Search results

You want to include the emissions from mining for batteries (lithium is generally removed from salt brine by the way), but the gas emissions from the cars don’t account for the emissions produced pulling oil out of the ground. Find another straw to grasp at.

Here you go, up to date and even compares the Kona EV with the Kona gas. Gas was $2 a litre at the time. https://cleanenergycanada.org/report/the-true-cost/

The battery replacement myth is nonsense, it’s hyped up BS. They’re not wearing out. Nissan Leaf is perhaps an exception because there’s no thermal management but even those batteries are lasting for the useful life of a normal car. Total cost of ownership of a Tesla Model 3 is comparable to a...

They give it ahead of time actually, or at least Manitoba did, Ontario pays quarterly but we got the first and second quarter at the end of the 1st, I think that was a setup issue.

Just guessing, but I would think that the costs involved with pulling it out of the ground (eg running the equipment and transporting it to Port) get allocated here while the costs of burning it would get allocated to China.

I didn’t realize some of them are income based, surprisingly, the first one on the list, BC, is income base AND the LEAST controversial. I think it also existed long before the federal version. https://www.canadadrives.ca/blog/news/carbon-taxes-and-carbon-tax-rebates-in-canada-explained

You can do that, you just need to pay for it

And in Manitoba and Ontario (I haven’t lived in the other provinces) your larger carbon tax rebate accounts for that.

But there are costs to society that aren’t being paid by the individuals making these choices (externalities), this is just the monitization of these costs. You may disagree, and that’s your choice.

I think the idea is to gradually increase the cost so that people can make decisions on whether to buy a more efficient vehicle as it’s due for normal replacement. The amount of people in this country who drive a giant pickup to their jobs downtown and never take them off the pavement is mind...

That’s what the government at the time declared. The new paint scheme also had to be “cost neutral” until it wasn’t.

It sound logical but I disagree. Companies DO invest to reduce their emissions because their emissions cost money. You’re suggesting that if there wasn’t a carbon tax then companies, out of the goodness of their hearts, would just invest their ‘spare capital’ into greener technologies just to...

From the same source: In 2019, Canada was the highest GHG emitting country per capita among the top 10 emitting countries with 19.6 t CO2 eq

There’s so much logic here that my little brain doesn’t know where to begin. Have you considered that perhaps you’ve been manipulated into believing this by people with ulterior motives?

They didn’t buy the high speed ramp so they’re the only c130js that have a limit of 150 knots with the ramp open. They were one of the first foreign customers so they’re aged. The Brit’s at least put new centre engine boxes in their planes that they’re getting rid of.

“It’s at least as good as what you have now” “open and fair process” “IRB”

You’re never going to get re-elected if you’re talking that kind of nonsense.

In fact, I’m not entirely convinced that they care whether the sand bags actually get filled as long as they can tweet that they ‘called in the army.’

I think they’ll be happy so long as someone shows up to fill sandbags every couple months.

The strategy is to hope that a recession brings people back. The problem is that this recession will be different because there isn’t a lack of available jobs.