• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Climate barbie .....

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #25
    Did you brainiacs forget that Preston manning father of the Reform Party supported a carbon tax as the most efficient market based way to cut greenhouse gases?

    https://ipolitics.ca/2017/03/08/manning-calls-on-conservatives-to-stop-attacking-carbon-pricing/ https://ipolitics.ca/2017/03/08/manning-calls-on-conservatives-to-stop-attacking-carbon-pricing/

    Conservative elder statesman Preston Manning is advising the Conservative caucus to lay off attacking the market-based concept of carbon pricing.

    In an email obtained by iPolitics, Manning points caucus members at a Fraser Institute report on carbon pricing by conservative economists Jason Clemens and Ken Green, which he says is “right on” and “could be useful to you.” Manning attached the report to his email.

    “I know all of you are wrestling with this issue and that there is considerable disagreement among conservatives on how to approach it, but hopefully this approach — focus on attacking the implementation rather than the market-based concept itself — will be helpful,” Manning writes.

    While the Tories have been hammering Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over his plan to price carbon, Conservative leadership candidates and also some members have also attacked Michael Chong on this issue.

    Chong is the only leadership candidate to publicly embrace pricing carbon; his arguments in favour of a market-based mechanism to reduce carbon emissions are often greeted by catcalls at leadership debates.

    However, there have been few, if any, solid arguments from leadership candidates against Chong’s plan. Candidates merely say it’s a bad idea and attack the concept itself — which is exactly what Manning wants them to stop doing.

    Manning writes that the Fraser Institute’s report states that using a pricing mechanism to drive down carbon pollution is preferable, from the perspective of market-oriented conservatives, to micro-regulation by governments.

    “But then they assert that for this concept to work in practice it is absolutely essential that it possess certain characteristics: genuine revenue neutrality, a significant reduction in environmental regulations, and a no-subsidy policy with respect to alternative energy sources,” writes Manning.

    He goes on to say that the report makes the point that none of the carbon-pricing regimes proposed in Canada meet the criteria — citing the federal, Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia schemes as examples. Manning steers clear of referencing Chong’s plan.

    Manning writes that the implementation of a carbon-pricing regime is being “hopelessly bungled” by these administrations and it is “this bungled implementation which should be the primary focus of our attacks and opposition.”

    Drilling down into the implementation of carbon pricing, says Manning, avoids “putting conservatives in the contradictory position of appearing to favour regulation over market mechanisms for dealing with environmental challenges.”

    Comment


      #26
      Chuck, how do you feel about Catherine McKenna should be penalized by the Liberal Party now that she has been busted for attending **** fights for recreation?

      She also ate a dog, is it okay for Liberal climate alarmists to fly overseas to eat dogs....is this the end game for economy killing carbon taxes?

      Comment


        #27
        In the height of the last oil boom because of market forces gas prices rose to a $1.50 per litre in many Canadian locations and the sky didn't fall.

        But sending our hard earned income to oil companies is good and fine and causes no economic costs or hardship to consumers?

        But if you put a carbon tax on consumers, the end of the world is near! Even when fuel is already taxed for various purposes.

        Please explain the contradiction?

        Comment


          #28
          Manning too? Hahaha. Maybe try to expand your analysis from the “poster is a dummy” ! It’s a bit more complicated than that! LOL. Just ask Preston!
          Last edited by chuckChuck; Sep 27, 2020, 11:13.

          Comment


            #29
            Preston is a fk-n idiot
            What the fu-k is your point ??

            Comment


              #30
              Originally posted by Oliver88 View Post
              We will have to change her name now that it is known that she eats dogs and attends illegal **** fights when on Asian holidays. Chuck’s leader has some explaining to do....maybe the dogs had too high of a carbon footprint so she ate them during her fossil fuel consuming trip in Asia?
              Was it a female dog? They say you are what you eat.

              Haven't thought anything sarcastic up about the cöck fights yet.

              Comment


                #31
                Originally posted by farmaholic View Post
                Was it a female dog? They say you are what you eat.

                Haven't thought anything sarcastic up about the cöck fights yet.

                Chuck and McKenna seem okay with all the co:ck fighting....they even encourage it if flying overseas to do it! Maybe it will be an issue to Liberals when they find out Canine Barbie ate a Black dog?!
                Last edited by Oliver88; Sep 27, 2020, 18:56.

                Comment


                  #32
                  Originally posted by farmaholic View Post
                  Was it a female dog? They say you are what you eat.

                  Haven't thought anything sarcastic up about the cöck fights yet.
                  I think you got it backwards maybe she ate the c—k and attended dog fights. Makes more sense eating dog would be gross unless it was a hot one? I don’t know I m confused.

                  Comment


                    #33
                    Originally posted by chuckChuck View Post
                    In the height of the last oil boom because of market forces gas prices rose to a $1.50 per litre in many Canadian locations and the sky didn't fall.

                    But sending our hard earned income to oil companies is good and fine and causes no economic costs or hardship to consumers?

                    But if you put a carbon tax on consumers, the end of the world is near! Even when fuel is already taxed for various purposes.

                    Please explain the contradiction?
                    Chuck2 the point you miss is that high gas prices didn’t curb consumption, just like in B.C., they have the some of the highest taxed and highest priced gas in North America and before COVID 19 their gas consumption was still rising. Carbon taxes simply make living more expensive.

                    Comment

                    • Reply to this Thread
                    • Return to Topic List
                    Working...