federal election fall 2019.
The CAGW/CC meme is fading away and both our major trading partners are openly ignoring the dogma.
The economic damage will barely register on top of all the other obstacles this current government has thrown up to impede business,destroy our currency and prevent production.
The stupidity coming out of Ottawa, which seems to be supported by the electorate East of Manitoba leaves most Western Canadians wondering if Canada is a country.
We cannot even ship across provincial borders freely.

I am all for these politicians imposing this tax on everything.
Let them expose themselves for all to see.
Too stupid to run loose in the public square, too greedy to tolerate any longer.
Next for Canada;”Had Enough Yet”?
Canada tried “Reform”,nothing changed, it seems to me that a Kleptocracy cannot be reformed civilly.

Reply to  John Robertson
December 19, 2018 11:05 am

“until it bites most will ignore it”

… but, wrt the carbon tax, the bulk of the population will either agree with it based on misguided environmental biases or will just ignorantly embrace the “refund” check at the end of the year. So the majority won’t care,or understand, that it bites.

(if the PR assholes in the government wanted fool the typical zombie citizen idiot to an event greater extent they would issue the “refund” checks at the beginning of the year (as an estimate), then reconcile the estimate the following year. What they will likely do is roll the carbon “refund” into the income tax refund process where it will not be as apparent to the typical zombie citizen.)

Reply to  DonM
December 20, 2018 2:20 am

Old aussie adage regarding bureaucrats and politicians : “One day they’ll work out how to tax the air we breathe” (expletives removed)

this is what as this is about. It’s the way they found to put a tax on air.

December 19, 2018 9:28 am

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.

So the company will increase its costs to manufacture its product and/or service because its cost of feed stock materials will increase. The company would need to determine if the carbon tax costs more than switching feed stocks. It may not. However, in any event, the company will raise their prices because they cannot escape an indirect carbon tax (i.e. they will invariably use electricity, freight transport, passenger transport, or some other good or service that will have a “carbon tax” adjustment included in its price). At best, they can only hope to minimize their exposure by modifying their raw material usage

The “consumer” will receive a rebate to offset the carbon tax, if I read this correctly, of “…$154 for the 2019 taxation year and that amount will increase approximately $70 per year until 2022”. So the consumer will pay more out of pocket at that given point of time of consumption but would need to wait until the rebate was dispensed to be reimbursed. The reimbursement may not be enough to cover what was spent in total for that year’s carbon tax price adjustments, so you would only get a partial reimbursement. Which means the consumer still wound up paying more that year for whatever product or service they consumed, than they would have otherwise (all other things being equal).

Unless the carbon tax is enough of a cost to a company to compel them to modify their processes, then they will simply raise their costs commensurate with the costs of the carbon tax. If the federal government is planning on redistributing the tax revenues, in totality, back to the citizenry, then that means none of the collected tax could be used to enact measures (excluding the tax itself) of reducing CO2 expulsion. So you couldn’t take that money and redirect it into the research and development of “cleaner” technologies/processes. That money is going to be redistributed back to the consumer base. I’m assuming the reimbursements are being made equally across all citizen. Thus, the potential for only “partial reimbursement” back to a consumer.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  cipherstream
December 19, 2018 12:36 pm


December 19, 2018 9:37 am

Basic Question: What is the legal recourse of damages caused by global cooling when public policy, Party objectives, and financially supportive advocacy directs all public policy in the other direction towards warming? I don’t think a simple”my bad” will do.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 20, 2018 2:24 am

A public admission of guilt, a display of genuine remorse by naming those complicit, confiscation of all property and assets and indentured servitude in a coal mine until the debt to society (+ interest) is repaid

They knew what they were doing

Chris Hoff
December 19, 2018 9:40 am

Carbon Taxes are industries way of saying no more freebies. CO2 is probably the only industrial byproduct coming out of a smokestack that is not only benign but beneficial to the bottom line of farmers and consumers. The Bankers at the Club of Rome who concocted man made CO2 global warming are laughing all the way to their banks. They basically told the scientific community to create the science behind it in return for grant money. It must be fun for bankers to watch thousands of scientists spin the narrative for them in return for money created out of thin air. They probably get off on knowing the nonsense they have sold to grade school children will give them unwarranted guilt and anxiety problems for life.

Imagine how it must feel to be one of those Club of Rome bankers walking around in an entire city numbering over a million people, knowing every one of them believes a preposterous lie that you created. Knowing that half of the people will stand there and argue back to anyone who tells them they’ve been lied to and they’re spouting total nonsense. That’s the power of money.

December 19, 2018 9:52 am

Environmentalist genuflecting at its best.

As Salby and Harde recently showed in Hamburg, its effect on reducing atmospheric CO2 won’t amount to diddly. The carbon tax is globalist Kumbaya – at the expense of working Canadians.
Good luck with a counterpart of gilets jaunes.

December 19, 2018 10:54 am

Stop calling it a “carbon tax”, it is not.

It is a CO2 tax.

C is a solid, CO2 a trace gas.

Don’t give credibility to the fraud.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Wally
December 19, 2018 6:47 pm

Depends on the temperature.

John Endicott
Reply to  Wally
December 20, 2018 9:09 am

It;s not a carbon tax (that’s a misnomer), It’s not really a CO2 tax either (even though it’s ostensibly a tax on CO2). Let’s call it what it really is: a virtue signal tax. Specifically a tax so Trudeau can signal to the world his virtue.

December 19, 2018 11:07 am

Has the Canadian (or Provincial) governments talked about the administration cost of the tax … what is the government cut?

Reply to  DONM
December 19, 2018 12:44 pm

If experience is any example, the governments cut will be in the 90% range.

December 19, 2018 11:36 am

Thanks Alan for this excellent run-down of the numbers. Do you have a source for the 7 different groupings/rules of the large emitters (20%, 10%, $0.91. zero, etc)? I would very much like to reference it in a discussion and can’t find it on any government source. Thanks.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  MJB
December 19, 2018 1:59 pm

The government seems to change things day by day in the regulations aspect. Once an act passes the regulations can be changed at whim without going through parliament again. It is hard to keep up. I can’t find the table that had the 7 categories either now but it was there I read it. The above link categorizes all the different type of producers of GHG’s but doesnt seem to allow them different exemption %’s . However they all have their own separate regulations now see thisand note the different emission factors in the tables. The situation is much more complicated now. My 7 different grouping info is now obsolete. These differing exemption %’s based by fuel type and by province has now become a monstrosity.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 20, 2018 8:00 am

Excellent, thanks for providing what you can.

Tom in Florida
December 19, 2018 12:05 pm

If Trudeau were really serious aboot the climate he would propose to eliminate all hockey in Canada.

December 19, 2018 12:14 pm

Here in Alberta we are suffering under the throws of a virtual signaling leftist NDP government who brought in a Carbon Levee (TAX) to try and appease the Green crowd. This was done so that the NDP government could point and say “OH look at Us we are charging the unwashed masses for the right to use fossil fuels.” It was also instituted to virtual signal to these Green people that we are on their side so why not let us build some pipelines to allow the ethical oil that we produce go to markets. NOT. Gateway pipeline shot down. Energy East pipeline regulated away to oblivion, Keystone XL shutdown by the US court in Montana and Trans Mountain Pipeline upgrade shutdown by the Canadian federal courts. So as a result I am paying 16% added Carbon Levee on my home heating fossil fuel for NOTHING. The bonus to this is that when the Canadian Carbon tax kicks in to the 2020 levels this carbon levee on just my home heating fuel will increase by 200%. Well there is an election here in Alberta in the spring and the NDP has 3% of the popular vote at the last real poll not the ones from the fake CBC news. There is also a Federal election coming in October and it is looking grim for our Globalist PM Trudeau to retain power. These carbon taxes and general hatred of the fossil fuel industry in Canada has destroyed a once vibrant resource based economy.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Boris
December 19, 2018 5:53 pm

It is not a “carbon tax” or a “tax on pollution”; it is “TRUDEAU’S TAX”

Mike H
December 19, 2018 12:59 pm

I am Canadian and live in the BC Lower Mainland. For those of you not familiar with the mental environment, take the faux environmentalists of San Fran and move them North about 1000 miles.

Everyday, I am becoming more and more convinced, on average, we, are the stupidest country in the world. Not saying there aren’t intelligent people living here. Just saying the % of economic and science illiterate population here is higher than any other country. Perhaps I’m jaded because my local environment is so overwhelmed by tree huggers and hypocrites. If we re-elect this Zoolander reincarnate in the P.M’s seat who is forcing this tax on us in Fall 2019, my suspicions will be undeniably confirmed.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Mike H
December 19, 2018 5:44 pm

When talking about this tax to people, do NOT talk of a price on pollution. Talk about TRUDEAU’S TAX. Make the bugger own it.

Mike H
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
December 23, 2018 12:05 pm

The Trudeau Tax. Will do.

Russ R.
December 19, 2018 1:16 pm

Time for the sheeple to be fleeced again. As long as you are sheep, you will be treated as such. If you are tired of being fleeced, put a little “junk-yard dog” in your attitude toward your egomaniac politicians.
Treat them like they are “slimy politicians” stealing money from working people, in order to buy votes from others, and they may be a little more concerned that they may lose a finger or two, trying to fleece you.

Robert of Ottawa
December 19, 2018 1:26 pm

Well, actually it’s a complete balls-up at present. Several provincial governments are refusing to introduce “carbon pricing” policies to the liking of the federal government, which insists that if they aren’t in place Jan 1, then Jan 2, the federal tax (whatever that is) will kick in. It is not clear how it would be enforced or what it would be.

The problem is that, as the federal government has temporarily killed the golden goose of Alberta oil, it is starving for money. When the new Ontario Provincial government killed the previous party’s “carbon cap and trade” and reduced prices, the shouts were not of “oh the environment” but “Oh, the defecit”.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
December 19, 2018 2:40 pm

TruDope senior killed the Alberta Oil industry back when gasoline was 30 cents a litre. Hundreds of millions of dollars were lost from the Canadian economy.

The most visible indicator is the value of the Canadian dollar. It wasn’t so long ago that the Canadian dollar was worth more than the US dollar.

Those that forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

December 19, 2018 2:25 pm

If a carbon tax will reduce carbon, why not a tax on political stupidity? Surely this would result in Canada having the smartest politicians in the world.

Unfortunately given the current crop of politicians on both sides of the house, you would need to tax politicians out of existence to make any sort of dent.

December 19, 2018 2:48 pm

The cost of converting to low carbon fuels is in large part tax deductible for corporations.

And in many cases, the cost of moving production from Canada to China can be deducted from Canadian taxes.

Make no mistake. It will be individuals that pay the cost of decarbonization. Even when this means you end up paying taxes to finance your job moving offshore and you being fired.

Robert of Ottawa
December 19, 2018 5:38 pm

Trudeau’s anti-global warming tax is supposed to make Canada colder! This is insane!


Rick Kargaard
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
December 19, 2018 5:53 pm

For seventy-five winters I have grown old
But seldom have seen a New Year so cold
Supposed to be warmer I’ve heard them say
Was not very obvious, this New Year’s Day

To fight climate change we have to pay
Taxes on heat to keep winter at bay
It’s becoming a sin to drive to the store
Cause driving our car will make it warm more

Excuse me for saying I think it’s a crock
Our leaders only tell lies when they talk
I think it is funny a Canuck can be told
We have to pay more to make it stay cold

Rick Kargaard
Reply to  Rick Kargaard
December 19, 2018 5:57 pm

That was last New Years. I will be 76 after the next one.

December 19, 2018 10:54 pm

Canada’s Mr. Dress up is figuring out budgets don’t actually balance themselves . Perhaps he got budget confused with a balance sheet . In any event the carbon tax will be his final undoing .

Reply to  Benjamin Turpin
December 20, 2018 9:49 pm

At present, an inquiry into the Muskrat Falls situation is taking place. Said to be a very costly hydro project which could supply power to New England States and/or elsewhere in Canada.

Hydro power from this project could be quite expensive power for New Englanders who want to shut down their fossil fuel power and switch to renewables

Reply to  Benjamin Turpin
December 21, 2018 1:11 pm

Global News, Canada

Muskrat Falls hydro power project news articles.

If anyone is interested?

Peter Stevens-Guille
December 21, 2018 11:42 am

In 2019 Canadians will pay the Trudeau Carbon Tax to supposedly reduce global temperatures. Multiple scientific sources say this Tax will have no measurable effect on global temperatures.
So the Tax has very little to do with the Environment but much to do with limiting the freedoms of us all.
How, you ask?
To receive a rebate on the ‘Carbon Tax’ we taxpayers will have to report to the Canadian Revenue Agency the size of our house, heating fuel, number of vehicles, distance we drive and so on for bureaucrats to calculate their tax credit. That is a great deal of personal information.
In addition, Statistics Canada will be be legally empowered to obtain the personal bank records of millions of us without our knowledge or permission.
Couple the two invasions of privacy and you give the Government unprecedented power over every taxpayer and their families. All under the pretext of ‘Carbon Pollution’.
We should never allow any Government such sweeping power over our lives.
Wake up Canadians!

Johann Wundersamer
December 26, 2018 5:40 am

since the atmosphere needs more CO2 NOT less, nothing changes than the value of the Canadian $ gets inflated.

Johann Wundersamer
December 26, 2018 6:01 am

Everywhere when German businessmen came to town, the population made fun of these arrogant people in tuxedo + monocle but forgave immediately when the blokes issued a local sparkling wine for free.

They did not know why he spent the money, but nobody said that this German dreadnought was shot useless at first use equal.

%d bloggers like this: