Asian Sexy Babe
Toronto Escorts

Kenney and Ford’s Plan to Ignore Climate Change Would Cost 20 Billion a year

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,483
113
Jason Kenney and Doug Ford’s Plan to Ignore Climate Change Would Cost Canadians Over $20 Billion Per Year

Jason Kenney and Doug Ford have no plan to deal with climate change

October 5, 2018

Here’s Jason Kenney and Doug Ford’s climate change plan: do nothing.

Not only that, Kenney and Ford’s do-nothing approach to climate change would cost Canadians at least $20 billion every year – very fiscally responsible, right?

If you haven’t heard, the Premier of Ontario is joining Alberta’s opposition leader in a Calgary ballroom Friday night for their hyped-up “scrap the carbon tax” rally.

Except Kenney and Ford have made it clear their rally isn’t just about removing the price on carbon pollution – they want to launch a movement to rollback the clock on decades of work fighting climate change.

United Conservative Party of Alberta

“Alberta needs allies” for an “anti-carbon tax alliance,” Kenney’s UCP website says, describing Ford as an “an important ally in fighting the carbon tax.”

Ford recently announced he’s repealing Ontario’s cap-and-trade program, which he called the “absolute worst” for the economy. Kenney says he’d repeal Alberta’s carbon tax if he can win next year’s provincial election – he calls the levy, which is actually supported by Alberta’s oil industry, an “expensive piece of political theatre.”

Neither Kenney nor Ford offer any alternative ideas to addressing climate change – in fact, it’s unclear either of them even believe in climate science.

Kenney thinks carbon emissions are not a form of pollution while Ford has avoided sharing his thoughts on the issue throughout his political career.

Toronto Environmental Alliance

Although Ford and Kenney claim scrapping plans to curb climate change are a step towards “fiscal responsibility,” neither leader seems to realize that doing nothing can be much more expensive than doing something.

A 2017 Bank of Canada report found that climate change and extreme weather will cost the Canadian economy more than $20 billion per year by 2050 unless provinces reduce their carbon footprints.

Other studies show extreme weather is already costing Canada’s federal and provincial governments more than $2 billion per year as it stands.

Here are a few reasons why costs associated with climate change are so high:

Extreme weather is costing governments more for disaster relief

Since wildfires and flooding is becoming more common, provincial and federal governments are spending more on emergency relief. Last year alone, flooding in Ontario and Quebec cost provincial governments $225 million in damages while the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire cost Alberta over $9 billion.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, the annual liabilities of the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) managed by provincial and federal governments rose from $100-million annually 20 years ago to $2 billion in 2013–14.

Climate change is destroying crops and damaging the economy

This year saw hotter and drier summers than normal in western and eastern Canada while some regions in southern Alberta experienced 50 year lows in rainfall.

Drought researchers say summertime drought conditions for farmers across the prairies are becoming the “new normal.” A 2015 report commissioned by Bloomberg News found that hotter summers are drastically affecting the productivity of the agricultural sector. In the last 3 years, dryness is estimated to have reduced wheat and canola yields to 8 year lows.

In March 2012, a heatwave in Ontario caused fruit trees to blossom five weeks earlier than usual, resulting in the loss of 80% of apple blossoms. The lost stock cost Ontarian farmers more than $100 million.

Public infrastructure needs to be upgraded to withstand climate change

According to the Conference Board, many public infrastructure works – like roads, bridges, sewers, and drainage systems – will need to be reinforced or rebuilt to adapt to flooding and other extreme weather caused by climate change.

“Existing infrastructure will require reinforcement and new projects will need enhanced design and construction to increase their resilience to torrential rainfall, high winds and wild temperature swings.”

In light of all these growing expenses, what are these self-styled aficionados of “fiscal responsibility” saying about climate change?

Jason Kenney on climate change

• Kenney claimed putting a cost on carbon pollution is unnecessary because CO2 emissions are not pollution: “Co2 is not pollution. Life would cease to exist without it. Our forests breathe Co2,” Kenney said.

• Kenney was filmed telling a climate denier: “the climate’s been changing since the beginning of time.”

• Kenney has hired not one, but two different campaign managers who deny the existence of climate change – John Weissenberger claims climate change is caused by sunshine while Randy Kerr, who is now a UCP candidate, called climate change a “hoax” and a “media conspiracy.”

Doug Ford on climate change

• Ford has no plan to deal with climate change – his platform for the “environment” is costed at $125 million per year with most of the money going towards cleaning up litter and “hiring more conservation officers” at provincial parks.

• Ford calls carbon pricing, which is supported by conservative economists and leaders like Preston Manning and Stephen Harper, a “government cash grab.”

• After taking office, Ford fired his chief scientist who advised on climate change while leaked government e-mails suggested Ford’s office banned public servants from using the term “climate change” on social media.

Pretending problems don’t exist doesn’t sound very responsible, does it?

https://pressprogress.ca/jason-kenney-and-doug-fords-plan-to-ignore-climate-change-would-cost-over-20-billion-per-year/
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Jason Kenney and Doug Ford’s Plan to Ignore Climate Change Would Cost Canadians Over $20 Billion Per Year

Jason Kenney and Doug Ford have no plan to deal with climate change

October 5, 2018

Here’s Jason Kenney and Doug Ford’s climate change plan: do nothing.

Not only that, Kenney and Ford’s do-nothing approach to climate change would cost Canadians at least $20 billion every year – very fiscally responsible, right?

If you haven’t heard, the Premier of Ontario is joining Alberta’s opposition leader in a Calgary ballroom Friday night for their hyped-up “scrap the carbon tax” rally.

Except Kenney and Ford have made it clear their rally isn’t just about removing the price on carbon pollution – they want to launch a movement to rollback the clock on decades of work fighting climate change.

United Conservative Party of Alberta

“Alberta needs allies” for an “anti-carbon tax alliance,” Kenney’s UCP website says, describing Ford as an “an important ally in fighting the carbon tax.”

Ford recently announced he’s repealing Ontario’s cap-and-trade program, which he called the “absolute worst” for the economy. Kenney says he’d repeal Alberta’s carbon tax if he can win next year’s provincial election – he calls the levy, which is actually supported by Alberta’s oil industry, an “expensive piece of political theatre.”

Neither Kenney nor Ford offer any alternative ideas to addressing climate change – in fact, it’s unclear either of them even believe in climate science.

Kenney thinks carbon emissions are not a form of pollution while Ford has avoided sharing his thoughts on the issue throughout his political career.

Toronto Environmental Alliance

Although Ford and Kenney claim scrapping plans to curb climate change are a step towards “fiscal responsibility,” neither leader seems to realize that doing nothing can be much more expensive than doing something.

A 2017 Bank of Canada report found that climate change and extreme weather will cost the Canadian economy more than $20 billion per year by 2050 unless provinces reduce their carbon footprints.

Other studies show extreme weather is already costing Canada’s federal and provincial governments more than $2 billion per year as it stands.

Here are a few reasons why costs associated with climate change are so high:

Extreme weather is costing governments more for disaster relief

Since wildfires and flooding is becoming more common, provincial and federal governments are spending more on emergency relief. Last year alone, flooding in Ontario and Quebec cost provincial governments $225 million in damages while the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire cost Alberta over $9 billion.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, the annual liabilities of the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) managed by provincial and federal governments rose from $100-million annually 20 years ago to $2 billion in 2013–14.

Climate change is destroying crops and damaging the economy

This year saw hotter and drier summers than normal in western and eastern Canada while some regions in southern Alberta experienced 50 year lows in rainfall.

Drought researchers say summertime drought conditions for farmers across the prairies are becoming the “new normal.” A 2015 report commissioned by Bloomberg News found that hotter summers are drastically affecting the productivity of the agricultural sector. In the last 3 years, dryness is estimated to have reduced wheat and canola yields to 8 year lows.

In March 2012, a heatwave in Ontario caused fruit trees to blossom five weeks earlier than usual, resulting in the loss of 80% of apple blossoms. The lost stock cost Ontarian farmers more than $100 million.

Public infrastructure needs to be upgraded to withstand climate change

According to the Conference Board, many public infrastructure works – like roads, bridges, sewers, and drainage systems – will need to be reinforced or rebuilt to adapt to flooding and other extreme weather caused by climate change.

“Existing infrastructure will require reinforcement and new projects will need enhanced design and construction to increase their resilience to torrential rainfall, high winds and wild temperature swings.”

In light of all these growing expenses, what are these self-styled aficionados of “fiscal responsibility” saying about climate change?

Jason Kenney on climate change

• Kenney claimed putting a cost on carbon pollution is unnecessary because CO2 emissions are not pollution: “Co2 is not pollution. Life would cease to exist without it. Our forests breathe Co2,” Kenney said.

• Kenney was filmed telling a climate denier: “the climate’s been changing since the beginning of time.”

• Kenney has hired not one, but two different campaign managers who deny the existence of climate change – John Weissenberger claims climate change is caused by sunshine while Randy Kerr, who is now a UCP candidate, called climate change a “hoax” and a “media conspiracy.”

Doug Ford on climate change

• Ford has no plan to deal with climate change – his platform for the “environment” is costed at $125 million per year with most of the money going towards cleaning up litter and “hiring more conservation officers” at provincial parks.

• Ford calls carbon pricing, which is supported by conservative economists and leaders like Preston Manning and Stephen Harper, a “government cash grab.”

• After taking office, Ford fired his chief scientist who advised on climate change while leaked government e-mails suggested Ford’s office banned public servants from using the term “climate change” on social media.

Pretending problems don’t exist doesn’t sound very responsible, does it?

https://pressprogress.ca/jason-kenney-and-doug-fords-plan-to-ignore-climate-change-would-cost-over-20-billion-per-year/
Noting that Jason Kenney once championed a carbon tax, to reduce pollution.
 

Ref

Committee Member
Oct 29, 2002
5,073
1,008
113
web.archive.org
Why doesn't Justin just raise taxes on all Canadians and then spend that tax money on reducing pollution?

Why bother having the provinces set up numerous departments and waste more of those pollution funds on administration and the inevitable government bloat that goes with these types of things?
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
Why doesn't Justin just raise taxes on all Canadians and then spend that tax money on reducing pollution?

Why bother having the provinces set up numerous departments and waste more of those pollution funds on administration and the inevitable government bloat that goes with these types of things?
Because it's not about the environment, it's about another level of taxation to feed the ever expanding bureaucracy.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,301
2,241
113
Jason Kenney and Doug Ford’s Plan to Ignore Climate Change Would Cost Canadians Over $20 Billion Per Year



https://pressprogress.ca/jason-kenney-and-doug-fords-plan-to-ignore-climate-change-would-cost-over-20-billion-per-year/
# 1. Pressprogress is a left wing NDP / union propaganda machine
PressProgress is a media project launched by the Broadbent Institute in 2013.
#2. The $50 B annually is an estimate for 2050 & assumes
a) Temperatures continue to rise
b) The change in climate is man made. The earths climate has been continuously evolving for 4.5 B years
c) we are able to control climate change. For this to be true item b) has to be true & it is can not be too late
d) Everyone including Russia, China US & India, Brazil reduces their emissions

Canada could tax emissions , make our self uncompetitive and the bill would still be $50 B if others do not comply
That is if you believe the theory that items a) b) & c) are correct beyond question
It is a theory based upon a couple hundred years of recorded data, and a lot of extrapolation

Get the big boys on board or it is a very damaging & uncompetitive tax, which will not meet its environmental objectives & we will still get a $50 B bill every year in 2050
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,149
2,601
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com

Orion1027

Member
Jan 10, 2017
482
3
18
We pay enough carbon taxes at the pump everytime we fill up!!, reallocate that money and fight climate change with that. I know someone will say that money pays for schools and hospitals, it does now, after some dipshit premier redirected the gas tax from road building & repair to general revenue when he was short on cash. Why not re direct it once again to climate change?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,473
17,805
113
We pay enough carbon taxes at the pump everytime we fill up!!, reallocate that money and fight climate change with that. I know someone will say that money pays for schools and hospitals, it does now, after some dipshit premier redirected the gas tax from road building & repair to general revenue when he was short on cash. Why not re direct it once again to climate change?
The carbon tax will be revenue neutral, with matching subsidies to offset the taxes.
You get taxed at the pump but then can get subsidies to lower carbon output and expenses elsewhere.
 

Orion1027

Member
Jan 10, 2017
482
3
18
The carbon tax will be revenue neutral, with matching subsidies to offset the taxes.
You get taxed at the pump but then can get subsidies to lower carbon output and expenses elsewhere.
How is a tax revenue neutral? A tax by its nature and intent is anything but neutral. If politicians were serious about climate change they’d incentivize it to encourage carbon abatement. Because they have no clear solutions, the only thing they think of is a tax. A tax that takes money, after tax money out of your pocket........nothing neutral about that. Come to think of it, cap and trade wasn’t neutral, I saw my taxes go up and no dividend cheque in the mail from Granny Wynne and wind bag Sousa. If they could replicate what was done with the blue bin and waste diversion, they’d have a winner, but they don’t .
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,473
17,805
113
How is a tax revenue neutral? A tax by its nature and intent is anything but neutral.
Not at all, you offer subsidies to the same amount that you raise.

But start with how much is extreme weather costing us and how much more its likely to cost us in the future.
Its doing nothing that will be more expensive long term.
 

Orion1027

Member
Jan 10, 2017
482
3
18
Not at all, you offer subsidies to the same amount that you raise.

But start with how much is extreme weather costing us and how much more its likely to cost us in the future.
Its doing nothing that will be more expensive long term.
I agree with doing something, but disagree with ineffective taxes that accomplish nothing.
 

Orion1027

Member
Jan 10, 2017
482
3
18
What do you think should be done?
How about tax incentives for cutting emissions instead of being hit with taxes at every turn, reward people for lessening their carbon output. Remember, you still to heat your home and get your ass to work, be it by car, bus or train. Then again, all this is for not if the world’s top producers aren’t doing anything meaningful. Canada produced 1.67% of global output of GHG, and our forests absorbed all that and then some. Trudeau simply has a need to tax the people of Canada so that he can go on virtue signaling tour of the world waving his finger at other countries, he’s so disingenuous it’s nauseating.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,473
17,805
113
How about tax incentives for cutting emissions instead of being hit with taxes at every turn, reward people for lessening their carbon output. Remember, you still to heat your home and get your ass to work, be it by car, bus or train. Then again, all this is for not if the world’s top producers aren’t doing anything meaningful. Canada produced 1.67% of global output of GHG, and our forests absorbed all that and then some. Trudeau simply has a need to tax the people of Canada so that he can go on virtue signaling tour of the world waving his finger at other countries, he’s so disingenuous it’s nauseating.
That 1.6% of CO2 output puts us as the 9th biggest polluter in the world.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271748/the-largest-emitters-of-co2-in-the-world/

Tax incentives for cutting emissions sounds just like a carbon tax. You make it more expensive to use fossil fuels but then offer subsidies so people can insulate, add solar panels/wind turbines and to fund public transit.
What you described is a carbon tax.

The Nobel for economics were just awarded to a study that proves that a carbon tax is the best way forward.
https://twitter.com/NobelPrize/stat...ca/news/world/nobel-prize-economics-1.4854371
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
That 1.6% of CO2 output puts us as the 9th biggest polluter in the world.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271748/the-largest-emitters-of-co2-in-the-world/

Tax incentives for cutting emissions sounds just like a carbon tax. You make it more expensive to use fossil fuels but then offer subsidies so people can insulate, add solar panels/wind turbines and to fund public transit.
What you described is a carbon tax.

The Nobel for economics were just awarded to a study that proves that a carbon tax is the best way forward.
https://twitter.com/NobelPrize/stat...ca/news/world/nobel-prize-economics-1.4854371
US doesn’t have a carbon tax, how are we doing it?

https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/AEI-Chart-with-2017-CO2-Emissions.png
 

Orion1027

Member
Jan 10, 2017
482
3
18
That 1.6% of CO2 output puts us as the 9th biggest polluter in the world.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271748/the-largest-emitters-of-co2-in-the-world/

Tax incentives for cutting emissions sounds just like a carbon tax. You make it more expensive to use fossil fuels but then offer subsidies so people can insulate, add solar panels/wind turbines and to fund public transit.
What you described is a carbon tax.

The Nobel for economics were just awarded to a study that proves that a carbon tax is the best way forward.
https://twitter.com/NobelPrize/stat...ca/news/world/nobel-prize-economics-1.4854371
Wrong once again! A tax reduction is not a carbon tax!
1. Start by telling industrial polluters “as you emissions come down, so does your overall tax burden therefore increasing retained earnings. Make it profitable to clean up.
2. Allow them to a shorter window write off & depreciate their capital expenditures on said equipment, engineering and the like.
By further increasing taxes accomplishes one of two things, avoidance or passing the cost on to end users.

I’ll give you a prime example, the electric car. This will not take off until someone devises a way to instantaneously charge the battery the way you fill your car with gas. I doubt if anyone has gone to GM, Ford or Honda and said, come up with something like this and we’ll make it worth your while by letting keep more of the money you earn and on top of that you can write off all of your costs associated with this over 12 months instead of 60?
 
Toronto Escorts