Carbon tax announced December 2020

[Squaretail]

subliminal flight

That would be flight below the threshold of consciousness; perhaps you mean subluminal flight?

It might be a good description of how many pilots operate though.

[pelmet]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstor ... d=msedgntp

"Western greens are China’s useful idiots

For anyone under the illusion that China’s Communist regime was a force for good in the world, the past few years have been a wake-up call. Under President Xi Jinping, China has: incarcerated over a million Uyghur Muslims in “re-education” camps; allowed the coronavirus pandemic to sweep the world; violated its treaty with Britain by ending Hong Kong’s self-rule; and vowed to invade Taiwan.

As a result of these eye-opening actions, among others, public opinion throughout the West has changed dramatically. Where the majority previously saw China favourably as a benign giant, only 15 per cent of Australians, 14 per cent of Swedes, 22 per cent of British, 23 per cent of Canadians, and 22 per cent of Americans continue to view China favourably, according to a Pew survey. Most now recognize that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) cheats and threatens to get its way and is hostile to rules-based institutions.

The big exceptions to those who have had their eyes opened are Western environmentalists and their funders who, rather than becoming more cautious about China’s role in the world, continue to lavish its environmental efforts with superlatives such as “herculean” and “momentous.” As recently as 2018, Natural Resources Defense Council’s Barbara Finamore wrote a laudatory book entitled Will China Save the Planet?

The environmental gushing for China is reciprocated by the regime, with Communist Party media organs such as the China Daily dedicating full-page articles to extolling the environmental movement for its positive role in partnering with China.

Western environmental organizations enjoy a privileged position in China. While foreign advocacy organizations of almost all stripes, from human rights groups such as Amnesty International to legal aid groups such as Chinese Urgent Action Working Group, are extremely restricted, if not effectively banned in China, the environmental groups are sponsored by a designated state agency or department of the CCP government, as all acceptable NGOs now must be under a 2017 law governing foreign NGOs. The sponsor does not play a passive role, as the term implies, however. Rather, it is responsible for monitoring and supervising the environmental group’s work and often works hand-in-glove with it on joint projects.

As part of their supervision, foreign NGOs are required to submit annual plans for their projects and use of funds to their sponsor and, after being approved, must file these plans with the public security organs. Supervision also includes “regulatory talks” and onsite inspections of NGO premises. Failure to comply can result in seizure of assets, detention of staff, and a five-year ban on further work in the country.

The environmental groups’ embrace of China is understandable. They are often lavishly funded. One U.S.-based foundation, Energy Foundation China, has provided over US$330 million to U.S.-registered organizations operating in China. As a result, they can spare no expense pursuing their efforts to rid the planet of fossil fuels. Apart from the power and prestige they enjoy in this role, many doubtless welcome the opportunity to use their research to promote their progressive goals. Given the perceived urgency of their cause — saving the very planet — they can easily justify turning a blind eye to China’s aggression in the South China Sea or human rights abuses on the mainland.

China’s embrace of Western environmentalists is also understandable. To borrow a line attributed to Lenin, the environmentalists are the CCP’s useful idiots. The government not only monitors their activities to ensure their compliance with policy, it also directs the environmentalists’ agenda via its de facto control over their use of funds and even through its staff. Energy Foundation China, for example, is headed by Ji Zou, a Chinese national with a long career as a senior official in China’s government, including during its climate negotiations for the Paris Agreement. Zou, as a paymaster for the Western environmentalists, decides what projects to fund, thus enabling him to effectively solicit work desired by his former employers in Beijing from the Western environmental organizations, who give the regime their imprimatur of legitimacy.

While critics of China’s many malign activities give it a black eye, the environmentalists’ glowing reports about its environmental leadership paint China in a favourable light and put critics on the defensive. In fact, environmentalists have become the highest-profile cheerleaders for the communists, helping divert attention from the regime’s worrisome pursuits. Chief among these is China’s appropriation of fossil-fuel resources in the South China Sea and elsewhere in pursuit of its goal of displacing the U.S. as the dominant economic and national security superpower by 2050.

As virtually all students of China now appreciate, the West was foolish to trust Communist China to embrace democracy once it had access to Western markets and Western values. The implication is, or should be, clear. As Conservative MP Garnett Genuis says, “A government that is genocidal and totalitarian … cannot be trusted.” Or, as Bonnie Glaser of Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies puts it, China “should not be a model for the rest of the world.”

For most of us, China is not a model for the rest of the world. For Western environmentalists, sadly, all too often it is."

[dhc#]

Greta and company only pick at the low hanging fruit (ie. Alberta Oilsands)...let her go to the PRC and tell them they stole her childhood, see where that gets her.

[rookiepilot]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstor ... d=msedgntp

"Western greens are China’s useful idiots

For anyone under the illusion that China’s Communist regime was a force for good in the world, the past few years have been a wake-up call. Under President Xi Jinping, China has: incarcerated over a million Uyghur Muslims in “re-education” camps; allowed the coronavirus pandemic to sweep the world; violated its treaty with Britain by ending Hong Kong’s self-rule; and vowed to invade Taiwan.

As a result of these eye-opening actions, among others, public opinion throughout the West has changed dramatically. Where the majority previously saw China favourably as a benign giant, only 15 per cent of Australians, 14 per cent of Swedes, 22 per cent of British, 23 per cent of Canadians, and 22 per cent of Americans continue to view China favourably, according to a Pew survey. Most now recognize that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) cheats and threatens to get its way and is hostile to rules-based institutions.

The big exceptions to those who have had their eyes opened are Western environmentalists and their funders who, rather than becoming more cautious about China’s role in the world, continue to lavish its environmental efforts with superlatives such as “herculean” and “momentous.” As recently as 2018, Natural Resources Defense Council’s Barbara Finamore wrote a laudatory book entitled Will China Save the Planet?

The environmental gushing for China is reciprocated by the regime, with Communist Party media organs such as the China Daily dedicating full-page articles to extolling the environmental movement for its positive role in partnering with China.

Western environmental organizations enjoy a privileged position in China. While foreign advocacy organizations of almost all stripes, from human rights groups such as Amnesty International to legal aid groups such as Chinese Urgent Action Working Group, are extremely restricted, if not effectively banned in China, the environmental groups are sponsored by a designated state agency or department of the CCP government, as all acceptable NGOs now must be under a 2017 law governing foreign NGOs. The sponsor does not play a passive role, as the term implies, however. Rather, it is responsible for monitoring and supervising the environmental group’s work and often works hand-in-glove with it on joint projects.

As part of their supervision, foreign NGOs are required to submit annual plans for their projects and use of funds to their sponsor and, after being approved, must file these plans with the public security organs. Supervision also includes “regulatory talks” and onsite inspections of NGO premises. Failure to comply can result in seizure of assets, detention of staff, and a five-year ban on further work in the country.

The environmental groups’ embrace of China is understandable. They are often lavishly funded. One U.S.-based foundation, Energy Foundation China, has provided over US$330 million to U.S.-registered organizations operating in China. As a result, they can spare no expense pursuing their efforts to rid the planet of fossil fuels. Apart from the power and prestige they enjoy in this role, many doubtless welcome the opportunity to use their research to promote their progressive goals. Given the perceived urgency of their cause — saving the very planet — they can easily justify turning a blind eye to China’s aggression in the South China Sea or human rights abuses on the mainland.

China’s embrace of Western environmentalists is also understandable. To borrow a line attributed to Lenin, the environmentalists are the CCP’s useful idiots. The government not only monitors their activities to ensure their compliance with policy, it also directs the environmentalists’ agenda via its de facto control over their use of funds and even through its staff. Energy Foundation China, for example, is headed by Ji Zou, a Chinese national with a long career as a senior official in China’s government, including during its climate negotiations for the Paris Agreement. Zou, as a paymaster for the Western environmentalists, decides what projects to fund, thus enabling him to effectively solicit work desired by his former employers in Beijing from the Western environmental organizations, who give the regime their imprimatur of legitimacy.

While critics of China’s many malign activities give it a black eye, the environmentalists’ glowing reports about its environmental leadership paint China in a favourable light and put critics on the defensive. In fact, environmentalists have become the highest-profile cheerleaders for the communists, helping divert attention from the regime’s worrisome pursuits. Chief among these is China’s appropriation of fossil-fuel resources in the South China Sea and elsewhere in pursuit of its goal of displacing the U.S. as the dominant economic and national security superpower by 2050.

As virtually all students of China now appreciate, the West was foolish to trust Communist China to embrace democracy once it had access to Western markets and Western values. The implication is, or should be, clear. As Conservative MP Garnett Genuis says, “A government that is genocidal and totalitarian … cannot be trusted.” Or, as Bonnie Glaser of Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies puts it, China “should not be a model for the rest of the world.”

For most of us, China is not a model for the rest of the world. For Western environmentalists, sadly, all too often it is."

Who cares about this China rant?

Nothing to do with this thread. I don't live in China.

Trudeau -- is right about the core issue. Period.

How to go about it, reasonable people can debate.

[snowcone]

With all the hype of EV, when will the electricity for EVs be taxed to pay for road infrastructure? When EVs out number gas cars, where will the road tax come from.?

[rookiepilot]

With all the hype of EV, when will the electricity for EVs be taxed to pay for road infrastructure? When EVs out number gas cars, where will the road tax come from.?

I think it should be, and will be. EV's are very rapidly becoming cost effective with ICE, they can pay their share.

[CpnCrunch]

I think it should be, and will be. EV's are very rapidly becoming cost effective with ICE, they can pay their share.

They just introduced an EV road tax in Victoria Australia of 2.5c/km (on top of a cost of 1-2c/km off-peak for the electricity). Politicians want to extract identical amount of road tax from EVs, so they implement what is essentially a 250% fuel tax.

[photofly]

I think it's many decades since tax on motor cars was ringfenced for road infrastructure; I'm pretty sure the money goes into the general taxation pot. Reduced taxation on "green" vehicles is obviously only a temporary thing.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

subliminal flight

That would be flight below the threshold of consciousness; perhaps you mean subluminal flight?

Some of us were born to fly. But you do you.



(yes, I meant subluminal. silly spellcheck...)

[Phileas Fogg]

*livelihoods*

[Fanblade]

Charts for Federal, Provincial and civic levels of government collecting tax on gas. It is worth billions in revenue. Only some of that revenue is used for roads. Vancouver, Victoria and Montreal have started adding their own fuel tax for infrastructure as a result. If gas tax revenue falls it will be replaced.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_f ... _in_Canada

Roads are a provincial jurisdiction. It’s all over the map how they deal with the fuel tax revenue. For most provinces the money goes to general revenue. But not all.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/infrastruc ... canada.php

The Federal government takes the lions share of the taxes on fuel. According to the article about 5 Billion a year and they are not responsible for roads. They do however kick back about 40% of the revenue to Provinces. Nice of them.

Death and taxes. They are the only absolutes. Whenever change has taken place there is always someone trying to cash in to their advantage. Politicians are always first in line. I mean really, what can be better for a politician than a tax they can attach a moral imperative to. Opposers are science deniers, planet haters, idiots. (add any other derogatory descriptive word of you choosing)

In this case it looks like the plan is high Carbon taxes. As people move to EV they will introduce road taxes to replace the lost revenue. People who don’t switch to EV get to pay both. Think of the $$$$$$$ that won’t go to building and maintaining roads.

For most Canadians the EV technology isn’t there yet for cold weather. My next car will be a hybrid as a result. I will get the privilege of paying both taxes.

Clean water, clean air and government makes sure they cash in on the change.

It’s all good. Life is much better if you don’t pay attention to the hand in your wallet.

[Fanblade]

Another example of a tax grab during a change with a moral imperative. After 911 an ATSC security fee was introduced to pay for enhanced airport screening.

“While it was notionally intended to fund the operation of the new security screening body, between 2010 and 2016, the ATSC has generated a windfall for the Government of Canada of $547.5 million1.”

https://airlinecouncil.ca/wp-content/up ... -Final.pdf

Another example of change and a tax grab. You know all those AIF’s? Government has its hand in there as well in the form of airport rent that goes to, you guessed it, general revenue.

“It is entirely avoidable because Ottawa is, in reality, actually charging itself this expense, because it owns those twenty-six airports. As YVR is the proximate subject of the day, the relevant cost in fiscal and calendar 2018 was $59,530,000, or 15.5% of all non-finance (interest, mostly) expenses and just slightly below the total tab for all salaries and benefits. It is like the owner of a small business paying himself high dividends that he or she cannot really afford, raising his or her costs, making it hard to keep afloat.”

https://fcpp.org/2019/10/10/airport-imp ... ent-costs/

AIF. A chunk of it like paying rent on a house you already own.

[oldncold]

carbon tax will drive inflation the cost of all goods n services will cast a long shadow on your household budget! by 2030 it will cost the modest family income 4200 net per year the federal government needs the revenue because it is literally broke financially !the debt of 1 trillion needs to be paid in tomorrow's inflated dollars. so effectively less expensive in the effect on the federal budget. this has got nothing to do with the environment govt is broke. Plain n simple. and is breaking you too. that money that could beused for investing inyo futureor

[ayseven]

The government is not broke. The government raises taxes because it wants to show us how responsible it is. It in no way needs to raise taxes. It is just another line of bs. The cons are even worse. They don't even raise taxes because they think people already believe them fiscally responsible, which they are not. All this stimulus money comes right back to the government in consumption taxes. Just give it time.

[Kejidog]

There are cities in china that pollute more than we do as a whole country. Canada is responsible for 10% of global emissions. This is a tax grab to fund blackies little vanity projects. Nothing more

[altiplano]

10%?

I think you mean 1%...

Compare that to China's 30%.

[Zaibatsu]

It’s only 1% because we sweep it all under the table. We pass it on to other countries.

We don’t count the oil and coal and natural gas we export because we don’t burn it here. We don’t count the steel and aluminum we import because we didn’t smelt it here.

China is so dirty because it makes half the worlds steel and almost none of it is for the domestic market.

If you look at carbon footprint by end user and per capita, Canada is probably the dirtiest country in the world.

[photofly]

China is so dirty because it makes half the worlds steel and almost none of it is for the domestic market.

That does not appear to be true.

Looking around the internet, I see Chinese domestic iron and steel production 2019 was about 1000 million metric tonnes, and exports were 87 million metric tonnes, so about 9% was for export, and 91% for the domestic market.

[Kejidog]

10%?

I think you mean 1%...

Compare that to China's 30%.

Sorry. I did mean 1%. Which is about ten points higher than junior blackface’s IQ.

[Kejidog]

It’s only 1% because we sweep it all under the table. We pass it on to other countries.

We don’t count the oil and coal and natural gas we export because we don’t burn it here. We don’t count the steel and aluminum we import because we didn’t smelt it here.

China is so dirty because it makes half the worlds steel and almost none of it is for the domestic market.

If you look at carbon footprint by end user and per capita, Canada is probably the dirtiest country in the world.

Bullshit!

[Tiberius]

I have a background in planning, so I’m no stranger to dealing with and navigating policy. The problem with the carbon tax is that there is no way you could quantitatively assess it’s success or failure. And this is why certain politicians love it, because politicians generally hate scrutiny, unlike pilots who are constantly scrutinized.

This and other “green” initiatives are just backdoor socialism and another avenue for bigger government bureaucracy and greater opportunities for racketeering by politicians. And I hate to say it, but the reason is that our population is generally getting stupider. You can talk all day about socialism, Marxism etc., and all they’ll hear are the words “free” or “subsidized” and think what it means for them and their immediate low income situation.

I remember when they were talking about increasing minimum wage a few years ago. A guy on the news with 3 kids working at MacDonald's said and I quote “You can’t raise a family on minimum wage”. And I’m thinking to myself, stupid you’re not supposed to raise a family on minimum wage. This and dozens of people I’ve come across who were clearly able-bodied but on disability; lazy people are the primary voting block in Canada.


My parents came from a country that was a British Colony that went independent. When the Brits left, the stupid people took over and the country took a hard turn towards socialism. They now tell me that they see the same things happening again here in Canada. My advice is to keep your passports in order and be ready to GTFO. Because the last vote you may make, that might actually count, is the one you make with your feet.

[digits_]

I remember when they were talking about increasing minimum wage a few years ago. A guy on the news with 3 kids working at MacDonald's said and I quote “You can’t raise a family on minimum wage”. And I’m thinking to myself, stupid you’re not supposed to raise a family on minimum wage. This and dozens of people I’ve come across who were clearly able-bodied but on disability; lazy people are the primary voting block in Canada.

1) The guy in the interview was working, so I wouldn't call him lazy. Being poor and working a minimum wage is not the same as someone allegedly abusing disability.
2) If you are working a full time job, why shouldn't you be able to raise a family? Would you support a policy in which only the rich are allowed to have kids?

[Tiberius]

[/b]

1) The guy in the interview was working, so I wouldn't call him lazy. Being poor and working a minimum wage is not the same as someone allegedly abusing disability.
2) If you are working a full time job, why shouldn't you be able to raise a family? Would you support a policy in which only the rich are allowed to have kids?

1. Agreed, not lazy. The people on disability do not work, which is why they are on disability. I have no problem paying disability for someone who is legitimately disabled, but there are people who are not and claim it anyway.

2. I think minimum wage should be renamed to "bachelor wage". Having kids that you clearly can't afford puts someone under a lot of financial pressure. 100% of your income gets eaten up by your expenses if you are on minimum wage with 3 kids, meaning you have little to nothing left over to invest in and/or improve yourself or earning potential. That's why poor people stay poor. It's not because they don't make enough it's because they make stupid decisions. They then complain and seek assistance from elsewhere, meaning that productive people (what you'd probably call "rich people") who didn't make dumb decisions will then end up having to subsidize them.

[dhc#]

Sums it up.

[digits_]

I think minimum wage should be renamed to "bachelor wage". Having kids that you clearly can't afford puts someone under a lot of financial pressure. 100% of your income gets eaten up by your expenses if you are on minimum wage with 3 kids, meaning you have little to nothing left over to invest in and/or improve yourself or earning potential. That's why poor people stay poor. It's not because they don't make enough it's because they make stupid decisions. They then complain and seek assistance from elsewhere, meaning that productive people (what you'd probably call "rich people") who didn't make dumb decisions will then end up having to subsidize them.

Which is it: are they not making enough, or are they making enough and being stupid?

Do you think people working minimum wage jobs do so by choice? Do you think they would stay working at Tim Hortons for example if there was a viable alternative?