Canadian Climate Revolution: Voters Rebelling Against Trudeau Carbon Taxes

“Voters Rebelling Against Trudeau Carbon Taxes”

Amazing how many people are in the pay of big oil.

The Canadian voter will agree to anything,until they have to pay.
Even the dumbest Canadian can figure out,winter cold,fuel expensive.
More tax on fuel,still have to heat.
So massive tax pain,zero environmental gain.

The CBC types are over the top Gang Green,no exaggeration is too much for this cause.
As the glaciers unite and begin to sweep south,our comrades at state media will still be blaming Climate Change while meaning global warming.

Canada’s bureaucrats created the CAGW meme and intend to crush us dumb taxpayers with it.
Western Canada needs a new flag,one with a Guillotine.Cuz it tiz our heritage.

Standards, subsidies and taxes. The bane of the free market. Standards should only be used to prevent injuries or bad health effects. Subsidies should only be used to prop up a company that produces a domestic product that is key to national security. Taxes should only be used as a government income source. Too often however the government uses standards to interfere in the life of all its citizens. At the same time governments subsidize almost everything. Taxes are collected for all sorts of reasons. Ex: liquor and tobacco taxes, estate or inheritance taxes, gift taxes, company asset taxes, and carbon taxes.

It is this last one that irks me the most. Carbon taxes are ridiculous. One of 3 things can happen. 1) The company can refuse to pay them and move out of the country or threaten to move out before they are enacted. In this case everybody loses. 2) The company can pay them and then raise their prices so that with business as usual no emission reduction of CO2 occurs. In this case only the company loses if it also exports its product. The consumers don’t lose because the carbon taxes are supposed to be given back to the public at large. However the general price level of all carbon related goods goes up so that inflation goes up. However since no decrease in CO2 emissions occurs, there was no reason to have the tax in the 1st place. 3) The company can change its source of fuel to a lower carbon entity at a higher cost and pass on its necessary price increase to its customers. The customers have no choice because all the competitors have to do the same thing. In that case there is a reduction in CO2 emissions but since the atmosphere needs more CO2 NOT less, everybody loses.

It is this third scenario that factors into my main point. Even if you believe in AGW(human caused global warming/climate change) , here are the stark facts of trying to do anything about it. PM Trudeau in Canada plans on introducing a tax on the emission of CO2 and all greenhouse gases except water vapour, starting January 1, 2019.

Canada puts out 1.5 % of world total of CO2 and has not had any increases for 11 years.. China puts out 31% of the world total and increased their output 4.1% in 2017 and is on track for an equal 4% increase after the 1st quarter of 2018.

In 1991 Norway was the 1st country along with Sweden to introduce a carbon tax, and they have found that their tax was responsible for reducing their increases of emissions by only 2.32% compared to a 0 rate on carbon. However Norway’s CO2 emissions still went up. To top it all off Norway found that the carbon taxes reduced their GDP by 0.06%.In the Norwegian scheme there were so many exemptions that the effective coverage of the carbon taxes was only 64% of industrial production. The Norwegian price for carbon was around $25 Can per ton. Trudeau has promised to introduce Canada’s carbon tax at $20 per ton in 2019 and increase it $10 per ton every year until $50 per ton by the end of 2022. However the differing prices between Norway and Canada will not have any significant effect on the results because there is very little opportunity for any company in Canada in at least 7 of the provinces, to switch to a non CO2 producing fuel because those 7(except Manitoba,B.C. and Quebec) do not have significant hydro power; so the companies will simply pay the tax to stay in business. Theoretically this should not amount to any significant reduction in CO2 because Canada is different from Norway in a fundamental way. In Norway any firm has access to hydro elecricity.

However we will take Trudeau’s word for it and assume that all 75% of planned reduction of Canada’s contribution to the 2030 targets will be met. Ireland achieved a decrease in emissions after 4 straight years of increased emissions despite a carbon tax. British Columbia despite having a carbon tax since 2008 has not achieved any decrease in CO2 emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that that the average climate computer model forecasts an increase in temperature of 3C by the end of the century (82 years from now) if the world doesn’t reduce its carbon footprint. The said reduction of temperature goal is 1.5 C by end of century in order to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C.

Canada has committed to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions per Paris agreement by 2030 of 33%. 33% of 1.5 % = 0.5% of world total

In the 1st phase of reductions which will culminate by 2022, if all 75% of the planned CO2 emissions are met ; this will reduce our greenhouse gas footprint by 75% of 33% = 24.75% with the other 25% of 33% = 8.25% being part of a revised carbon pricing scheme between 2023 and 2030.
75% = 0.75 and 0.5% = .005
So you have 0.75 * .005 = 0.00375 Don’t forget that carbon trading and a carbon tax dont actually guarantee that any reductions will ever occur.

But if the promised reductions do occur then you multiply by goal of 1.5C so that you have 0.00375 * 1.5 = 0.005625 C
That is a reduction of a little over 5 thousandths of a degree C at the end of the next 82 years. Whether Canada will do any better is a function of how many exemptions and what discount carbon tax %’s are actually determined for each specific industry. Even so since this is the 1st phase only, Canada’s goal in this phase is to cut 75% of a third of its emissions which = 24% . There is a big difference between Norway’s result of 2.32 % reduction and Canada’s goal of 24%. However Canada’s emissions have been flat since 2007.

Since China’s increase last year as per the above is .3 * .041 = 0.0123 or 1.23% of world total
Canada’s reduction will be .75 * .005 = 0.00375

That means China’s increase for 1 year is 0.0123/ 0.00375 = 3.28 times the amount of Canada’s reduction for each year if the emissions go lower in Canada to the same degree as the increased price effect after 5 years. Dont forget that Canada’s reduction is only at a maximum effect by 2022 because of the increasing price of $10 per ton per year. In the 1st year 2019 or any other year, the reduction could be the whole amount or any amount depending on how many firms simply pay the tax vs the number that switch to a non carbon or lower carbon fuel source. China has refused to decrease its output and only promised to try to limit their increases by 2030. China is not a developing country because it has 45% of the world’s skyscrapers.

What will all of this cost Canada?

Price of carbon by 2022 will be $50 per ton by 2022 and at 700 million tons = 35 billion $ Can. However since the carbon tax will start in 2019 at $20 per ton, the yearly taxes will be assuming no exemptions 2019= 700 m * $20 = $14 billion 2020= 700m * $30 = $21 billion 2021 = 700m * $40 = $28 billion 2022= 700m * $50 = $35 billion So total cost over 4 year period is $98 billion and assuming no other increases the yearly cost will remain at $35 billion per year indefinitely. Of course all this assumes that 100% of the emmissions will be covered. If as in Norway, only about 2/3 of industry is covered by the the new tax, then take 1/3 off of these figures which will then be a total of $65.66 billion over the next 4 years instead of the $98 billion that I stated above. However if Trudeau does exempt 1/3 of the emmissions either because the companies are individually not emitting much or they are key industries; that will reduce the actual temperature reduction to 0.00375 C
So we are going to have to either tax $98 billion or have the companies spend more to switch to a lower carbon fuel, to save 3 thousandths of 1 degree C. The stupid part is that the higher the actual tax collected the more carbon dioxide emmissions occur and the less the temperature gets reduced. So in the end , part of industry will pay the tax and the rest will switch to a lower carbon source. Either way it raises inflation on all carbon source industries which then insidiously seeps into the prices of everything else in the country.

This will still leave Canada short 66 million tons of its Paris commitment to cut by 2030 and Trudeau has said that Canada will meet its commitment by 2030.

What will this cost each household in Canada?
Minimum of $1100 Can and maximum of $2500 Can depending on whether they live in a hydro province or not. Also most provinces have promised to rebate all the money back to consumers. Well what is wrong if we get all our money back anyway, you ask? Well, 5 things are wrong. 1) You have created a federal carbon tax bureaucracy which will never go away. 2) the carbon part of the economy will have been price inflated, thus inflating the whole economy 3) you have given free money to those people that were not using carbon based sources of energy because when you give the money back you have to give it to everybody. 4) extra costs for each company affected in accounting for the taxes or in switching to a new fuel. 5) If the company is an exporter the export price will either have to be raised or a new government subsidy created to cover the company’s extra export price. The other huge consideration is that since the global warming/climate change subject is a big hoax anyway, the whole exercise will have been a worse than useless activity.

THIS IS ABSOLUTE MADNESS.

PS: Trudeau will take this fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Federal government rarely loses in the Supreme Court.

The Economist, which I subscribe to, has become a crank magazine. A bizarre mouth piece of the far left, with clear divisions in the news room, but the editors are simply ignorant political liberal cranks. And it gets worse every year.

The sooner everyone starts regarding green sources of energy as supplemental rather than primary, the sooner a sensible energy policy will be devised that utilises each source for what it is best at.

The big problem with renewables: low energy density, absence of dispatchability. Sorry, eh.

Please someone. Tell me how a factory which uses white hot gas flames to melt, bend and shape could possibly function without fossil fuel.

NOKO, the leader in preventing “Climate Change”. If only Canada had a government like NOKO! The Dear Leader could save the people from themselves. How dare the voters go against SCIENCE! Who told them they could have a say in how they are governed? It’s a conspiracy! The oil and coal companies are telling them how to vote! Let’s make it a crime against humanity to disagree with the settled science of AGW.
( Will I get into trouble for adding a sarc…. all of the above are sentiments and ideas that the supporters of AGW have presented)

Trudeau recently approved recreational Cannabis for Canada, effective in October. That might make him a few friends.