• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
433
Points
810
One of the easiest ways to show that you have an environmental plan is to reduce emissions and meet or exceed the Paris climate targets.

Nothing you wrote would reduce emissions, in fact by removing the carbon tax I think you would see an increase.

Once other parties started to point that out any CPC climate plan along those lines would be dead in the water.
Actually what I propose would be the only true way to reduce global emissions. Right now we are playing a shell game, reducing 'emissions' in Canada, well increasing what we are importing from other countries with next to no emission controls so it doesn't count towards our numbers. Not to mention the added environmental costs from shipping across the ocean both ways (as it is mostly made with our natural resources).

Unfortunately for the world, emissions is a global problem not a regional one. By pretending that we are reducing our emissions by closing down Canadian industry well buying lower quality products with higher environmental costs from other countries isn't a real solution it is intensifying it instead.

The solution, make more in Canada or only buy from countries with similar environmental standards. Don't buy products that couldn't legally be made here. Emission controls reduce emissions. Taxes on a element does nothing to change emissions, simply creates a new tax.
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,441
Points
1,110
Actually what I propose would be the only true way to reduce global emissions. Right now we are playing a shell game, reducing 'emissions' in Canada, well increasing what we are importing from other countries with next to no emission controls so it doesn't count towards our numbers. Not to mention the added environmental costs from shipping across the ocean both ways (as it is mostly made with our natural resources).
The best way to reduce emissions is for all nations to reduce their emissions at the same time.

That's what the Paris agreement was for, a collective effort for all nations to reduce their emmisions.


Unfortunately for the world, emissions is a global problem not a regional one. By pretending that we are reducing our emissions by closing down Canadian industry well buying lower quality products with higher environmental costs from other countries isn't a real solution it is intensifying it instead.
To toss out the carbon tax, to reduce regulations on industry and ramp up industrial production here with more laissez faire regulations while trying to reduce global emissions is playing the exact same shell game, but with even less effectiveness. Canada doesn't have enough weight to bully those with the highest emissions into producing less meanwhile ours would go up.

Terrible plan.
The solution, make more in Canada or only buy from countries with similar environmental standards. Don't buy products that couldn't legally be made here. Emission controls reduce emissions.
Its amusing that you think low wage industry would make a comeback in Canada or any other western country.

but sure, put that plan of yours in place. Im sure people would love empty shelves at Walmart and Costco and spending hundreds of billions to build industry up from scratch and the accompanied supply chain that would be required.

Oh, and only for a market of 38 million Canadians as well, seeing as there is no way that even the lowest wage manufacturing jobs that would be required to fill the sudden gap created by your plan could ever hope to compete with the low wage jobs of those other nations in the export market.

Morgan Freeman Applause GIF by The Academy Awards

Taxes on a element does nothing to change emissions, simply creates a new tax.
Except the carbon tax is the most simple free market way to change behavior. Companies do not want the extra costs, and will find ways to reduce the carbon output to pay less in taxes.

Even the CPC gets this now and have their own carbon tax plan.

338 MPs sent to Ottawa support one version or another of a carbon tax. I think Canadians have spoken.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,468
Points
1,160
Except the carbon tax is the most simple free market way to change behavior. Companies do not want the extra costs, and will find ways to reduce the carbon output to pay less in taxes.

Even the CPC gets this now and have their own carbon tax plan.

338 MPs sent to Ottawa support one version or another of a carbon tax. I think Canadians have spoken.

A tax on carbon will not deter oil/ energy companies. They're used to adjusting operational performance to account for taxes. This will not have the effect of reducing industrial sources of CO2, especially as growing, gigantic industrial economies (India, China etc) continue to boom.

The people it will hurt is the little guy, in North America etc, as per SOP.
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,441
Points
1,110
A tax on carbon will not deter oil/ energy companies. They're used to adjusting operational performance to account for taxes. This will not have the effect of reducing industrial sources of CO2, especially as growing economies (India, China etc) continue to boom.

The people it will hurt is the little guy, in North America etc, as per SOP.
Except that Canadian emmisions growth have been slowing and is about to plateau, at which point we are set to see emmisions drop.

The fastest rate of emmision slowdowns happened once the carbon tax backstop was put in place.

As for hurting the little guy, getting a big chuck of money back come tax time really hurts.

As for international emmisions, definitely a problem, and something to address, but how the fuck do you tell India and China to reduce their emmisions if we in Canada cannot even do it?

But again, 338 of 338 MPs in parliament are from a party that support a carbon tax, I think a consensus has been reached. If people oppose it that much, they can go vote PPC.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,439
Points
1,360
Actually what I propose would be the only true way to reduce global emissions. Right now we are playing a shell game, reducing 'emissions' in Canada, well increasing what we are importing from other countries with next to no emission controls so it doesn't count towards our numbers. Not to mention the added environmental costs from shipping across the ocean both ways (as it is mostly made with our natural resources).

Unfortunately for the world, emissions is a global problem not a regional one. By pretending that we are reducing our emissions by closing down Canadian industry well buying lower quality products with higher environmental costs from other countries isn't a real solution it is intensifying it instead.

The solution, make more in Canada or only buy from countries with similar environmental standards. Don't buy products that couldn't legally be made here. Emission controls reduce emissions. Taxes on a element does nothing to change emissions, simply creates a new tax.
You mean like…..mmmmm…..China? And who exports their dirty coal to China? 🤔

2300FD7B-D7D5-49AA-B1F5-6BB3A735F316.jpeg
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,218
Points
1,010
Companies do not want the extra costs, and will find ways to reduce the carbon output to pay less in taxes.

Once again, for the hard of thinking: taxes are just a cost, passed on to a) customers (price increases), b) employees (lower compensation increases), c) shareholders/owners (lower dividends).

Companies might seek ways to reduce carbon output if it's lower-hanging fruit than letting customers/employees/shareholders bear the cost. This is basically where policy wonks are aiming, but since there are 3 other targets, no-one should be surprised if what mandarins and academics predict/desire is not what happens.

I suppose there's also (d): less reinvestment of capital in the enterprise. This is of course aligns nicely with the customary desire of government finance types to encourage R&D and re-investment.
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,441
Points
1,110
Once again, for the hard of thinking:
Nice to know all our parliamentarians, and all elected federal political parties are hard of thinking.

I have good company at least.
taxes are just a cost,
they are an expense.
passed on to a) customers (price increases)
repayed in rebates.
, b) employees (lower compensation increases)
there are many more factors in wage and benefits pressures than a carbon tax
, c) shareholders/owners (lower dividends).
The stock market seems fine.
Companies might seek ways to reduce carbon output if it's lower-hanging fruit than letting customers/employees/shareholders bear the cost. This is basically where policy wonks are aiming, but since there are 3 other targets, no-one should be surprised if what mandarins and academics predict/desire is not what happens.
But that's were market based carbon tax policies work the best.

if company A passes the expense to the consumer and company B finds future ways to lower their carbon footprint, and not need to pass the cost on to consumers, then the products of company B are more affordable than company A.

if company A doesnt offer competitive wages because they are passing the expense to employees and company B finds ways to reduce their carbon footprint and not need to pass those costs to the employees, then company A is at risk of losing employees to company B.

if company A has lower dividends than company B, then company B will have a higher stock price in comparison.

This is the beauty of a carbon tax. It lets the market sort itself out, and the more efficient companies are at reducing carbon emmisions the more they are rewarded for it.
I suppose there's also (d): less reinvestment of capital in the enterprise. This is of course aligns nicely with the customary desire of government finance types to encourage R&D and re-investment.
Reduce more carbon, have more to invest in their enterprise.

Or don't, and suffer the consequences compared to those who do.

The weak stagnate or die, the strong grow and prosper. The emmisions go down either way.
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,441
Points
1,110
Also, LPC picked up another seat today. Up to 160 LPC elected*, this more recent pickup winning by 12 votes after a recount.

10 seats away from a majority, the LPC was oh so close. I wonder what would have happened if that moderator had decided to wake up the day of the English debate and decided not to piss off an entire province.

*drops to 159 MPs after Vuong sits as an independent.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,306
Points
1,140
Nice to know all our parliamentarians, and all elected federal political parties are hard of thinking.
I think stupid or short sighted would be a better outlook - they know the average Western voter has the attention span of a gnat.

I have good company at least.

they are an expense.

repayed in rebates.
Again where do those rebates come from????
ah yes - the tax dollars of the populace.

there are many more factors in wage and benefits pressures than a carbon tax

The stock market seems fine.

But that's were market based carbon tax policies work the best.

if company A passes the expense to the consumer and company B finds future ways to lower their carbon footprint, and not need to pass the cost on to consumers, then the products of company B are more affordable than company A.
Yes because company B makes it in a country that does not give a Fuck.

if company A doesnt offer competitive wages because they are passing the expense to employees and company B finds ways to reduce their carbon footprint and not need to pass those costs to the employees, then company A is at risk of losing employees to company B.
See my above

if company A has lower dividends than company B, then company B will have a higher stock price in comparison.
See my above
This is the beauty of a carbon tax. It lets the market sort itself out, and the more efficient companies are at reducing carbon emmisions the more they are rewarded for it.

Reduce more carbon, have more to invest in their enterprise.

Or don't, and suffer the consequences compared to those who do.

The weak stagnate or die, the strong grow and prosper. The emmisions go down either way.
You are an interesting fellow, one may say naive as well. Nothing is free, and for Company B to make the same item without using an offshore producer they are clearly spending a bunch of IRD - which will make their product more expensive.
You just highlighted why the vast majority consumers won't pay that premium above - although you probably where not intending on that .
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,704
Points
1,090
Also, LPC picked up another seat today. Up to 160 LPC elected*, this more recent pickup winning by 12 votes after a recount.

10 seats away from a majority, the LPC was oh so close. I wonder what would have happened if that moderator had decided to wake up the day of the English debate and decided not to piss off an entire province.

*drops to 159 MPs after Vuong sits as an independent.
According to you people vote for policy. So nothing?
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,441
Points
1,110
According to you people vote for policy. So nothing?
Colour TV shows came out in 1954 yet here you are living in black and white.

Policy, Issues, Leaders.

That's how I rank the importance of those on the electorate. The debate moderator was a campaign issue. And yet another point against it being all about the leaders. Moderator pissed off Quebec, the Bloc rose in the polls, hurt the LPC.
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,412
Points
1,260
Hurts the pocketbook more though, but worth it.
Check out newsletters like this or this pointing you to free or cheap-cheap Kindle books. True, I find most of them not to my taste, but I get 1-2 a week that're worth it to me to spend $2-5 bucks on, even if they end up letting me down. If you're interested in older stuff, it's all free here & here, too.
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,412
Points
1,260
... Policy, Issues, Leaders.

That's how I rank the importance of those on the electorate ...
How do you juggle that with some voters' preference for local candidate? Or is that more "importance" vs. "desire"?
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,441
Points
1,110
I think stupid or short sighted would be a better outlook - they know the average Western voter has the attention span of a gnat.
Ah yes, democracy.

democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.
Again where do those rebates come from????
ah yes - the tax dollars of the populace.
Still works on free market principles.

Individuals who reduce their carbon output spend less on the carbon tax, and get back the same amount, which means more money in their pocket.

Individuals who do not get back what they spent on the carbon tax, less money in their pockets. It behooves people the reduce their carbon output if they want more money come tax time.

So it changes behavior while still not hurting the little guy.
Yes because company B makes it in a country that does not give a Fuck.
Your premise if flawed. There are still multinational and local businesses in Canada who this applies to. This situation doesn't make every company in Canada company A, to state otherwise is asinine.
See my above
Asinine.
See my above
Still asinine.
You are an interesting fellow, one may say naive as well. Nothing is free, and for Company B to make the same item without using an offshore producer they are clearly spending a bunch of IRD - which will make their product more expensive.
There are energy companies that were developing more climate friendly ways of resource extraction before the carbon tax, and they have only accelerated research since the carbon tax. The energy industry in Canada has made it clear that they want to be amongst the most ethical and green energy extraction companies on the planet. And with many of them still working in Canada, its stupid to say that they offshore their production. And this applies to companies as a whole. You make it sound like the carbon tax went into effect and every company took off to other countries. The carbon tax has been in effect in many provinces since the mid 2000s and guess what? Still multinational and local businesses operating there.

Look to Europe. France, UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland are amongst the nations with a carbon tax, and they still have multinational and local businesses working under the same premise. So I reject your notion of companies simply moving away to escape it as a widespread phenomenon.
You just highlighted why the vast majority consumers won't pay that premium above - although you probably where not intending on that .
Companies that adapt best to the premium so they do not need to pass it on to consumers will do better than companies that do not. That's how the free market works. And compared to other more interventionist methods of tackling carbon emissions, a carbon tax is amongst the most efficient and simply ways to do it.

Unless you can think of another? But you don't. You shit all over the carbon tax but do not bring any replacement to the fore. You simply say that its useless despite the fact that its already doing what it set out to do. And that's why I don't take it seriously. If there is another way to reduce emissions by 30 to 40 percent by 2030, be my guest and share them, otherwise...
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,441
Points
1,110
How do you juggle that with some voters' preference for local candidate? Or is that more "importance" vs. "desire"?
Maxime Bernier was a very popular guy in Beauce. His father was an MP and his name recognition there was very high. He made his own party and he hasn't won the seat again to date.

Maxime Bernier is the same leader. Its the policies of his party that largely changed. Still, a good percentage of people still vote for him. But not nearly as much as the people who vote for the CPC.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
676
Points
1,260
How do you juggle that with some voters' preference for local candidate?
Do local federal candidates have as much influence as they used to?

Party discipline seems to put the brand first.

Local federal politicians these days seem more like trained seals - to me, at least - who vote on command and repeat robotic talking points.

Seems like "caucus cohesion" is the big thing now. Or, perhaps it always was?

I would prefer to see local candidates as fierce defenders of local interest.

Party leaders have the power to veto a candidate's nomination. That puts fear into incumbents hoping to seek re-election. They have to be cheerleaders for the leader.

Seems like it's more about the party label.

That's a generalization, I admit. Just my opinion about federal party politics.
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,194
Points
1,040
Do local federal candidates have as much influence as they used to?

Party discipline seems to put the brand first.

Local federal politicians these days seem more like trained seals - to me, at least - who vote on command and repeat robotic talking points.

Seems like "caucus cohesion" is the big thing now. Or, perhaps it always was?

I would prefer to see local candidates as fierce defenders of local interest.

Party leaders have the power to veto a candidate's nomination. That puts fear into incumbents hoping to seek re-election. They have to be cheerleaders for the leader.

Seems like it's more about the party label.

That's a generalization, I admit. Just my opinion about federal party politics.

I'd have more confidence in the system if caucus was more flowing. Hash things out behind closed doors but, respectful dissent and all, but once the decision is collectively made, emerge as a unified voice. I have no problem with that. The problem I have with the system now is way too much power is concentrated in the PMO and held and exercised by unelected staffers. They are driving policy, not the folks we elected.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,704
Points
1,090
Colour TV shows came out in 1954 yet here you are living in black and white.

Policy, Issues, Leaders.

That's how I rank the importance of those on the electorate. The debate moderator was a campaign issue. And yet another point against it being all about the leaders. Moderator pissed off Quebec, the Bloc rose in the polls, hurt the LPC.
No, you stated Policy was what most Canadians decided to vote on. Dismissed the others until you didn’t.

You obviously missed my sarcasm in my response.

Issues are not policy. Issues fall under short term motivators when it comes to electoral behaviours.

You yourself voted mainly on a short term factor (strategic voting) and not policy as your primary reason to vote and how you placed it. You may feel like you voted for policy but you stated here that your vote was to help create a split vote on the right. That’s short term voting behaviour. Not policy which is long term.

That does not mean there isn’t overlap.

You miss time and again the correlation between a leader’s popularity (or general dislike of) and electoral outcomes. There is a reason they poll for who would make the best PM. It’s significant whether you accept that or not. It was significant enough to keep the LPC from a majority again and significant enough to have 2/3rds of the voters opt for something else.

My order would be Issues, Leader, Policy if i were to assess the voters. People often confuse issues with policy so it’s easy to see why they would think policy is a lead driver.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,218
Points
1,010
So carbon taxes are an "expense", which is way of repeating what I said ("cost"). That consumers get rebates is irrelevant to the companies' costs. That other factors are involved in compensation negotiation is trivially true and irrelevant to the point that costs of the employer are a factor.

But that's were market based carbon tax policies work the best.

You missed the point entirely, which is that companies are not limited to the course of action that allows carbon taxes to "work the best", so "Companies do not want the extra costs, and will find ways to reduce the carbon output to pay less in taxes" is overoptimistic (wishful) thinking. Where companies elect to pursue other courses of mitigation, it is not the companies that pay. The unintended consequences of adding a cost can and will result in burdens that fall on customers, employees, and investors.

All likely effects of a policy change ought be considered, not just the obvious benefits cited by proponents who either deliberately or ignorantly ignore the adverse effects.
 
Top