Discussions

Just wondering what folks think about the implementation of the Provincial carbon tax. Will this decrease the number of miles you will put on your vehicle, cause you to ride a bike, but an electric car? As one who lives in the rural I have to drive everywhere, being older I cannot physically ride a bike. Maybe have to convince Council to install the rails so I can drive the horse and cart to town.  
My belief is that this is just another tax grab that will solve nothing. Oh yes they will roll back the PST, but was that not an election promise anyway?

Yup.  
This carbon tax will not affect my choice on how often I use my vehicle. Sorry, not sorry.

Title says it all

Agreed, its nothing but a tax grab. Total BS on this liberal governments part, and I don't know how they can sleep at night when they thought up this, then implemented it. Shameful, and a perfect example of why no one ever should vote for these clowns ever again.

Get ready to pay more for everything not only gas. This tax grab is going to effect transport costs for food and other goods. And the most disgusting thing is the government isn't even telling us what the extra money is going to be used for.

It would be nice if the PCs would make an election promise to ditch the carbon tax if elected. But you know once its implemented it will never leave. Could they give up that free money

It's not intended to stop any of the emissions...I'm all for reducing emissions, but be honest about it. Mandate a reduction in emissions.  
 
They argue that the taxation will increase the cost and thus reduce consumption but that's not the case...the biggest polluters just tag the extra expense onto their price and make the end user pay for it. It's like fuel surcharges when the price of gas/diesel increases, Canada post doesn't stop delivering or change the amount they drive they just add 15% surcharge to your shipping to cover the extra expense.  
 
You want to tax, if you need to tax then just tax...but stop treating us like we're stupid.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-carbon-tax-legislation-plan-1.4577847

Businesses and individuals should be able to get the money back, provided that they spend it on items that reduce green house gases. It could be new windows, better furnace, insulation, etc.

Like all tax discussions, we all knew how this was going to go. Of course, yet another tax for a populace that is already taxed out the wazoo.  
 
Some food for thought, though. When it comes to a carbon tax, the bill is arguably LONG overdue. And it will be even if it's not being accounted for financially.  
 
Yes, I am talking climatic impacts and the long term. Many within older generations have the luxery of writing these thoughts off, but us young ones know better.  
 
So I guess the question is pay now, and look for alternatives to lesson the punch. Or again, kick the can down the road. Leave it to the kids and grand kids.

Simonwalcal said "Like all tax discussions, we all knew how this was going to go. Of course, yet another tax for a populace that is already taxed out the wazoo.     Some food for thought, though. When it comes to a carbon tax, the bill is arguably LONG overdue. And it will be even if it's not being accounted for financially.     Yes, I am talking climatic impacts and the long term. Many within older generations have the luxery of writing these thoughts off, but us young ones know better.     So I guess the question is pay now, and look for alternatives to lesson the punch. Or again, kick the can down the road. Leave it to the kids and grand kids. "

There are 9 other countries that contribute 74.26% of CO2 emissions vs Canada at 1.54%. Even if we were to eliminate every greenhouse emission we still wouldn't see a dent in the overall global view. This is just another tax grab plain and simple. What they should be doing is revenues from oil profits should be going back into green initiatives instead of taxing us further.

Fishin Guy said "    Simonwalcal said "Like all tax discussions, we all knew how this was going to go. Of course, yet another tax for a populace that is already taxed out the wazoo.     Some food for thought, though. When it comes to a carbon tax, the bill is arguably LONG overdue. And it will be even if it's not being accounted for financially.     Yes, I am talking climatic impacts and the long term. Many within older generations have the luxery of writing these thoughts off, but us young ones know better.     So I guess the question is pay now, and look for alternatives to lesson the punch. Or again, kick the can down the road. Leave it to the kids and grand kids. " There are 9 other countries that contribute 74.26% of CO2 emissions vs Canada at 1.54%. Even if we were to eliminate every greenhouse emission we still wouldn't see a dent in the overall global view. This is just another tax grab plain and simple. What they should be doing is revenues from oil profits should be going back into green initiatives instead of taxing us further. "

How about a tax on the profits of all fossil fuels exported from this country?

Your argument gets tossed around a lot by people who display no understanding of arithmetic.  
 
Canada contributes a small amount of carbon pollution, you are correct. But, Canada has a very small population - how could we possibly contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than China, which has something like 1/6 the population of the world? But Canadians, on average, contribute more to global carbon pollution, per capita, than people in most other countries in the world. That''s why we need to cut back even though our national contribution is small compared to countries with larger populations.  
 
We get it. You don''t want to change anything in your life, especially when it''s liberals asking you to. The fact that pencilneck scientists at the university have been saying we need to reduce emissions since the 1990s just makes it worse, right?  
 
It''s just sad that by the time climate change becomes an issue whose impacts we actually have to pay attention to, like it already is for the people who live in the Arctic, it''ll be way too late to do anything about it.  
 
Edited by acidbasement, 2018-03-16 13:29:10

This tax will go to ill thought out green Projects. Maybe good projects like energy savings windows projects. Valid ones but should be paid and or done by the owners.  
 
Since J.T has forced it on us there is one option I like. While some programs will be forced on us by the Feds not all the coin will dedicated to safe trees. Do a green Version Of Manitoba Heritage fund. Two things though. The Province can not touch it(funds) for awhile and every x years it goes directly on the Debt. (now 25 plus billion)  
Eventually we will have little to no debt and more real "green" money to use. It cost this province near a billion dollars to service the debt this year. Yet we are being forced by the FEDS to collect more coin and spend it not save it.

I wonder if the Liberals have studied whether or not there is any kind of measurable carbon footprint related to burning cannabis?

This tax will go to ill thought out green Projects. Maybe good projects like energy savings windows projects. Valid ones but should be paid and or done by the owners.  
 
Since J.T has forced it on us there is one option I like. While some programs will be forced on us by the Feds not all the coin will dedicated to safe trees. Do a green Version Of Manitoba Heritage fund. Two things though. The Province can not touch it(funds) for awhile and every x years it goes directly on the Debt. (now 25 plus billion)  
Eventually we will have little to no debt and more real "green" money to use. It cost this province near a billion dollars to service the debt this year. Yet we are being forced by the FEDS to collect more coin and spend it not save it.

acidbasement said "Your argument gets tossed around a lot by people who display no understanding of arithmetic.     Canada contributes a small amount of carbon pollution, you are correct. But, Canada has a very small population - how could we possibly contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than China, which has something like 1/6 the population of the world? But Canadians, on average, contribute more to global carbon pollution, per capita, than people in most other countries in the world. That''s why we need to cut back even though our national contribution is small compared to countries with larger populations.     We get it. You don''t want to change anything in your life, especially when it''s liberals asking you to. The fact that pencilneck scientists at the university have been saying we need to reduce emissions since the 1990s just makes it worse, right?     It''s just sad that by the time climate change becomes an issue whose impacts we actually have to pay attention to, like it already is for the people who live in the Arctic, it''ll be way too late to do anything about it.     Edited by acidbasement, 2018-03-16 13:29:10"

Some simple Google searches and these numbers pop up. Average Canadian carbon footprint 4.4 tonnes. China averages 7.2 tonnes. USA averages 16.5 tones. So I still hold my argument that our footprint is a baby step size compared to the larger polluting countries and our minimalistic reduction in emissions will not have an effect on the world scale. Hey I am all about changing lifestyles. Why don't we live like these other countries and condense our population into row housing and high rise developments. Why spread our population over acres of land when we can just go up instead.

Fishin Guy said "    acidbasement said "Your argument gets tossed around a lot by people who display no understanding of arithmetic.     Canada contributes a small amount of carbon pollution, you are correct. But, Canada has a very small population - how could we possibly contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than China, which has something like 1/6 the population of the world? But Canadians, on average, contribute more to global carbon pollution, per capita, than people in most other countries in the world. That''s why we need to cut back even though our national contribution is small compared to countries with larger populations.     We get it. You don''t want to change anything in your life, especially when it''s liberals asking you to. The fact that pencilneck scientists at the university have been saying we need to reduce emissions since the 1990s just makes it worse, right?     It''s just sad that by the time climate change becomes an issue whose impacts we actually have to pay attention to, like it already is for the people who live in the Arctic, it''ll be way too late to do anything about it.     Edited by acidbasement, 2018-03-16 13:29:10" Some simple Google searches and these numbers pop up. Average Canadian carbon footprint 4.4 tonnes. China averages 7.2 tonnes. USA averages 16.5 tones. So I still hold my argument that our footprint is a baby step size compared to the larger polluting countries and our minimalistic reduction in emissions will not have an effect on the world scale. Hey I am all about changing lifestyles. Why don't we live like these other countries and condense our population into row housing and high rise developments. Why spread our population over acres of land when we can just go up instead. "

Here's mine, showing that Canada has among the highest per capita emissions in the world, above the USA and way above China. https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WqwwOr1yY0M  
 
Row housing and high rises are preferable to the scenarios associated with runway climate change.  
 
I'm curious if you have read anything about how climate change is going to affect us. A carbon tax at this point is blowing against a windstorm, and I find it really odd that people are so wrapped up in how they don't want to blow, and don't care that their kids are going to be blown away.

acidbasement said "    Fishin Guy said "    acidbasement said "Your argument gets tossed around a lot by people who display no understanding of arithmetic.     Canada contributes a small amount of carbon pollution, you are correct. But, Canada has a very small population - how could we possibly contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than China, which has something like 1/6 the population of the world? But Canadians, on average, contribute more to global carbon pollution, per capita, than people in most other countries in the world. That''s why we need to cut back even though our national contribution is small compared to countries with larger populations.     We get it. You don''t want to change anything in your life, especially when it''s liberals asking you to. The fact that pencilneck scientists at the university have been saying we need to reduce emissions since the 1990s just makes it worse, right?     It''s just sad that by the time climate change becomes an issue whose impacts we actually have to pay attention to, like it already is for the people who live in the Arctic, it''ll be way too late to do anything about it.     Edited by acidbasement, 2018-03-16 13:29:10" Some simple Google searches and these numbers pop up. Average Canadian carbon footprint 4.4 tonnes. China averages 7.2 tonnes. USA averages 16.5 tones. So I still hold my argument that our footprint is a baby step size compared to the larger polluting countries and our minimalistic reduction in emissions will not have an effect on the world scale. Hey I am all about changing lifestyles. Why don't we live like these other countries and condense our population into row housing and high rise developments. Why spread our population over acres of land when we can just go up instead. " Here's mine, showing that Canada has among the highest per capita emissions in the world, above the USA and way above China. https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WqwwOr1yY0M     Row housing and high rises are preferable to the scenarios associated with runway climate change.     I'm curious if you have read anything about how climate change is going to affect us. A carbon tax at this point is blowing against a windstorm, and I find it really odd that people are so wrapped up in how they don't want to blow, and don't care that their kids are going to be blown away. "

I misread the Canadian one. The link grouped global average of 4.4 per person then later listed Canada at 17 tonnes. Here is my question then. Canada produces less than 2% of global carbon. With other countries on the rise, even if we halved our footprint to 1% of the world what impact will it have on the world? If Canada truly wanted to reduce emissions we would be busting open every single bag of garbage and recycling every piece of paper, tin can, glass jar, etc tossed out. We wouldn't be baling our cardboard and shipping it away. We would have processing plants all over the place.  
 
People wanting to spew electric vehicles and such it is interesting reading about the footprint they leave.  
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/  
 
I mean sure, let's go back to no cell phones, planting our own food, horse and buggy, etc.  
 
I am not against reducing our footprint but charging us another tax won't do anything. People will continue to pay it, our footprint will not go down, nothing will change. Oh wait we might put up another windmill farm or two somewhere.

That page is interesting. You'll notice that per captia, Canada emits roughly the same amount of carbon as the US & Australia, which makes sense as they are culturally and economically similar to us. They are also all oil-producing countries (you'll notice Saudi Arabia is the #1 per capita producer on this list).  
 
But the China number is tricky. It's higher than developed countries like the UK, France and Italy (none of which have the climate extremes of Canada, the US, Australia, or China for that matter). But I'm wondering how much China's per capita numbers are influenced by a couple of factors:  
 
1. Poverty. Much of China still lives in poverty, despite huge gains made there in recent decades. About half the working population still lives in rural areas, and 90% of their population still live on less than $3.10/day (https://geopoliticalfutures.com/china-is-still-really-poor/). Poor countries tend to have less per capita emissions by virtue of the fact that not everyone has access to emission-producing infrastructure - they don't have all cars, for example, or may not be hooked into the power grid. By contrast, Canada's population is only about 15-18% rural, and the US is roughly 20%.  
 
2. There's no explanation as to how this was calculated. How are emissions allocated? Is the emission from producing a product that is exported to Canada, for example, allocated to China or to Canada? How are oil sands emissions allocated? Again, are they allocaetd domestically or overseas?  
 
3. While the absolute value of carbon emissions the most important metric, the source of those emissions also are a factor. China burns primarily coal, it accounts for something like 70% of it's emissions. That's a huge problem.  
 
Just so we're clear, I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with the carbon tax. I would be interested to see why countries like the UK, Germany, and France as so low, and if they would be so low if you accounted for differences in climate AND the fact that they are not oil-producing countries. If you removed that factor from countries like Canada, the US and Australia, would our numbers be closer? I don't know, but it would be interesting to find out.

This carbon tax is a tax. It will only reduce driving when the cost of living gets so high that we literally don't have enough cash to buy gas. I remember people saying they were going to quit smoking when cigarettes reached 75 cents a pack. People adjusted but smoking wasn't affected much.  
 
I have lived enough to remember extremes in weather fifty years ago. I am not overly convinced that carbon fuels are the threat some are purporting.  
 
I am more concerned that consumerism is destroying the world through poorly manufactured products which are overflowing our landfills. We waste. We spend more on pets than many in other parts of the world spend on themselves.  
 
We need to re evaluate our priorities

From the article in the link fishinguy provided:  
 
The Union of Concerned Scientists agrees: it found that even when you add in emissions from battery manufacturing, EVs generate half the emissions of a conventional car over the course of its life.

A better question to ponder, why are we taxing ourselves, in the glorious name of preventing climate change, when climate change happens naturally and has happened since the world came to be? Want to argue that humans are perhaps speeding things up? My answer, so what? We can adapt or we can live in the Stone Age again and see which we prefer.

I really can’t believe that our minor contribution will ever make a debt especially when we but all this cheap shit from China and India get your ass out of your head and wake up