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.
THIS IS ABSOLUTE MADNESS.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Based on your arguments, to be effective the tax should be higher.
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.
They can tax us all they want but the decrease in world temperature will be 1/1000 C.
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.
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.
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.
Meanwhile….
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/canada-offer-1-1-billion-155956508.html
“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.
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.
Why?
Their products couldn’t communicate with each other if they didn’t.
The companies adhere to the standard because their customers demand it.
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.
Not if you get the money back in rebates.
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.
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.
“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.)
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.
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.
EXACTLY
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Depends on the temperature.
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.
Has the Canadian (or Provincial) governments talked about the administration cost of the tax … what is the government cut?
If experience is any example, the governments cut will be in the 90% range.
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.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2018-214/index.html
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.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2012-167/
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2014-265/index.html
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2018-261/index.html
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2012-167/
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2014-265/index.html
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2018-261/index.html
Things have got much more complicated since I wrote the article.
Excellent, thanks for providing what you can.
If Trudeau were really serious aboot the climate he would propose to eliminate all hockey in Canada.
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.
It is not a “carbon tax” or a “tax on pollution”; it is “TRUDEAU’S TAX”
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.
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.
The Trudeau Tax. Will do.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
Trudeau’s anti-global warming tax is supposed to make Canada colder! This is insane!
MAKE CANADA WARM AGAIN!
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
That was last New Years. I will be 76 after the next one.
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 .