• 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.

An Open Letter from Economists on Canadian Carbon Pricing

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

    Sure some dumb guy!

    You are now blaming all diseases and deaths on the vax now? Well that's an understatement! LOL Good grief!

    I guess every provincial premier including Moe, Ford and Kenney were in on the conspiracy too?

    Comment


      Excess death numbers still way up , funny how that started in 2021 ? working as planned , keep taking your jabs anyhow CC , you are the carbon they want gone

      Comment


        No wonder you appear to be one of the dumbest posters on this site Crop. And that is no small feat knowing the competition you have!

        You read crap news papers and think its fact!

        If vaccinations were designed to kill us, the 85% of Canadians that were vaccinated should be dead by now don't you think?

        Is that you behind the paper? You are looking a liitle crazy!
        Last edited by chuckChuck; Apr 6, 2024, 08:19.

        Comment


          Does anyone actually believe that when the CO2 tax reaches $170 per tone, that will be the end?
          In australia, they are now saying it needs to go over $400 per ton.
          That would triple the cost of a barrel of oil. But I'm sure the troll will be alone shortly to reassure us that will only cause 0.6 of a percent of inflation.

          Exclusive: Australian Energy Markets Commission set interim value for cutting emissions that should reach $420/t CO-e by 2050



          Comment


            A5 I see you are standing up for one of your like minded Agrisilly friends Crop, by saying nothing about his absurd laughable claim that covid vaccines were designed to kill people!

            So what is Crypto going do to reduce emissions that is a lower cost option?

            Hidden taxes, regulations and more expensive technology like nuclear? Naw

            Scott Moe looked at the options and couldn't find a lower cost option than the tax which is rebated to 80% of consumers. He has his own large emitter carbon tax.

            But You are happy to have taxpayers subsidize the fossil fuel industry to the tune of over $5 billion per year in Canada for how long? And that apparently that doesn't cost consumers anything?

            Not to mention the excess profits that transfer wealth from consumers to the petro elite who control supply and prices on a world scale?

            Quite the impressive feat for a pretend libertarian and fiscal conservative to support the oil cartel and taxpayer subsidies that help make them richer!





            Comment


              I can think of a lower cost option than the CO2 tax.
              No CO2 tax.

              Comment


                How about cutting the $5 billion in subsidies to the Canadian oil and gas industry. That would be a lower cost option too!

                Comment


                  Can you identify the $5 billion you want to cut?

                  For example if I called for cutting the subsidies on EV's to people with over $200K family income?

                  Where do you want to start?

                  $5 Billion is a lot to pick from.

                  Comment


                    I asked what metric will be used to assess the effectiveness of the CO2 tax, and didn't receive an answer.

                    As it turns out, that is because there is no answer, according to the Liberals themselves:

                    Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia just said ([url]https://twitter.com/mbdan7/status/1777864744038273070?s=12&t=f0F6goPGHDHmyf8suthwLA[/url]) as much in a Parliamentary committee. “My understanding — and maybe I’m wrong — is that there is no data specifically that the price on carbon resulted in an ‘x’ amount of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and I don’t even think that’s possible quite frankly.

                    It is reassuring to know that it is entirely based on empirical evidence based science, that the outcomes are clearly defined, and that we will know when we have achieved the goals.​

                    Comment


                      The carbon tax is not as effective as the large emitters carbon tax system. But together they are effective in reducing emissions. They allow individuals and companies to decide how best to reduce emissions with market based decisions.

                      PP says he will use technology to reduce emissions which is what the carbon tax does. It encourages the use of carbon emission reduction or cleaner technology.

                      But letting PP decide which technology is a winner or loser is a mistake because he doesn't know what's best in every situation. Plus he doesn't really want to do anything so his solutions will be weak at best.

                      And he is lying when he says cutting the carbon tax will solve affordability because it is only a very small part of inflation at 6/10ths of one percent.

                      Comment

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