# Carbon Tax in BC



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The Finance Minister just finished delivering the budget and we got a revenue-neutral carbon tax. I don't know all the details yet, but so far it looks good to me. I'd like to know if they are going to monitor it to see if it will start to change behaviour. If you don't own a car, own a non-guzzler, or limit your driving, your taxes will go down.

I'm not sure how the tax is applied to other carbon sources besides gasoline.

Some details at CBC


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm glad you got your wish in your home province GA.

I also hope you don't live to regret it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Seems pretty reasonable to me. :clap: 

I like the idea of slowing phasing the tax into place by increasing marginally each year. I would even suggest doing it every 3 months to smooth things out more, but I understand it would be tough to implement for small businesses.

GA, what do you think of the BC Liberals at this point in their tenure? Would you actually consider voting Liberal in the next election?

I find it interesting that the GHG issue was headed up by the 'right wing' in BC. The NDP were basically left flat-footed. It blows me away that the NDP have been so leaderless on an issue that should in theory be championed by the left.

I just bought a house in Victoria which is heated by oil. I guess I will have to start using firewood since it doesn't have a carbon tax.  

I am interested to see what types of incentives will be available for me to make my home more energy friendly (it's 100 years old so probably not very good right now). I am going to price out a geothermal installation for my house and do the design myself given that my firm does such work. Unfortunately, Victoria has shallow bedrock which adds to the drilling cost side of the equation, but hopefully the math will make sense.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> I'm glad you got your wish in your home province GA.
> 
> I also hope you don't live to regret it.


I hope I don't live to regret us doing nothing about climate change.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Seems pretty reasonable to me. :clap:
> 
> I like the idea of slowing phasing the tax into place by increasing marginally each year. I would even suggest doing it every 3 months to smooth things out more, but I understand it would be tough to implement for small businesses.
> 
> ...


Yup, I'm willing to give the BC Liberals applause for starting on the road to action. :clap: :clap: :clap: 

As to whether I would vote for them, I hope that the opposition doesn't force me into that situation, since I'm not supportive of many of the BC Liberals other policies. I've had my problems with the BC NDP over the years, since the time of Glen Clark. They have been responsible for siding against environmentalists for years and are the reason that the BC Green Party has a small but significant following. In the last election the Green + NDP vote equalled more than the BC Libs. They could have won that last election if they hadn't been so stupid in the past. Ironically the members of those industrial unions whose jobs the NDP thinks they are protecting by coddling Big Logging often are just as likely to vote for right wingers. The BC NDP is out of step with the federal NDP in this area.

I'll wait to see what the response is from the BC NDP. I would hope their response is "Great, let's get behind this." If not I'll be letting them know in no uncertain words that they are in danger of screwing their base.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I hope I don't live to regret us doing nothing about climate change.


touché :clap:

Good on BC.
$55 a ton carbon tax in Norway since 1991 - they seem to be rather prosperous.
•••

VD do you actual understand what "conservative" means??? 
"conservation" comes from the same root.

the left should own!!!!???????.........Preston Manning understood


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I like the idea of slowing phasing the tax into place by increasing marginally each year. I would even suggest doing it every 3 months to smooth things out more, but I understand it would be tough to implement for small businesses.


I think it's essential for the tax to be phased in, so that people can clearly see where this is going and what to plan for. Now would be a good time to implement a revenue neutral feebate system on vehicles to add another carrot for people who are looking at new vehicles.

Feebate Proposal PDF

BTW, your numbers on geothermal should now look a little more competitive. You might also want to factor in even more than the carbon tax levels. Fossil fuels are only going to get more expensive in the years to come, carbon tax or not.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If it's revenue neutral tell me why it's so vital to "ease it in" since we're miles behind other nations already.
By all means but in a sliding scale so businesses can plan but hit the low hanging fruit quickly and identify the hard hit aspects and offer a bridge through low cost finance.

With BC booming there is no BETTER time to bring in a significant shift.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> t$55 a ton carbon tax in Norway since 1991


:yawn:


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> :yawn:


What SINC speechless, who would of guessed?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> VD do you actual understand what "conservative" means???
> "conservation" comes from the same root.
> 
> the left should own!!!!???????.........Preston Manning understood


I wasn't very clear in my post. What I meant to infer was that most people believe the left owns the environmental issues, while I don't see things that way. I tend to agree with Al Gore in that environmental issues are really apolitical and shouldn't be owned by the left or right.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> If it's revenue neutral tell me why it's so vital to "ease it in" since we're miles behind other nations already.
> By all means but in a sliding scale so businesses can plan but hit the low hanging fruit quickly and identify the hard hit aspects and offer a bridge through low cost finance.
> 
> With BC booming there is no BETTER time to bring in a significant shift.


Because it doesn't match the spending cycle of consumers or business. I think phasing it in would be unfair. The idea behind a carbon tax is to influence the decisions people make, rather than to penalize them. Not all energy purchase decisions are immediate. For example, if I drive an SUV, I don't have a choice to immediately switch over to a hybrid or more fuel efficient car. Rather, the spending cycle for large capital purchases is on the order of years. It makes more sense to me that we slowly phase in a tax to more closely match spending cycles. Anything less could be an economic drag (Beej would be more qualified to comment on this).

I hope they quickly act on the incentive side of the equation. I would rather they not sit on the cash for years before creating a program to dole the money out.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Hmmm, it's starting again. Double post.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jamesB said:


> What SINC speechless, who would of guessed?


Not speechless, just utterly and completely bored by the repetitive "Norway" references. If one is so enamoured of the place, why not move there?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> If it's revenue neutral tell me why it's so vital to "ease it in" since we're miles behind other nations already.
> By all means but in a sliding scale so businesses can plan but hit the low hanging fruit quickly and identify the hard hit aspects and offer a bridge through low cost finance.
> 
> With BC booming there is no BETTER time to bring in a significant shift.


It needs to be phased in because it won't be revenue neutral for everybody. It will be revenue neutral in the sense that the government is shifting a portion of tax generation away from income and corporate and towards carbon use.

For instance, if you don't own a car and don't use fossil fuel to heat your home, you're going to get a cut in income tax. The way the budget works any money they take in from the carbon tax will be carved away from income and corporate taxes.

If you have a gas guzzler and use oil to heat your home, this tax is going to cost you, even though your income tax is getting reduced. If they brought in the top rate immediately people will get slammed. They need time to make shifts in how they conduct their lives, maybe get a car that doesn't use so much gas or look at how much their heating will cost them and calculate whether it's time to insulate, get a new furnace or go for geo-thermal like Vandave.

I think you have to bring this on gradually. The top level in 2012 will be $30/ton of carbon. They have left increases in the future to future governments to decide, but I think it will have to go farther to really impact climate change and meet the BC targets or a 1/3 reduction by 2020.

Now that it's here, if people see we're heading that way they can start to look at what there lifestyle choices will cost them and move in that direction.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh that joyous day when the temperature of the world begins to decline!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Of course it's not revenue neutral for everyone- polluter pays.

I did not ay top rate - but tiptoeing gets no ones attention. - that said 4 years to top rate is a good start tho $30 a ton is low - still kudos for a start. :clap:

are the details published?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If you have a gas guzzler and use oil to heat your home, this tax is going to cost you, even though your income tax is getting reduced. If they brought in the top rate immediately people will get slammed. They need time to make shifts in how they conduct their lives, maybe get a car that doesn't use so much gas or look at how much their heating will cost them and calculate whether it's time to insulate, get a new furnace or go for geo-thermal like Vandave.


Bingo and bingo for me. I drive a Nissan X-Terra and will be heating my home by oil when I move in next month. That said, we only own one car and I take the bus or my motorbike to work the majority of the time (don't judge ). However, my new office location will involve about 450 km of commuting per week. If we buy a second car, I would go for the most efficient that is practical for my family.

I can't upgrade my heating right away without incurring big costs. 

So, I am a good example of why phasing it in slowly is fair.

The second point is that two or three years in the overall scheme of things is small relative to the scale of the problem. I think establishing a direction and getting started is the most important thing.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Whether you drive 4000 miles a month or bicycle everywhere, the carbon tax will cost you in increased costs of everything you buy -- that is, everything that travels by truck, or requires heating or refrigeration, or is handled in a warehouse or retail store or restaurant, or is made of components that have to travel by truck. Welcome to more 'fuel surcharges' on delivery bills, taxi fares, bus and ferry fares, etc.

I'm willing to bet that the 'revenue neutral' part of the calculation only refers to direct taxation, not the increased costs of living due to these increases.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CanadaRAM, you're right on the money--but this onl excites MAcDoc because...POLLUTER PAYS! Under this plan, the fact that your are alive at all is somewhat offensive.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

CanadaRAM said:


> Whether you drive 4000 miles a month or bicycle everywhere, the carbon tax will cost you in increased costs of everything you buy -- that is, everything that travels by truck, or requires heating or refrigeration, or is handled in a warehouse or retail store or restaurant, or is made of components that have to travel by truck. Welcome to more 'fuel surcharges' on delivery bills, taxi fares, bus and ferry fares, etc.
> 
> I'm willing to bet that the 'revenue neutral' part of the calculation only refers to direct taxation, not the increased costs of living due to these increases.


This is true, but if, for instance, a company can reduce the carbon tax they are paying out by choices that use less fossil fuel, they become more competitive than the others. 

I remember when I saw the first Prius taxi in Vancouver not that long ago when gas started to rise. I imagined that the other cab owners probably thought that guy was nuts. Now there's tons of them as the cab owners look for a way to not get squeezed by the increases. More to come, I would think.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Let's make strawberry sauce more competitive by taxing chocolate sauce!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Of course it's not revenue neutral for everyone- polluter pays.
> 
> I did not ay top rate - but tiptoeing gets no ones attention. - that said 4 years to top rate is a good start tho $30 a ton is low - still kudos for a start. :clap:
> 
> are the details published?


Some details:



> VICTORIA - From cleaner fuels to greener washing machines, the British Columbia government is asking individuals to take on climate change.
> The Liberal government's 2008 budget includes funding for home energy improvements and tax breaks on energy-efficient appliances.
> 
> Car buyers will get up to a $2,000 reduction in sales tax for the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles and residents will even get a little green from the government to get them started.
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

As the critics note, the tax kicks in immediately for the rank and file--business gets a break.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Of course it's not revenue neutral for everyone- polluter pays.
> 
> I did not ay top rate - but tiptoeing gets no ones attention. - that said 4 years to top rate is a good start tho $30 a ton is low - still kudos for a start. :clap:


Yeah, it will be a big help for the guy who is a risk assessment clerk at Wal*Mart with a wife and four kids to feed, still driving his Dad's old but with low miles, 89 Pontiac V-8 he inherited and lives in an older district with no public transit.

It'll be great to see him pay. Polluting fool that he is. Make him suffer so big business can prosper. Great plan.

It is neither fair nor reasonable when it has no built in compassion.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

> Car buyers will get *up to* a $2,000 reduction in sales tax for the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles


OK, on all 17 models of car that are rated as Eco (including the ultra-expensive hybrid models), you get a provincial tax break up to $2000. But less if you buy a lower cost one of those models. 

And nothing at all if you buy, say, a Nissan Versa that gets 40 mpg (7.1 l / 100 km) and is not on the Transport Canada list in preference to the "eco rated" Jeep Patriot that gets 34 mpg (8.3 l / 100 km). How does that make sense?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

CanadaRAM said:


> OK, on all 17 models of car that are rated as Eco (including the ultra-expensive hybrid models), you get a provincial tax break up to $2000. But less if you buy a lower cost one of those models.
> 
> And nothing at all if you buy, say, a Nissan Versa that gets 40 mpg (7.1 l / 100 km) and is not on the Transport Canada list in preference to the "eco rated" Jeep Patriot that gets 34 mpg (8.3 l / 100 km). How does that make sense?


It doesn't appear to. This is the federal rebate plan. I would prefer a feebate system based on MPG vs. size.

Feebate idea PDF


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Yeah, it will be a big help for the guy who is a risk assessment clerk at Wal*Mart with a wife and four kids to feed, still driving his Dad's old but with low miles, 89 Pontiac V-8 he inherited and lives in an older district with no public transit.
> 
> It'll be great to see him pay. Polluting fool that he is. Make him suffer so big business can prosper. Great plan.
> 
> It is neither fair nor reasonable when it has no built in compassion.


The social darwinist conservative types would call that simply a sob story.

I wouldn't and I would like to see a plan in place so that a carbon tax won't hurt those who can't afford to pay. A carbon tax won't work if some people can't make the choices because they can't afford to. I don't know if the BC Lib plan will do that well enough and if not, it needs to be adjusted.

Why are there no public transit options, and why does Walmart get away with keeping people as low paid wage slaves? Those might be some of my first questions.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Glad to see you can envision there will be those hurt by the scheme, GA.

Because there will, and it won't be the fault of their employers or public transit. It will be circumstance beyond their control.

Like I said, a plan without compassion is a bad plan.

"Polluter pays" indeed. tptptptp


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Why are there no public transit options, and why does Walmart get away with keeping people as low paid wage slaves? Those might be some of my first questions.


The Conservatives introduced a tax rebate plan for transit users.

The provincial Liberals have invested substantially in transit infrastructure and have created a lot of new funding just recently. B.C. commits $370 million in new money to transit

Let's contrast that with the record of some of our socialist mayors who opposed the RAV line. Here in Burnaby, Derek Corrigan, opposed every transit plan put forward purely on ideological reasons (i.e. P3 versus union jobs). 

Labour rates are based on supply and demand. If you artificially raise the price of labour then fewer jobs become available. It's economics 101 and most economists agree with this viewpoint. If we want to move people up the income scale, then we need to provide them with skills through education. Pointing fingers at business is a red herring.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Yeah, it will be a big help for the guy who is a risk assessment clerk at Wal*Mart with a wife and four kids to feed, still driving his Dad's old but with low miles, 89 Pontiac V-8 he inherited and lives in an older district with no public transit.
> 
> It'll be great to see him pay. Polluting fool that he is. Make him suffer so big business can prosper. Great plan.


SINC--it will show the world that the province CARES!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

By the way SINC, I'm punishing carbon dioxide producers at a rate of $75 a tonne, beating out even that stalwart Norway. Why take a half-assed punishment when you can come to me for a real carbon thrashing?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> four kids


These people certainly didn't complain how expensive it'd cost to raise 4 kids before they decided they didn't want to use birth control.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> Yeah, it will be a big help for the guy who is a risk assessment clerk at Wal*Mart with a wife and four kids to feed, still driving his Dad's old but with low miles, 89 Pontiac V-8 he inherited and lives in an older district with no public transit.


And you think there are enough of these people who meet this scenario exactly for anyone to care??

Really??

Please. That you had to reach THAT FAR to pull a possible "victim" out of your rear end suggest that the immediate impact will be laughable to most people.

Now, *I* got a REAL victim for ya: pity the two people I've seen driving H1 Hummers around in Victoria ... :lmao: 

PS. I own a gas-guzzling van (Ford Windstar), so I myself may get "hit" with this tax, but in my own defense I _had_ to buy a van in order to move my stuff up here. We'll sell it and buy something more eco-friendly as soon as we're allowed to (US->Canada import rules), because that's what we wanted all along.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

chas_m said:


> PS. I own a gas-guzzling van (Ford Windstar), so I myself may get "hit" with this tax, but in my own defense I _had_ to buy a van in order to move my stuff up here. We'll sell it and buy something more eco-friendly as soon as we're allowed to (US->Canada import rules), because that's what we wanted all along.


Get a Nissan Versa and create a Versa-Mac club with CanadaRAM!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> PS. I own a gas-guzzling van (Ford Windstar), so I myself may get "hit" with this tax, but in my own defense I _had_ to buy a van in order to move my stuff up here. We'll sell it and buy something more eco-friendly as soon as we're allowed to (US->Canada import rules), because that's what we wanted all along.


It must be horribly out of tune or something.

Our 2001 Windstar van has always given us 35 mpg + on the highway and 26 mpg city, hardly a "gas guzzler."

Get it checked if it's guzzling gas. It shouldn't.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dona83 said:


> These people certainly didn't complain how expensive it'd cost to raise 4 kids before they decided they didn't want to use birth control.


Are you ready to apply that argument to subsidized daycare?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> It must be horribly out of tune or something.
> 
> Our 2001 Windstar van has always given us 35 mpg + on the highway and 26 mpg city, hardly a "gas guzzler."
> 
> Get it checked if it's guzzling gas. It shouldn't.


US or Imperial Gallons?


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Who will get slammed on this is people who don't have enough money to invest thousands and 10s of thousands of capital in upgrades. 

The Gov't says "It's all about choices - if you choose to continue driving the Hummer, you'll pay for that choice" That obscures the reality by suggesting that everyone has an equal choice, and that only the laughable rich consumer will pay significantly extra for their bad choices.

If you have an old furnace and can't afford $3,500 for an energy efficient replacement; if you have an old beater car and can't afford $10,000+ for a newer fuel efficient one or $35,000+ for a new hybrid to take advantage of the up to $2,000 tax break. If the only house you can afford is 40 miles from the only job you can get. If you take Transit and the transit fares go up. If you live or work where transit doesnt go.

And mostly -- if you *rent* a place with low efficiency furnace and hot water heater or poor insulation, the landlord isn't going to invest in a new one, they're just going to pass the higher utility bill on to you. You have no choice in the matter. With 0.2% vacancy rate and the high costs of moving, it's absurd to say that market competition in the rental market will force landlords to upgrade to make their units more attractive.

I'm not saying I am against carbon taxes, but to think they are revenue-neutral, equitable or progressive is a delusion.

There's also another subtle effect. The government is in effect saying - we will create a negative cash incentive to continuing to use older but serviceable cars, appliances, furnaces. We will subsidize scrapping those and buying new ones. This increases consumption (and not incidentally, sales tax revenues -- if not a lot of jobs in BC as there is next to no heavy manufacturing going on here). The carbon load of *manufacturing* all of those cars, furnaces and appliances in the first place has to be astronomical. Oh of course -- the manufacturing pollution takes place outside of BC, so it doesn't count towards global warming here.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CanadaRAM said:


> Who will get slammed on this is people who don't have enough money to invest thousands and 10s of thousands of capital in upgrades.
> 
> The Gov't says "It's all about choices - if you choose to continue driving the Hummer, you'll pay for that choice" That obscures the reality by suggesting that everyone has an equal choice, and that only the laughable rich consumer will pay significantly extra for their bad choices.


Carbon taxes are the most unfair of all for all the reasons CanadaRAM points out.

It is the poor who will suffer and the guy with the Hummer, who can afford it anyway, will go on polluting and the slight increase he gets would be a fortune to Canada's poor.

A carbon tax is a bad tax for every conceivable reason.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

SINC said:


> Carbon taxes are the most unfair of all for all the reasons CanadaRAM points out.
> 
> It is the poor who will suffer and the guy with the Hummer, who can afford it anyway, will go on polluting and the slight increase he gets would be a fortune to Canada's poor.
> 
> A carbon tax is a bad tax for every conceivable reason.


That's not exactly my position, Sinc -- I am arguing that if my family should pay $30 a tonne or whatever, so should the tarsands producers and cement plants and pulpmills. Of course, BC has exempted the oil and gas industry from paying for their own carbon emissions AND given a 300 million bonus for developing more.

While I am worrying about affording a furnace replacement, it's good to know that the forest companies can continue slash burning, and the pulp mills can burn hog fuel, and the oil industry can burn natural gas to create a tonne of CO2 for every 8 barrels of oil extracted -- all at no cost.

If nothing else, this government does know where their $upport comes from.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

CanadaRAM said:


> That's not exactly my position, Sinc -- I am arguing that if my family should pay $30 a tonne or whatever, so should the tarsands producers and cement plants and pulpmills. Of course, BC has exempted the oil and gas industry from paying for their own carbon emissions AND given a 300 million bonus for developing more.
> 
> While I am worrying about affording a furnace replacement, it's good to know that the forest companies can continue slash burning, and the pulp mills can burn hog fuel, and the oil industry can burn natural gas to create a tonne of CO2 for every 8 barrels of oil extracted -- all at no cost.
> 
> If nothing else, this government does know where their $upport comes from.


The NDP came out with that criticism of the budget. The BC Liberals should not be subsidizing oil and gas in any way, it totally defeats the purpose of a carbon tax. Anyway, with massive profits in that business, they certainly don't need the money. Yes, the Campbell government has always known where their $upport comes from - too true.

I have to admit I was surprised that they did more than talk about climate change. It's quite possible that even some on the fiscal right are starting to see the danger to the economy that will come if nothing is done.

But I am disappointed in the BC-NDP's response. I think they are going to cynically pitch to the auto-drivers who don't want to see the price of gas go up. They have no climate change plan that is anything more than talk. Unfortunately the BC-NDP has always had a tin ear on environmental issues and they are out of step with the national NDP. I'm convinced that they would be the government today if they hadn't managed to p*ss off so many environmentalists and send them to the BC Greens.

I would prefer their response to be, "Yes we need a carbon tax to act as an incentive - but we have to ensure that those at the bottom won't get killed by it". If the Campbell plan doesn't go far enough to protect those people, it doesn't mean that a carbon tax is the wrong way to go, it just means that it needs to be adjusted. The NDP could propose expanded grants for lower-income retrofitting, even more funds for transit, and rental protections that prohibit landlords passing on increased energy costs in rents. 

There are ways to tweak this, but unfortunately I think NDP will oppose the concept of a carbon tax and play to the status quo as a strategy going into the next election. Then we may have the bizarre spectacle of right-wing SUV drivers siding with the socialists, and green granola crunchers siding with the party of business.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

News1130 - ALL NEWS RADIO.

All British Columbians will get a one time $100 carbon tax dividend in June. This will be a reoccuring dividend for low income earners. This $100 will cover around 1200 litres worth of carbon taxes on gasoline. If they don't drive, probably just cover carbon tax on heating.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But I am disappointed in the BC-NDP's response. I think they are going to cynically pitch to the auto-drivers who don't want to see the price of gas go up. They have no climate change plan that is anything more than talk.
> 
> There are ways to tweak this, but unfortunately I think NDP will oppose the concept of a carbon tax and play to the status quo as a strategy going into the next election.


Bill Good interviewed somebody from the NDP on the radio this morning. The NDP said they didn't support the plan because it didn't do enough. Bill Good asked for specifics about what the NDP would do instead and the response was that they had to further study the issue. Bill told him that wasn't a plan and kept pressing for specifics. Finally the guy just came out and said the oil companies weren't doing enough. I think that really sums up the extent of NDP policy on climate change. Pathetic. tptptptp 

I don't think tweaks are needed yet because the taxes are still quite small. Let's monitor their impact and make changes in future years. That's another reason why I think carbon taxes need to be implemented slowly.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

CanadaRAM said:


> Who will get slammed on this is people who don't have enough money to invest thousands and 10s of thousands of capital in upgrades.
> 
> The Gov't says "It's all about choices - if you choose to continue driving the Hummer, you'll pay for that choice" That obscures the reality by suggesting that everyone has an equal choice, and that only the laughable rich consumer will pay significantly extra for their bad choices.
> 
> ...


Completely agree. A significant amount of gasoline costs in Victoria are already tax to begin with (1.14 a litre today), and it really ends up hurting those with long commutes who can't afford to live close to work.

The government will spend more money on jobs for those calculating who should and should not get a rebate from the goverment.

The cut-off for that $100 rebate is for those earning less than $70k a year. I'm not well off in this city. I have zero debt, but I can't afford a home, and I can't qualify for the $100 rebate based on my salary.

This just sounds like a tax grab to me, and has very little to do with the environment. Why not tax on the type of car/furnace you utilize instead? Far less government overhead.


----------



## Cole Slaw (Aug 26, 2005)

Carbon taxes are nonsense, a tax grab, and will make very little or no difference to global climate change ( which in my opinion is something that happens naturally anyway).
Why not make it a voluntary tax for all you green-types? Have a box you can check off on your tax return or something.
If you're really serious, why not ban ALL private automobiles altogether?
Look, where I live I have to drive rather long distances to get to work. All this is going to do is make me pay more taxes, but I'm still going to have to drive.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I'm somewhat amused that it's mostly the people who thought we could live in a car-centric world forever are complaining the most. I make pitily poo 45Gs a year, barely afforded to buy my condo out in Mission. I do have my trusty old Corolla though I usually take transit to work and I use transit on the weekend if I really don't need my car. I can definitely afford to use my car more often, even with this new tax, but I won't because I know that when this car-centric world comes to and end (or at least just becomes really expensive), it's going to hurt me a lot less than some of you. No offense or anything.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

They're starting to come out now, are they not?

Little guys and the poor will suffer.

A carbon tax is a total detriment on both the people and the economy. Revenue neutral my a$$.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

They could use some of the carbon tax to improve transit services so those who can't afford to drive but have to drive anyway can leave their car at home.

SINC do you think that maybe it's just that our provinces just have different perspectives? My friends from Edmonton are over and they wonder why I drive such an old car and why there are so many people taking transit in Vancouver. I'm probably going to move back to Vancouver just because I hate how I'm being looked down on for using transit in the car-centric Fraser Valley. At least my Corolla is considered acceptable here...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

dona83 said:


> SINC do you think that maybe it's just that our provinces just have different perspectives? My friends from Edmonton are over and they wonder why I drive such an old car and why there are so many people taking transit in Vancouver. I'm probably going to move back to Vancouver just because I hate how I'm being looked down on for using transit in the car-centric Fraser Valley. At least my Corolla is considered acceptable here...


I don't think it is different perspectives at all. I think the whole carbon credit/trading/tax scheme is nothing less than a scam on consumers.

Taxing what people can't see or control is ludicrous and in no way helps the environment. Try offering incentive cash discounts to make changes in one's life that enhances the environment, without penalizing taxes would be a much more honest way of achieving the same goals.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Where's Harper's lap puppies who decried just a little while ago....._cain't be dun_ 

..yes it can.....



> *B.C.'s carbon tax sets a new standard*
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> 
> ...


Seems Canada may actually be renewing it's federation with some visionary leadership at the provincial level filling in for the utter vacuum in Ottawa.


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

SINC said:


> Glad to see you can envision there will be those hurt by the scheme, GA.
> 
> Because there will, and it won't be the fault of their employers or public transit. It will be circumstance beyond their control.
> 
> ...


So how come when it comes to justice issues you you don't follow your own advice?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> VICTORIA — The great taboo of a carbon tax has vanished. No longer can anyone argue in Canada that such a tax cannot be implemented or sold, and that any government suggesting one would be committing political suicide.


A pretty bold lead for something that has yet to be judged by the people who will suffer under the tax, or proven that it cannot be implemented without harm.

The editor that let that lead by was asleep at the switch. It is unknown and unproven ground and a poor choice as a lead.

Not to mention a regressive tax on the poor and the middle class.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC, I would suggest that braving the unknown is leadership.

Waiting and following what others do is not leadership so much as it is following (or being led).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> SINC, I would suggest that braving the unknown is leadership.
> 
> Waiting and following what others do is not leadership so much as it is following (or being led).


Not if it leads down a path of destruction, and that remains to be seen.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

A few cents a litre and slowly increasing is going to cause destruction?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Not just the gas tax. Look at the broader impact.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CamCanola said:


> So how come when it comes to justice issues you you don't follow your own advice?


One can hardly follow their own advice when the system dictates how justice WILL work. And the way it is, it does not work.

You sure you even live in Edmonton? Or did you recently move here?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Today’s editorial in the Edmonton Journal nailed BC’s carbon tax for what it really is . . . :clap: :clap: 

“By now, most Canadians agree that we have a serious greenhouse gas problem and that something substantive must be done about it.

Right here in Alberta, a province too often stereotyped as being more brown than green, a new Angus Reid poll reported Wednesday that 75 per cent of people believe "damage to the environment must be reduced, even it it means slower economic growth."

But the devil, as always, is in the details -- witness a new initiative next door in British Columbia. In one sense, B.C. might be commended for attempting to meet the challenge of matching action to rhetoric on greenhouse gases. Tuesday, the conservatively-inclined Liberal government of Gordon Campbell introduced a carbon tax.”

AND:

“In fact, the first difference British Columbians would likely notice would be a pork barrel-ish "climate change dividend" worth $100 per citizen, expected to be delivered to mailboxes early this summer. On the other hand, if the monopoly energy utility B.C. Hydro gets its way, the average household will also soon pay an additional $200 in overall energy costs.”

However governments may try to spin climate change and potential remedies, there will be no quick fixes or comfortable solutions. We didn't get ourselves in this pickle overnight, and easy prescriptions and surgeries are to be mistrusted. Bringing down the economy of Alberta via higher and higher energy costs would be disastrous for Canada, B.C. included. And even compared with Quebec's modest initiatives, our western neighbours' plan just doesn't seem to hold water.

By simply penalizing drivers across the board, including rural and northern folk with little or no access to public transportation and a need for larger commercial vehicles, the carbon tax just isn't fair. And the lack of any provision apportioning at least some of the new tax bounty to programs or industry lobbying efforts pledged to reducing greenhouse gas seems, well, weird.”

AND:

“The new policy may send an important signal, but it does little more than adding slightly to fuel prices that are already spiralling up anyway.”

B.C.'s carbon tax: sound and fury signifying very little


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I'd be fine with it if it was actually going to reduce GHG's, but everyone is going to eat the cost which will filter down to the consumer. No one is going to change their lifestyle any and the gov't will be getting all the cash and what exactly is that going to go towards? Reducing GHG's? Doubt it. If you are going to tax the public, tax the public, don't hide it behind a big green shroud and pretend that you're trying to clean up the environment.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

If you drive 20,000km a year, this is how much extra you're going to pay per year..

Toyota Prius, $20
Honda Civic, $33
Toyota Yaris, $31
Toyota Corolla, $34
VW Jetta, $42
Toyota RAV4, $45
Ford F-Series, $68
Dodge Ram, $68

We spend an average of $7000 a year on our vehicles, this carbon tax is merely a minor little dent on the wallet.

I hope some of this carbon tax goes to the reforestation of areas devestated by pine beetles who require a few straight days of extreme cold temperatures to be killed... extreme cold temperatures that have been absent over the past few years, meaning we have less trees to absorb global warming causing carbon dioxide. Isn't this a vicious cycle...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dona: The money just goes into general revenue as far as I can tell. The tax is a punishment, not a cure.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Dona: The money just goes into general revenue as far as I can tell. The tax is a punishment, not a cure.


*Covers his ears* La-la-la-la the money will go to good things la-la-la-la.

I'm allowed to be wishfully naive aren't I?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Bringing down the economy of Alberta via higher and higher energy costs would be disastrous for Canada, B.C. included.


That's the telling statement from your quoted story. The philosophy here is that any curtailing of our energy use will be bad for the economy, (mostly of Alberta) even thought the writer recognizes the damage to the environment they have chosen to worry more about possible short term damage to the profitable oil industry.



JumboJones said:


> I'd be fine with it if it was actually going to reduce GHG's, but everyone is going to eat the cost which will filter down to the consumer. No one is going to change their lifestyle any and the gov't will be getting all the cash and what exactly is that going to go towards? Reducing GHG's? Doubt it. If you are going to tax the public, tax the public, don't hide it behind a big green shroud and pretend that you're trying to clean up the environment.


and ...



MF said:


> Dona: The money just goes into general revenue as far as I can tell. The tax is a punishment, not a cure.


I can't really tell for your postings but it appears that you guys have missed the part about the announced plan that money generated from the carbon tax will reduce income and corporate taxes by a corresponding amount. Total tax take by the BC government will be approximately the same. I expect my taxes to go down. The guy in my area who drives the F-350 6-wheeled monster to go get a cup of coffee every morning will pay more. He might want to start thinking about making that coffee at home or selling the monster (which doesn't really get used for work anyway - like a lot of giant pickups around here.)

Jumbo, if businesses simply pass this on to the consumer, then those that choose to reduce their carbon output will have lower costs and therefore become more competitive. Business will have a direct incentive to reduce as much as they can. Greener businesses will do better.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gratuitous: I understand that the money will be used to lower taxes. It therefore first goes into general revenue, and is not earmarked for any particular environmental project.

I think that it's a smooth move to put the money into tax reduction.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Vacuum at the centre......perfect description of Harpo's gov



> *B.C. takes lead on climate file*
> 
> Feb 21, 2008 04:30 AM
> Everybody talks about global warming, but the government of British Columbia is the first jurisdiction in Canada to take a significant step toward doing something about it. In Tuesday's provincial budget, Premier Gordon Campbell's Liberal government introduced the first full-fledged carbon tax in North America, thereby putting a real price on the greenhouse gas emissions that come from burning fossil fuels.
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I like the checkerboard approach.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

> B.C. takes lead on climate file


Too bad they still dump all of their sewage directly into the ocean, sans treatment!

Adding taxes is the typical Fiberal "solution" to pretty much anything. At least Dolt McGimpy hasn't proposed bringing "..more lawlessness to Caledonia", like Mr. Tory proposed on Wednesday. But even the Dolt, dumb as he is, is not so stupid as to attempt to cripple the economy with a fake Carbon Tax...

I guess BC is learning quickly that they should have just stuck with the NDP, now that the Fiberals have found another way of sneaking their grimy hands into the pockets of the worker in order to hijack some more cash - cash that obviously will be going to all of their little special interest buddies and influence peddlers, with the balance going to any number of Fiberal Ponzi Schemes and payola. Even the Mafia only takes a cut, the Fiberals are outright bank robbers...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> I guess BC is learning quickly that they should have just stuck with the NDP, now that the Fiberals have found another way of sneaking their grimy hands into the pockets of the worker in order to hijack some more cash - cash that obviously will be going to all of their little special interest buddies and influence peddlers, with the balance going to any number of Fiberal Ponzi Schemes and payola. Even the Mafia only takes a cut, the Fiberals are outright bank robbers...


BC has the lowest personal income tax and lowest corporate income tax of any province.  

If we stuck with the NDP, this province would be a basket case right now. The NDP turned this province from a 'have province' to a 'have not' province. The BC Liberals have brought us back into being a 'have province'.

The economy is back on track again. 

Hopefully we never go back to the bad old days of the NDP.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EvanPitts: As much as I think the carbon tax is a sham, I believe the BC Liberals are intent on keeping it revenue neutral. To me, taxing carbon makes about as much sense as taxing income--as long as all of these hare-brained schemes lead to lower overall taxes, I support them.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> BC has the lowest personal income tax and lowest corporate income tax of any province.


A few years of Fiberalism will surely change that! It will not take long, the "small" 2.5 cent tax will bloom into a giant cancerous tumor that will suck the remaining life out of the province. Just like here, when they cranked up the sales tax in order to give huge cash payments to hospital CEOs, so that they can eat hundreds of free sandwiches and loot their hospitals in greater comfort.




> The BC Liberals have brought us back into being a 'have province'.


I think it has much more to do with the money that the Chinese immigrants bring in. Once the Fiberals figure out how to rip them off, they will. Until then, they will rip off the citizens through their fake "carbon tax", while at the same time, sleeping with and servicing the developers who rape the land for short term riches. I feel rather lucky that we in Ontario are only stuck with the Dolt...


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> A few years of Fiberalism


Are you talking about the Federal Liberals? They totally have nothing in common with our provincial Liberals. They've done extremely good things for our province so far. My vote definitely goes to them next election. a few years of short term pain to undo NDP damage when they first got elected, then the last 5 years has seen nothing but prosperity in our province.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

dona83 said:


> Are you talking about the Federal Liberals? They totally have nothing in common with our provincial Liberals.


Actually, I forgot that your province is blessed with a Fiberal Party that is distinctly different from the scoundrels that pollute Ottawa and Queen's Park. But then, Dion and his clowns have done such a poor job, even McGuilty has kept his distance. However he really doesn't need to have any policies because there is always John Tory who is all too willing to stick both feet into his mouth. This is a guy that spent an entire month attacking Catholics, and now is attacking the First Nations and the peace loving citizens because he is more worried about currying favour with the developers and land raping special interests. I think he will be voted out this weekend in London...

After seeing David Peterson go to town on this province, and St. Laurent, Trudeau, Chretien and Martin go to town on the country... No wonder why I fear the word "Liberal".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Meanwhile back in oil industry welfare land.........aka Harper's Handouts.....



> *Emissions for the poor, tax breaks for the wealthy*
> 
> Feb 23, 2008 04:30 AM
> ALBERT KOEHL
> ...


handouts for the hogs........but the cities are told by Harper and Flaherty to ..........there's an appropriate term regarding attempted self insemination that fits perfectly


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> handouts for the hogs........but the cities are told by Harper and Flaherty to ..........there's an appropriate term regarding attempted self insemination that fits perfectly


That recent panel that looked into the sorry financial mismanagement of Toronto proved that there are enough hogs in the city--and that most of their financial woes are self-created. Good on Harper and Flaherty for letting the cities sort out their own pig pens.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Australia 'on track for Kyoto targets'*
> 
> February 25, 2008
> 
> ...


how strange after Harpo's buddy Howard gets tossed Australia gets it done..........and using 1990 as the baseline like the rest of the civilized world instead of the nonsense Harper and Stelmach spout.

Carbon trading too....fancy that....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: Why do you continue to be surprised? Any nation that pushes to the left soon enacts a carbon tax.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah yes, another country trading in fictional commodities. What will they invent next, invisible gasoline?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> That recent panel that looked into the sorry financial mismanagement of Toronto proved that there are enough hogs in the city--and that most of their financial woes are self-created. Good on Harper and Flaherty for letting the cities sort out their own pig pens.


I wish they'd investigate the situation here in The Hammer. Of course, the report of such an investigation would be quite the flight of fantasy, more bizarre than Dianetics and with more corruption than The Godfather. In fact, even the Mafia would read it and comment on the fact that the city is far too corrupt... They did spend $30 Million to preserve a building, which subsequently collapsed, and the money completely disappeared. They do not even have the money to fill in the remaining hole. They are also working on wasting more money on another building which should have been ripped down twenty years ago. Not to mention the $65 Million they are wasting on City Hall, plus all of the money that is being spent to rent the old Eaton Center. Of course, Ms. Copps cost the City a cool half billion dollars on an expressway (now built thankfully) that only took 60 years to construct, and was itself a project that supported a vast array of corruption and scandal And we could only dream of the paradise of Dave Miller nepotism. At least regular people would have a remote chance of getting an easy job Here, if you get a job interview, you had better bring kneepads along - you will need them...

Perhaps we do not have the disgrace of Carbon Taxes, but at least they have decided to try out the Segway, which was invented like, what, a decade ago???


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> MacDoc: Why do you continue to be surprised? Any nation that pushes to the left soon enacts a carbon tax.


I guess you don't know much about the BC Liberals, then.  Hint: They are definitely not lefties, by any stretch of the imagination and are not officially affiliated with the Federal Liberal Party. 

When the Social Credit collapsed in BC in the 90s, leftovers from that right-wing party, minus some of the social cons, took over the provincial BC Liberals that were surging in their absence. They are the party of the right in BC.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gratuitous: The BC government is not a very lefty group, I agree. I'm pointing out that a shift to the left usually precedes the tax. That is: you don't have to be left to institute the tax, but an electoral shift to the left will likely precede the tax where such a thing occurs.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MF: I like Alberta's plan much better. Seems to me that capturing the CO2 and storing it safely out of sight underground is realistic and doable.

On the other hand, governments who ask you to imagine that CO2 somehow grows "credits" and they float about in the air, and further have a cash value have been smokin' too much of another substance.

Just what is the chemical symbol for it? CO2ish?

Trading in invisible nothings comes to mind here, non?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> MF: I like Alberta's plan much better. Seems to me that capturing the CO2 and storing it safely out of sight underground is realistic and doable.


Hypothetical and possibly doable would be closer to the truth at present. 

As far as I know sequestering CO2 is only theoretical at this point. It's not known conclusively if it will work or if there will be any unintended consequences. I believe there are lots of proposals, but I don't know if anyone has got sequestration working yet, or if there are even any concrete plans in place. But if this technology can work, a carbon tax or charge will only speed up the adoption of sequestration and make it economically more viable. If it costs nothing to pump your carbon into the atmosphere most will do so.

At present we pump oceans of CO2 into the atmosphere at no cost to either individuals or corporations, where it is causing change to our climate. If I want to take garbage to the dump it costs me $90/tonne and $150/tonne if it's determined to be "controlled waste". Yet my CO2 dumped into the worldwide atmosphere costs me nothing.

If we want to actually do something about reducing carbon in the atmosphere rather than just talk about doing something, then we have to put a cost to this free dumping. This will have an economic ripple effect, because there are alternatives to the way we currently conduct our lifestyles and energy usage, although many with vested interests in fossil fuels don't want anyone to believe this.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Earth and I have an agreement. I produce a little extra CO2 and it uses it to feed plants.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Alberta risks becoming a pariah*
> As other jurisdictions act on climate change, Albertans will be seen as foot-draggers
> J
> EFFREY SIMPSON
> ...


so THAT's where the Con blue comes from...... 

footdraggers???...too mild......knuckledraggers more appropo.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Looks more like a courageous stand to me.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Does this tax extend to soda pop - since it is loaded with CO2? It is only fair to tax ALL sources of CO2. That would also have to include animals. Then one could offset their Carbon Tax by killing a deer or something...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Damn Norwegians again......



> Climate change warning issued
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If it weren't for these travelogues you put up, Doc, nobody would hear a blessed thing about them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MF: You have to appreciate, we now know more about pipsqueak Norway that any other forum.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well at least they are consistent



> *Tories flunk green audit*
> 
> RICK MADONIK/TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO
> 
> ...


TheStar.com | Canada | Tories flunk green audit

read consistently awful


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> read consistently awful


That applies equally to the Liberals:

From your article:

*“Cleanup of the Great Lakes Basin, home to a third of the country's population, is lagging. After 20 years, only two of 17 trouble spots have been restored.”*

and

*“Despite a 1990 cabinet order requiring environmental impact assessments for government policies, plans and programs, "the government is still not complying."”*

Excuse me, but wasn’t a certain Liberal party of yours in power and “did nothing” for a much longer period of time than the two years the Conservatives have been in power?

It takes a bit longer to get going when it has been ignored by the Liberals for years. And who was at the helm in the environment department when nothing was being done?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Petrol price rises and penalties for gas-guzzlers as Chancellor Alistair Darling goes green*
> Philip Webster, Political Editor
> 
> Alistair Darling will increase petrol duty and impose swingeing penalties on high-emission cars this week in what ministers will call “the green Budget”.
> ...


Britain gets serious....
Australia big time....

Canada??.....nah Harpo and Stelmach still brain dead......


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What's that sound??.......knees buckling??

Sequestration. carbon trading.......my my...



> *Tough new green plan targets oil sands*
> 
> Regulations, which also apply to coal-fired power plants, would force future projects to store greenhouse-gas emissions underground.
> 
> ...


globeandmail.com: Tough new green plan targets oil sands

They must have run a poll 

Wanna bet they give Alberta's recent coal plant a free ride......

Kinda funny timing announcing this AFTER the Alberta election....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I feel kind of embarrassed walking in on this topic and seeing MacDoc pleasuring himself in isolation. Put a sign on the door nex time, OK?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Brian Laghi used to be my city hall and energy reporter in Fort McMurray on the daily back in the 80s. He's still reporting on the oil sands after all these years. Go figure.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Carbon capture plan feasible, companies say*
> 
> ROMA LUCIW AND DAVID EBNER
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...


There never was any excuse - just Harper's intransigence.
This could have been in place 2 years ago. The industry knew it was coming, everybody but a few head in the sand types knew this was inevitable....

Now about the ongoing subsidies 

Maybe Flaherty can get his bloated government costs to 20% below 2006 levels too....

•••

swallow something that disagrees there mf










nothing cogent as usual..just meaningless eructations.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Here is a heads up on what should be an interesting look at the oil sands and their problems.

*It's interesting to note that Norway is as bad as the next country in this preview.*

White Pine Pictures & Clearwater Media present:

TAR SANDS: THE SELLING OF ALBERTA

What price is Canada willing to pay for a stake in this century's greatest energy bonanza?

Director Tom Radford
Producer Peter Raymont
World Premiere broadcast on Doc Zone
CBC TV - Thursday, March 13, 2008 - 9:00pm

"Tar Sands: The Selling of Alberta" captures the intersecting storylines of a remarkable cast of characters eager to cash in on the oil boom in Fort McMurray, Alberta.

Washington lobbyists, Newfie pipefitters, Chinese investors and *Norwegian industrialists descend on tar-soaked "Fort McMoney",* a modern-day Eldorado, where rents are sky-rocketing and cocaine abuse is four times the provincial average. Up for grabs - a stake in a $100 billion energy bonanza and Canada's economic sovereignty.

This one-hour documentary, commissioned by the CBC, tracks the growth of the world's largest reserve of
"unconventional" oil. A Florida-sized "environmental sacrifice zone" has become Canada's contribution to U.S. energy security in the post-9/11 world. But for many, the Tar Sands are a global warming disaster.

As Fort McMurray bursts at the seams, children from Thunder Bay to Cape Breton are made tar-sands orphans by their migrant-worker parents. Canada's petrodollar breaks the back of the manufacturing economy in the East. Cancer rates skyrocket downstream of Fort McMurray while Rocky Mountain glaciers melt and disappear. And all the while, Alberta crude goes south to US markets while Eastern Canada pays ever more for insecure Middle East oil. In an isolated region of the north, Canada's future is being carved out of the forest at a breakneck pace. "Tar Sands: The Selling of Alberta" questions how much Canada is willing to sacrifice for a stake in this century's greatest energy bonanza.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hey, SINC...wonder how they're handling this in Norway? About 50 years from now, people will look back at this carbon nonsense and wonder what was wrong with people's heads. Carbon taxes and sequestration will look to them like polyester bell bottoms and the Jitterbug.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good summary.....



> *It's time for provinces to follow B.C. on greenhouse gas emissions*
> 
> JUDITH MAXWELL
> 
> ...


:clap:

complete article here

reportonbusiness.com: It's time for provinces to follow B.C. on greenhouse gas emissions


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Geez I was wondering where the global warming threads had gone. I thought maybe this record breaking winter put the subject in the deep freeze or had the scientists busy running Norton Utilities on their climate modeling computers.  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> Geez I was wondering where the global warming threads had gone. I thought maybe this record breaking winter put the subject in the deep freeze or had the scientists busy running Norton Utilities on their climate modeling computers.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Seems some people think global warming would be a good thing. 

YouTube - Minnesotans For Global Warming Song


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Global warming has NOTHIING repeat NOTHING to do with the temperature of the AIR.

(and yes, I know Sinc's post was humourous in nature -- very funny, in fact! I was directing my comments at any actual doubters we might have.)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> Global warming has NOTHIING repeat NOTHING to do with the temperature of the AIR.
> 
> (and yes, I know Sinc's post was humourous in nature -- very funny, in fact! I was directing my comments at any actual doubters we might have.)


Glad you enjoyed the video, but tell me this:

If global warming has NOTHING to do with the temperature of the air, why is it that every single scientific report I have read mentions the average temperature rise first and foremost every time? As in the earth's average temperature has risen 0.5 degrees since 1840 or whatever?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

chas_m shouldn't have said "nothing" but simply that the air temperature at ground level in specific geographic regions has very little to do with the average temperature of the global climate.

The *average* temperature of the atmosphere at all altitudes, and around the globe is what is changing. And, far more importantly, the *average* temperature of the oceans (which have vastly greater thermal 'inertia') is also rising. 

Just to restate the obvious, the consequences of global warming may well be colder temperatures for certain locations at certain times because of altered circulation patterns or other shifts in energy transfer throughout the system.

All that being said, you can count me among those who feel this winter was longer and colder than normal, and who are eagerly looking forward to spring.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> All that being said, you can count me among those who feel this winter was longer and colder than normal, and who are eagerly looking forward to spring.


nassty lil girl had a serious temper tantrum this year.












> The blue area throughout the center of this image shows the cool sea surface temperature along the equator in the Pacific Ocean during this La Niña episode.


NASA Observes La Niña: This 'Little Girl' Makes A Big Impression

she could stop now.......puuuullllllllllleeeeassssse 

- it WAS colder and longer



> With this La Niña, *the sea-surface temperatures are about two degrees colder than normal* in the eastern Pacific and that’s a pretty significant difference,” says David Adamec of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. “I know it doesn’t sound like much, but remember this is water that probably covers an area the size of the United States. It’s like you put this big air conditioner out there -- and the atmosphere is going to feel it.”


unfortunately it ain't over yet either



> ScienceDaily (Feb. 17, 2008) — The current La Niña event, characterized by a cooling of the sea surface in the central and eastern Equatorial Pacific, has strengthened slightly in recent months and is expected to continue through the first quarter of 2008, with a likelihood of persisting through to the middle of the year.


La Niña Conditions Strengthen, Expected To Continue


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SINC said:


> Seems some people think global warming would be a good thing.
> 
> YouTube - Minnesotans For Global Warming Song


Oh my God Sinc that was priceless! Thanks for the laugh. :lmao: 
Be sure to watch their Chicken Little skit. I love these guys.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

chas_m said:


> Global warming has NOTHIING repeat NOTHING to do with the temperature of the AIR.


Really? 










What's this all about then?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Got to love literalists....goes with the package I guess 

..air temperature ....*AT ANY GIVEN LOCATION*.....sigh.

GW is a net gain over time.....

Just a reminder to those that think we can't or do not impact the ocean and the atmosphere....there is less air and water in the life raft than most imagine.












> Left: All the water in the world (1.4087 billion cubic kilometres of it) including sea water, ice, lakes, rivers, ground water, clouds, etc.
> 
> Right: All the air in the atmosphere (5140 trillion tonnes of it) gathered into a ball at sea-level density. Shown on the same scale as the Earth.
> 
> ...


it's cold and empty out there......those two little marbles are badly damaged by US......


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> ..air temperature ....*AT ANY GIVEN LOCATION*.....sigh.
> 
> GW is a net gain over time.....


Gee I must have missed the "AT ANY GIVEN LOCATION" part of the posting.

My bad.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> Oh my God Sinc that was priceless! Thanks for the laugh. :lmao:
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Always giving, never taking.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver: The definition changes to create maximum hysteria. The gassers are serious when they talk about _mean_ global temperature.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

The 2.4c/litre carbon tax just went into effect. Gas in Vancouver is 152.0c/litre. The Fraser Valley is at 145.9c/litre, and the rest of the province around 142.9c/litre give or take.

The bottom two tax brackets have also been reduced. All income below $35,016 will now be taxed at 5.24%, down from 5.35%. There will be a further drop to 5.06% next year. All income from $35,016 to $70,033 will be taxed at 7.98%, down from 8.15%, with a subsequent drop to 7.70% in 2009. Low income earners will continue to get a $100 carbon tax dividend/refund cheque in subsequent years. So to put things in perspective... I make $50,000 a year. I will save $37.99 this year and $100.40 next year. I drive roughly 26,000km a year... If I continued driving at the rate I'm driving I'll be paying $20 in carbon taxes this year and $60 next year. i can easily cut that amount in half by riding my bike to work instead and taking the West Coast Express when I don't need to drive to Vancouver... though i will be saving more than just the carbon tax.

At home, our strata pays around $16,000 a year in fuel costs for heating and hot water, but this is down considerably from $24,000 a year thanks to new Viessmann ultra efficient condensing boilers we just put in to replace the previous boilers which were reaching 40 years of age. Anyway we use around 1200GJ of gas a year, so the carbon tax on it @ 49.7 cents a GJ will be around $580... or roughly $16 per year per owner this year and $32 per year next year depending on size of suite. The strata fees have not gone up accordingly yet but i figure that'll be in next year's budget.

To summarize...

This year I will save $37.99 in income tax. I will pay $40 in carbon taxes at my rate of driving and $20 if I choose to ride my bike instead and take transit more often.

Next year I will save $100.40 in income tax. I will pay $80 in carbon taxes at my rate of driving and $40 if I choose to ride my bike instead and take transit more often. I expect to pay $44 extra with my strata (I have a 2 bedroom corner suite... more heating required.) We could certainly push our strata to get owners to install low flow shower heads and aerators in exchange for lower strata fees. Not much can be done about heating.

So in the end I can choose to pay $120 in carbon taxes and go on my merry ways or pay $80 in carbon taxes by making a difference. I think I'll do my part and opt for the $80 option. Besides I get fat by driving to work everyday... riding my bike will not only benefit the environment, it will benefit my health.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You forget to include all the other "extras" you will now have to pay that will more than erase any of those "tax savings".

Every single commodity you buy will now cost you more, or didn't you think about the fact that over 90 percent of what you purchase is delivered by truckers. Do you honestly think they are not going to pass their extra fuel costs along to the recipients of those goods?

And do you not think the retailers, who pay the truckers the extra fees won't pass them along to you?

Literally every consumer item used in the country is affected by the extra carbon tax and it will be passed on to you. That's the trouble, people buy the lies of government when they say it will be revenue neutral.

Notice I called it a lie. Government knows damn well it can't possible ever be near revenue neutral. There are far too many greedy middlemen in between government and your wallet to ever make it possible.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm surprised that anyone would make a lifestyle change over $40 per year. Why not just be healthier anyway?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I will save $150 a month in fuel, insurance, and maintenance by taking transit/riding my bike, that's after having to purchase transit fares etc. Saving $40 in carbon taxes a year is just the icing on the cake.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> You forget to include all the other "extras" you will now have to pay that will more than erase any of those "tax savings".
> 
> Every single commodity you buy will now cost you more, or didn't you think about the fact that over 90 percent of what you purchase is delivered by truckers. Do you honestly think they are not going to pass their extra fuel costs along to the recipients of those goods?
> 
> ...


Are these the same lies the conservatives are telling? Or are the only people capable of lies are liberals right?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Are these the same lies the conservatives are telling? Or are the only people capable of lies are liberals right?


Don't recall ever saying that gt.

All politicians and governments are capable of lies. The B.C. government and Dion included when it comes to revenue neutral carbon taxes.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

SINC, Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals have not only reversed years and years of damage done by the NDP government over the couple of decades before the BC Liberals came to power, he's now leading our economy into prosperity. Do not put him into the same boat as the Federal Liberals. Besides the Liberals are as far right as you can get in BC politics.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

its what you dont say Sinc. I get a clear view of what you believe either way.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

*dona83*... thanks... I DO appreciate the statistics from B.C. and nothing but the statistics... 

Me and all of "mine" fall well into those income brackets mentioned or even below so that makes ME feel more comfortable in voting Liberal when the time comes.

BTW... my Mom is a Senior, she's already recieved $100 up in Northern B.C.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> *dona83*... thanks... I DO appreciate the statistics from B.C. and nothing but the statistics...
> 
> Me and all of "mine" fall well into those income brackets mentioned or even below so that makes ME feel more comfortable in voting Liberal when the time comes.
> 
> BTW... my Mom is a Senior, she's already recieved $100 up in Northern B.C.


I somehow sense a bit of sarcasm but I'm too dense to extract the real meaning of your message right now. Could you translate it to straightforward English? My guess is that this carbon tax and tax cut thing is just some sort of Band-Aid solution and Gordo has been screwing over the lower income folks from day one and have been continuing to do so and you agree with Carole James that the Liberals are attacking the citizens, not the real polluters.

I received my $100 cheque, spent it on camping and booze.  I wonder much CO2 was emitted from my campfire...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The best thing that BC voters can do in the next election is to turn out the fool that brough in yet another gas tax. $1.60 per litre gas will do much to bankrupt the worker, while stuffing even more filthy lucre into the pockets of the pork barrel politician. I would bet 10 gallons of gas that not one single penny of this "carbon tax" will go to anything ecological - but rather, every single penny will go to some collossal white elephant project schemes that they have cooked up. Or wait, perhaps most of it will go to yet more political free steak dinners?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I wonder much CO2 was emitted from my campfire...


no FOSSIL CO2 was harmed in your campfire..


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Nope... no sarcasm intended at all.  
If it works the way it's been explained over and over again I don't really see how it'll screw over the lower income folks. 

I saw Harper on the news one night ranting about how it would "screw the whole country" and then he went on to "invoke" the memory of the NEP...  
BS!
For Alberta it's NOT JUST emissions... we have a beautiful province so long as you don't go too far north and east. The tailings ponds (lakes) of the tar sands... they ARE big enough some of them to qualify for lake status based on size... it's not pretty. 

The best place I know to follow what goes on up there is Upgrader Alley: Oil Sands Fever Strikes Edmonton | Minimizing Environmental Impacts of Oil Sands Development in Canada

In the Media Room have a look at the photos slide show... nice big pictures of the tailings are hard to find on the net. I saw a quote in the Globe and Mail that apparently they Syncrude ordered an 85 yr. old grandmother to take pictures she took while on a tour of the place off the web. I'm not sure if she put them up or if one of her younger kin did... 

A carbon tax will slow them down, which is what I want. Not to kill the whole thing, just enough of a slow down to FORCE them to do some long past due homework re: the environment. If it does cost me a little more... so be it. 




dona83 said:


> I somehow sense a bit of sarcasm but I'm too dense to extract the real meaning of your message right now. Could you translate it to straightforward English? My guess is that this carbon tax and tax cut thing is just some sort of Band-Aid solution and Gordo has been screwing over the lower income folks from day one and have been continuing to do so and you agree with Carole James that the Liberals are attacking the citizens, not the real polluters.
> 
> I received my $100 cheque, spent it on camping and booze.  I wonder much CO2 was emitted from my campfire...


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> The best thing that BC voters can do in the next election is to turn out the fool that brough in yet another gas tax. $1.60 per litre gas will do much to bankrupt the worker, while stuffing even more filthy lucre into the pockets of the pork barrel politician. I would bet 10 gallons of gas that not one single penny of this "carbon tax" will go to anything ecological - but rather, every single penny will go to some collossal white elephant project schemes that they have cooked up. Or wait, perhaps most of it will go to yet more political free steak dinners?


EP, the carbon tax funded our provincial tax cut. If we work towards being more green, we will end up ahead, if we continue to drive big SUVs that get 10mpg, we will end up paying more. It's that simple. I had a great time walking and biking throughout the long weekend. 

The political alternative to the BC Liberals right now is the NDP who went from barely winning a majority in 1996 to winning only 2 seats in 2001. If the NDP go back into power in BC, it'll be the equivalent of what the Federal Liberals did to Alberta in the 70s and 80s. NO WAY! I am not condoning Alberta's actions right now but with all due respect the suffering is still fresh in their heads and they still have lots to do to repair, replace, and expand long neglected infrastructure. I hope they enjoy their prosperity now and attempt to build for a more sustainable future. Calgary's right on track with expanding their C-Train and powering it with wind power for one. Edmonton's lagging behind a bit but then they suffered the most as Calgary at least attracted head offices of big companies to lessen the blow.

Please take a bit of time to understand western politics before you attempt to speak your mind on it thanks...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Times they are a changin.....



> *Canadians parking the gas hogs*
> VIRGINIA GALT
> 
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

*Second Cars!*


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

What stupidity, add a new tax, which costs more in administration of it and the credit it entails, for no benefit. Stupid, stupid. It would have been better to not have it at all. You don't need a carbon tax to change people's attitudes, the cost of gas (without the carbon tax) is changing people's attitudes.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sure Kosh, but the government saw it as a great way to scam people out of more money while they're confused.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Adding about 2 cents to a litre of gas does nothing to curb my gas usage. It's the other $1.50 or so that's causing the pain, duh. 

Yes, I "parked" my van and am using public transport, but I was planning to do that anyway -- we moved up here in part to be more "green," and between no longer having (and using nine months of the year) an air conditioner and now not using the van, I figure I have cut my carbon use AT LEAST in half with minimal pain and substantial savings. I recognise that not everyone lives in an area with great public transport like Victoria has, but for at least half the population my solution would work for them.

I have *no problem* with the carbon tax as long as it turns out to be a) revenue-neutral and b) prompts a reduction in BC's carbon output. But all the whiners here (and that's what they are, whiners who would otherwise do NOTHING about the problem) know full well that the only way to test a government program (and this province's credibility) is to TRY IT and then, after a year, see how well it worked and either retool, improve, or scrap it.

If it works well, the entire country should think about implementing it. If it doesn't, well all you whiners in other provinces get to say "I told you so" (which, I've noticed, you love to do) and bury your heads a little further up your ... er, in the (tar) sand.

But how will we progress in ANY area without trying things? Hmmm?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Thanks MacFury, we British Columbians appreciate you undermining our intelligence like that.

Stay out of our politics and we'll stay out of yours, though last I heard McGuinty is for the Carbon Tax too isn't he?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: indeed he is. MF's problem is he doesn't want to pay for his pollution and wants everyone else to subsidize his 100 year old dwelling CHOICE. He wants his pollution rights FREE. 
TANSTAAFL


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> TANSTAAFL


I've rarely seen anyone keener to suck on the government teat than you MacDoc. You certainly ought to give Heinlein a rest: he'd spit on you.

Give Toronto new taxing power!
Higher property taxes!
Build me a hydrogen grid!

Sheesh.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dona83 said:


> Thanks MacFury, we British Columbians appreciate you undermining our intelligence like that.


It's certainly not an attack on your intelligence. The initial confusion was in not knowing how it would affect everyone in the long run when it was foisted on the province. It's not as though the people voted for the Campbell tax grab--and now the public tide is turning heavily against it.

And of course McGuinty is for it. His malfeasance and mismanagement is leaving him with a hideous deficit that he will need to cover somehow. At this point he'd tax sunshine if he thought he could get away with it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> :clap: indeed he is. MF's problem is he doesn't want to pay for his pollution and wants everyone else to subsidize his 100 year old dwelling CHOICE. He wants his pollution rights FREE.
> TANSTAAFL


MacDoc... you have to get over your fixation with century houses and those who own them. Please. There are any number of greater issues you can go with.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc's fixation is only with living on environmentally sensitive lands in the shadow of the Niagara Escarpment--to each his own.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh, you mean his life is his own; he does with it as he chooses.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> It's certainly not an attack on your intelligence. The initial confusion was in not knowing how it would affect everyone in the long run when it was foisted on the province. It's not as though the people voted for the Campbell tax grab--and now the public tide is turning heavily against it.
> 
> And of course McGuinty is for it. His malfeasance and mismanagement is leaving him with a hideous deficit that he will need to cover somehow. At this point he'd tax sunshine if he thought he could get away with it.


well you seem to have the results all figured out and done.

And if you want to know more about Ontario deficit, ask the NDP or, the common sense morons who promised to fix the budget yet somehow after a booming economy left a nice deficit.

Something about glass houses I think.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I have no faith in any government to "fix" anything--they just dig deeper and deeper.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I have no faith in any government to "fix" anything--they just dig deeper and deeper.


yes you do. If it's conservative then it's all good. Your faith is magically restored.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Conservatives are spending money like drunken sailors--no good.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

At least drunken sailors eventually pass out in the alleyway...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The Conservatives are spending money like drunken sailors--no good.


so I can assume you wont be voting for them then.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You can assume nothing.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

that's what I thought.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What is it that you thought? That I would commit to another drunken sailor in public, even before the promises are offered in slurred and halting speech?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

whoa now I didn't say a word. 

What you do with drunken sailors is your business, I don't wanna know really.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Carbon tax!!!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The party with the biggest carbon tax gets my vote!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm thinking a tax on people with avatars featuring cats and helmets. Another one for research scientists in the Maritimes.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I'm thinking a tax on people with avatars featuring cats and helmets. Another one for research scientists in the Maritimes.


It's a hard hat, not a helmet.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> The party with the biggest carbon tax gets my vote!


For a man of such small stature, Dion has an enormous carbon tax.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, he did ask . . .


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Dion drippings on my 'Cue? No thanks...


----------

