Metals mines association, accounting for most federal enviro assessments, OK with Bil

[Hamloc]

Taxes are used to pay for education, healthcare, infrastructure, roads, a justice system, social programs, OAS, GIS, the military, subsidies to agriculture............ the list is long.

Just because you don't believe there is climate change, or that carbon dioxide is a pollutant in excess if it changes the climate, doesn't make a carbon tax any different than all the other taxes you and I pay. It's one tool to fight climate change. Energy already has numerous taxes applied.

Scheer, Moe, and Kenney want to use regulations to reduce carbon emmisions (another form of tax) which also have costs that consumers and business will pay for.

Scheer, Moe, and Kenney want to do as little as possible and let taxpayers pay for the all the damage from climate change and the cost of mitigation.

Their goal is to protect the interests of the oil industry and socialize the costs of climate change. In effect privatize the profit and socialize the harmful effects!

Many people want all the benefits and protection of living in a developed country but don't want to pay for it. They are wannabe free riders.

So Chuck2 you apparently have a problem with reading comprehension. So 20% of C02 emission reductions are going to come from the carbon tax under the Liberal plan according to the environment minister, where do you think the other 80% is coming from? Very simple, regulation! So really whether you look at the Liberal or Conservative plan it will come down to regulation except I believe the Conservative plan includes tax incentives for implementing or creating so called green technology which sounds like a good idea to me. The Liberal's prefer giving money to their buddies like the Weston's! While I realize it is pointless to try and bring common sense into this discussion, at least I tried. Enjoy your day.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, has it occurred to you that there would be a lot less orphaned and abandoned wells if the companies that owned them didn't keep going bankrupt because we have no pipelines or infrastructure, and we keep adding layers and layers of regulations and bureaucracy on them while they are down?

[samhill]

Taxes are used to pay for education, healthcare, infrastructure, roads, a justice system, social programs, OAS, GIS, the military, subsidies to agriculture............ the list is long.

Chuck, carbon tax is used for 300 million to the Clinton foundation or x million to indigenous peoples or
X million or billion to the United Nations.

You kid your friends and I’ll kid mine, let’s not kid each other.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Could you possibly post some examples of how successfully the rest of the world is weaning itself off of oil or fossil fuels and leaving us behind? The only place I have seen it happening is in the imagination of some very out of touch politicians making absurd promises for dates far exceeding their tenure.

Your silence speaks volumes.

[chuckChuck]

You guys need to face the fact that the oil industry wants to do as little as possible to fight climate change or clean up the environmental damage they cause because it is bad for their bottom line. Everything they don't have to do is more profit. So they fight every measure to force them to cleanup big or small.

The oil industry made a lot of money during the boom and did not clean up any more of its mess during the high prices.

Just ask many Alberta and Saskatchewan land owners who are forced to accept the oil industries intrusion onto their private property how interested the oil industry is in listening to landowner concerns about H2S, gas flaring, water well contamination, soil degradation, salt water and oil spills.

Some of the oil companies are doing a better job on these issues but some are awful bullies who don't care and won't fix the basic problems.

The oil industries problems stem from lower world prices and a drop in demand from the US. Both issues are beyond the control of the Federal or Provincial governments. The bottleneck in transportation is making the problem worse. But a lot of oil is still being produced and getting to market. Maybe the industry should try to match supply with demand and infrastructure capacity?

Enbridge line 3 - 760K BPD replacement is being held up by Minnesota permits not Canadian issues.
Trudeau just approved Transmountain. The tanker ban is for northern BC coast not the southern coast. Trudeau is at risk because he is trying to support the oil industry while at the same time appeal to those who are worried about climate change. Scheer will have to do the same. Scheer believes in the science of human caused climate change as well. So that issue is not going away regardless of what you think.

Progress is slow on pipelines, but until the oil industry accepts that climate change is serious and real and starts investing in cleaner production and alternatives, the oil industry is going to get a rough ride.

The market for oil is going to start declining at some point as the whole world is going to transition to lower carbon future. Harper saw it coming by 2100. We will still have fossil energy during the transition to cleaner energy sources. Its not one or the other during the transition, its all forms of energy and the massive number of jobs that are created as we transition.

Alot of what comes from Moe and Kenney is just overheated political rhetoric in advance of the Federal election. Voters in Quebec and Ontario have very different concerns and don't really care about the oil industry and are more worried about flooding, climate change and their own industries and jobs.

Doug Ford is very unpopular in just over a year in power. He will likely not survive the next election and may drag Scheer down with him. So Moe and Kenney better be prepared to work with who ever is Prime Minister.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You guys need to face the fact that the oil industry wants to do as little as possible to fight climate change or clean up the environmental damage they cause because it is bad for their bottom line. Everything they don't have to do is more profit. So they fight every measure to force them to cleanup big or small.

The oil industry made a lot of money during the boom and did not clean up any more of its mess during the high prices.

Just ask many Alberta and Saskatchewan land owners who are forced to accept the oil industries intrusion onto their private property how interested the oil industry is in listening to landowner concerns about H2S, gas flaring, water well contamination, soil degradation, salt water and oil spills.

Some of the oil companies are doing a better job on these issues but some are awful bullies who don't care and won't fix the basic problems.

The oil industries problems stem from lower world prices and a drop in demand from the US. Both issues are beyond the control of the Federal or Provincial governments. The bottleneck in transportation is making the problem worse. But a lot of oil is still being produced and getting to market. Maybe the industry should try to match supply with demand and infrastructure capacity?

Enbridge line 3 - 760K BPD replacement is being held up by Minnesota permits not Canadian issues.
Trudeau just approved Transmountain. The tanker ban is for northern BC coast not the southern coast. Trudeau is at risk because he is trying to support the oil industry while at the same time appeal to those who are worried about climate change. Scheer will have to do the same. Scheer believes in the science of human caused climate change as well. So that issue is not going away regardless of what you think.

Progress is slow on pipelines, but until the oil industry accepts that climate change is serious and real and starts investing in cleaner production and alternatives, the oil industry is going to get a rough ride.

The market for oil is going to start declining at some point as the whole world is going to transition to lower carbon future. Harper saw it coming by 2100. We will still have fossil energy during the transition to cleaner energy sources. Its not one or the other during the transition, its all forms of energy and the massive number of jobs that are created as we transition.

Alot of what comes from Moe and Kenney is just overheated political rhetoric in advance of the Federal election. Voters in Quebec and Ontario have very different concerns and don't really care about the oil industry. Doug Ford is very unpopular in just over a year in power. He will likely not survive the next election and may drag Scheer down with him.

It is obvious you have come to your opinions without ever having dealt with an oil company or been involved with any of the concerns you brought up. There is no point in discussing this any further with someone as ignorant as yourself.

[tweety]

Chuck Chuck, very simple question. How has the carbon tax so far improved the environment? For example, on my farm i still use the same energy, still run the dryer, still run the grain vac and burn exactly the same amount of fossil fuels.

Scheers proposal of scrapping the carbon tax and forcing large polluters to incorporate technology to reduce emissions seems like something that would make a difference - reducing pollution.

If for example all of our farms were considered heavy polluters and required us to reduce emissions by say 15%, or have a limit per bushel of grain production, wouldn't that spur innovation and actually reduce emissions?

Carbon tax is like a 100$ speeding ticket to a millionaire. Pointless. But take away his license, now he'll slow down.

[chuckChuck]

It is obvious you have come to your opinions without ever having dealt with an oil company or been involved with any of the concerns you brought up. There is no point in discussing this any further with someone as ignorant as yourself.

Like most of your speculation you are wrong.

I deal with oil wells and facilities on rented and owned land 365 days a year.

Many of my friends and neighbors work in the oil patch and some of those have or are installing solar systems. They are all a bunch of socialist, environmentalists climate change activists I guess. LOL

Tell us about your vast experience in dealing with oil companies?

[chuckChuck]

Chuck Chuck, very simple question. How has the carbon tax so far improved the environment? For example, on my farm i still use the same energy, still run the dryer, still run the grain vac and burn exactly the same amount of fossil fuels.

Scheers proposal of scrapping the carbon tax and forcing large polluters to incorporate technology to reduce emissions seems like something that would make a difference - reducing pollution.

If for example all of our farms were considered heavy polluters and required us to reduce emissions by say 15%, or have a limit per bushel of grain production, wouldn't that spur innovation and actually reduce emissions?

Carbon tax is like a 100$ speeding ticket to a millionaire. Pointless. But take away his license, now he'll slow down.

Its pretty simple. When prices go up consumption goes down. If you want to test the theory look at what happened when gas prices hit 1.50 per litre in 2008. People were not buying gas guzzling pickup trucks to buy their groceries.

In reality we will need both carbon taxes and regulations. Preston Manning favours carbon taxes because it leaves more choice in the hands of consumers and the marketplace to decide how they will reduce emissions. Ironically it seems like current Conservatives favour more regulations and government intervention and red tape.

Agriculture is exempt from carbon taxes on fuel. Fertilizer will fall under a different program to reduce emissions.

Incentives to innovate would be a better approach in agriculture. Payments for best practices would work.

But the elephant in the room is nitrous oxide. One tonne of nitrous oxide is equivalent to 298 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

So look for programs, practices, and regulations to reduce nitrous oxide in the future.

[tweety]

Its pretty simple. When prices go up consumption goes down. If you want to test the theory look at what happened when gas prices hit 1.50 per litre in 2008. People were not buying gas guzzling pickup trucks to buy their groceries.

In reality we will need both carbon taxes and regulations. Preston Manning favours carbon taxes because it leaves more choice in the hands of consumers and the marketplace to decide how they will reduce emissions. Ironically it seems like current Conservatives favour more regulations and government intervention and red tape.

Agriculture is exempt from carbon taxes on fuel. Fertilizer will fall under a different program to reduce emissions.

Incentives to innovate would be a better approach in agriculture. Payments for best practices would work.

But the elephant in the room is nitrous oxide. One tonne of nitrous oxide is equivalent to 298 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

So look for programs, practices, and regulations to reduce nitrous oxide in the future.

You don't need tax, you need reductions. For a farm, or any business, those reductions will not come from tax. Obviously the current tax has done nothing, but everyone knew that all along including yourself. Reduction isn't the goal, more government income has been the goal all along.