I’m sure air quality in Australia is just fine. In 2012 the government introduced a carbon tax and the public revolted, in 2014 a new government was elected and kept their promise and scrapped the carbon tax.
dougy want to fight the feds on carbon tax lol
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
Tell that to the people who live in Fort Mac.
Tell that to the insurance industry.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/fort-mac-climate-insurance-1.3576918
Oh, might as well tell that to farmers.
https://www.livescience.com/53400-crop-failure-draining-food-supplies-as-planet-warms.html
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...-adjust-to-a-changingclimate/article36220413/
Forests and other vegetation have had the ability to cope with average amounts of carbon dioxide emitted. But with several forests that have been decimated, the carbon dioxide has built up in the atmosphere. Coupled with other green house gases like methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases, this has impacted the health of humans and other living beings in general besides climate change. Remember that ozone levels increase in the presence of high levels of carbon dioxide, especially in more moist urban areas. Ozone can even corrode rubber and plastics.
Obviously, the right wingers especially people like that moron called Trump do not give a damn about human health, and always use the conspiracy theory logic on carbon taxes as a money grab opportunity. Numerous studies have been done to show the impact of human health with respect to a rise in greenhouse gases. Go to countries like Thailand, India and China and see how you at times can barely breathe the air. They are also trying to reduce their green house emissions and have a long way to go.
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/co-010908.html
From your same article
Expect your 60% to decline rapidly when people actual figure out:
a) what it is truly costing them
b) how noncompetitive Canada will be vs the US
58% of Canadians do.
But go ahead, why don't you find a Fort Mac poll and back up something you say for once.
Wrong again Frankie. Wow you're really on a role recently. Your 58% was in Dec 2016. By July 2017 that support waned to 44%. I bet if you asked today it would be under 40%.
Wrong for once, I'll admit the poll I found is older.
But I did find this one, which also shows that most Canadians don't even know they are already paying a carbon tax.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poll-abacus-carbon-tax-1.4603824
I haven’t read anyone claiming climate change isn’t real, what I have read is that out governments are being disingenuous about how they’ll use this money to fight climate change? Will they go out and purchase all vehicles 10 years or older, pay industry to leave Canada? I what’s the plan, or is there one? Enough of the thermostat programs or offering rebates on new windows.....somehow there seems to be a huge disconnect between Canadians heating our homes with natural gas and the opening of 1 new coal fired power station almost every week in China.
That should be his Terb Name
"Wrong Again Frankie"
He has a huge problem believing his own propaganda
It costs $13 a month per household. You really gonna get all up in arms about that? I would pay much more then that rather then have a nut bar like dougy in power
It's difficult to imagine Trudeau sticking to his guns when it comes to a carbon-pricing policy that creates hardships for people and no benefit at all to people or the planet.
I'm expecting this to join the list of policy reversals by Trudeau. The first signal might be some sort of appointment for principal secretary Gerald Butts, who's been driving this lunacy.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...deaus-going-to-have-to-cut-gerald-butts-loose
I'm expecting this to join the list of policy reversals by Trudeau. The first signal might be some sort of appointment for principal secretary Gerald Butts, who's been driving this lunacy.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...deaus-going-to-have-to-cut-gerald-butts-loose
I believe he stated that the cost to our economy is $13 a month.
I can use a larger font if that would help you understand it.
Or I can draw you a picture showing how many twinkies that would be a month, if that would make it easier.
You have not heard anyone claiming climate change is not real?? You probably have not been reading any posts relating to Climate Change. All the right wingers on this board apart from you, have claimed that climate change is "fake".
Well read the actual facts about the type of new coal power plants that are being built in China:
https://www.americanprogress.org/is...32141/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/
Goes to show that they are trying to produce cleaner and more efficient coal power plants. They are also shutting down the older and dirtier ones.
The net effect will not be positive job creation.
Our businesses have to be competitive vs. the US
Try goggling "Flight of capital from Canada"
Again you are to much a simpleton to understand
He said " It costs $13 a month per household."
the opportunity cost of business investment moving south of the boarder is many magnitudes higher than what the governments will collect from the tax
Don't be so sure a carbon tax will survive the Supreme Court
By Mitch Wolfe
Back in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada nixed a proposed project by former prime minister Stephen Harper. The Conservatives wanted to create a single national securities regulator, but the Supreme Court preferred the provinces’ own securities regulators over Harper’s federal one. Their reasoning? Because Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the provinces the exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights within their provinces, i.e. the regulation of the activities of their provincial companies and businesses.
There’s a lesson in this for the Liberal government and their bid to save the national carbon tax. During a recent CTV Question Period appearance, Liberal Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna bluntly stated that if Saskatchewan’s Premier Scott Moe, Ontario’s Doug Ford and Alberta’s Jason Kenney pursued legal action against the Liberals’ proposed national carbon tax legislation they’d lose in court.
McKenna provided no constitutional basis for this claim. It could end up being the case that Supreme Court of Canada will ultimately decide that the Liberals’ proposed carbon taxation legislation is unconstitutional for the same reason it nixed Harper’s securities regulator ― because it is an infringement on the provinces’ exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights within their own provinces.
Section 91 of the Constitution Act sets out the subject matters over which the federal government has jurisdiction. There is no specific reference to the federal government having exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of the entire Canadian environment.
Then, under Section 92, with respect to environmental issues, the provincial governments have jurisdiction over: Property and civil rights in the province, which gives the power to the provinces to regulate most companies, businesses, commercial activities and industrial activities within the provinces. It follows that such power includes regulating the emissions from such activities.
Likewise, when it comes to management of provincial Crown lands the power is given to the provinces to regulate mining and lumber activities and accordingly the emissions from such mining and lumber activities. The provinces are also responsible for all matters of a local or private nature within that province.
In determining whether the Liberals’ proposed carbon tax legislation is constitutional, the Supreme Court will look at the pith and substance of the legislation, in other words the actual purpose and effects of this legislation.
The Trudeau government will likely argue that its proposed legislation is constitutional because the federal government alone has the federal jurisdiction to regulate the entire Canadian environment, not the provinces.
They’ll also likely argue that in fulfilling its purpose to regulate the environment, it has the power to regulate all commercial and industrial activities in Canada, which includes imposing a carbon tax regime on such activities. By imposing this carbon tax regime, the effect of this policy will be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, moderate climate change and hence improve the entire Canadian environment.
The problem with this argument is that the provinces, according to Section 92 of the Constitution, have the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the activities of the companies and businesses in their provinces.
Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan may be able to successfully argue that the actual effects of the Liberals’ proposed carbon tax legislation is the imposition of carbon taxes which will have no effect on positively affecting climate change and regulating the environment. Such carbon taxes, on the other hand, will make these provincial businesses non-competitive, unnecessarily increase their costs, and force them out of business with the resulting loss of jobs and investment.
McKenna shouldn’t act so certain that a legal showdown with Moe, Ford and Kenney will end in her government’s favour.
Mitch Wolfe, a graduate of University of Toronto Law School, is a commentator and analyst and author of Trump: How He Captured The Trump White House.
