Quebec seeks an injunction against EnergyEast Pipeline

[chuckChuck]

There is wide spread support for carbon taxes including some CEOs from the oil industry like Suncor. Carbon taxes like BCs are revenue neutral and are just used to reduce demand for carbon. Increasing efficiency as an outcome will reduce energy costs. BCs economy is still doing quite well.

[Hamloc]

From 2000 to 2014 Alberta sent 200 billion more personal and corporate income taxes to Ottawa than we got back. During that same period Quebec received more from Ottawa than it sent. Your constant comparisons to Norway are tiresome and not realistic. Norway's geography allows it to produce almost all it's electricity from hydro just one of its natural advantages. If Alberta was a country with tide water access instead of a land locked province your argument might have some basis. Alberta has made some bad decisions granted but eastern Canada has benefitted a great deal from our economic success.

[Hamloc]

Let me get this straight Chuck2, you state that every business except oil was negatively affected by high oil prices and yet you want to artificially create high energy prices with a carbon tax which by your own admission will negatively affect business but in this case it will also affect oil based businesses!! Have a good day:-)

[chuckChuck]

Hamloc you are right comparing Alberta to Norway is not a fair comparison. But not to have any revenue savings put away is poor management.

Norway's Statoil allowed Norway to take a bigger share of revenues on behalf of Norwegians. That model could have been used here but most Albertans and many in Saskatchewan did not want a crown corporation involved because they wanted to privatize the excess profits.

The difference between Canada and Norway was primarily politics.

The result is Canada's oil industry is in trouble and the provinces which depended on it for operating revenue are also in big trouble.

Taxpayers largely own the resources in Canada. It should be up to taxpayers to decide how the resources are developed. But when you put the oil industry in charge you don't get long term thinking or planning for what is best for the long term.

[chuckChuck]

Hamloc. The market price has been very high. Much higher than the proposed carbon tax will take it. Why is it okay to pay a tax in the form of excess profits to oil companies and Saudia Arabia and not a tax to your own government?

Revenue neutral is the key phrase. Take a look at BCs experience.

I think you should ask Suncor why they support a carbon tax?

[Hamloc]

We had a federally owned oil company, Petro Canada, the federal government sold it off to pay down our deficit and yet I never hear anybody bring up this bit of history. Only Alberta is taken to task

As for the Alberta carbon tax 60% of recipients will receive a rebate how does this change our habits and in a cold climate like Canada why would you tax natural gas our most efficient heating fuel. In Canada heat is a necessity not a luxury. Geo thermal is cleaner but how many houses could realistically use it?

[Hamloc]

Why does Suncor support a carbon tax? Very simple, because they believe it will give them the social licence to expand and produce more oil. The design of the Alberta carbon tax allows Suncor to deduct the carbon tax as an expense. Therefore it does not cost them anything. Only the 40% of Albertans with the highest incomes will actually pay the carbon tax with no rebate. Alberta's carbon tax is more about politics and optics than it is about change. And it is not revenue neutral like BC's.

[oneoff]

I predict that those who lead us down the path of carbon taxes "and only theoretically winding down the fossil fuel dependencies" will be proven to have been so far wrong in their expectations of the capacity and capability to otherwise supply energy needs and demands.....that we will find the world economy using nuclear fuels as our primary fuel source.

Except then those same misguided souls will switch their lobbying to shutting down nuclear power and driving all but those who can afford taxes into the equivalent of third world beggars.

Hypocrisy , stupidity and not understanding human nature.....all clearly defined by this bandwagon that has gained critical mass.

[oneoff]

I predict that those who lead us down the path of carbon taxes "and only theoretically winding down the fossil fuel dependencies" will be proven to have been so far wrong in their expectations of the capacity and capability to otherwise supply energy needs and demands.....that we will find the world economy using nuclear fuels as our primary fuel source.

And for those who think that states such as Quebec and Nebraska and BC can be reasoned with; just contemplate the apparent differences between farmers who know they have all the answers for society (let alone their peers)

I predict we are headed to supplying necessary power by nuclear means.....but then those same activists will divert their attention to lobbying for shutting down nuclear power and driving all but those who can afford taxes into the equivalent of third world beggars.

Hypocrisy , stupidity and not understanding human nature.....all clearly defined by this bandwagon that has gained critical mass.

[Hamloc]

Oneoff certainly agree on nuclear power. For a dependable system using solar, you need solar generation, wind generation, and natural gas powered turbines to supply power when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Modern societies need power 24 hrs a day. It takes 3 systems to do what 1 does today. At some point nuclear fusion will become a reality as well and could render everything else obsolete.

As for getting agreements from other jurisdictions the lack of success so far is self evident. Politicians only worry about getting elected again and therefore don't look very far onto the future.