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

Liberal Minority Government 2019 - ????

Mills Bomb

Guest
Reaction score
9
Points
180
I've been following this story, so far my observations have been;

Under the Liberal plan they are saying that they plan to put a $40 price on carbon, that will increase to $50 next year, and will only stop when it hits $170 in 2030.

It seems as if this plan will most be most hurtful for low income Canadians and students as these taxes will not only inflate the price of gas to European levels but will also surely inflate the price of common groceries, shipping, and everything else that currently requires fuel to be transported. Probably not a big deal for the wealthy and higher end of the middle class who will likely just pay a little more and keep doing whatever they're doing without caring much about it. I could see this maybe causing our lowest income members of society to possibly do some carpooling if they're short on money for gas, or maybe it will also cause the poorest Canadians to cancel on some trips and vacations they can no longer afford? I'm not really sure how else a little inflation and extra tax will actually restrict carbon use of anyone who's not financially struggling.

In exchange for this plan, the Liberal's are saying we'll get "90%" back in the form rebates that will be same for all Canadians regardless of income, which we can all use for whatever we want, including gas for our cars or to offset the inflation. That is of course assuming the Liberal's actually give us 90% back in rebates, if not, it would seem it's just more tax.

Under the Conservative plan O'Toole wants to put a $50 price cap on carbon, so we'll likely still see some minor inflation with them as well, but not to the $170 price on carbon levels.

In exchange for this, the Conservatives are saying we'll get "100%" of the money (which they insist is not a tax) back in a loyalty program, but the only thing we can spend that money on is green stuff, for example; bikes or public transportation. This could actually reduce some carbon usage, if everyone has all these credits sitting around for green initiative type stuff they might be likely to use it on a new bike or some free bus rides. Not terribly helpful for the poorest Canadians either though, but at least there could be in theory less inflation and gas will be some sort of reasonably affordable with the $50 cap for those with low income.

Some critics of the Conservative plan are saying they are rewarding people for using carbon, but that seems a bit ridiculous if the only reward is green stuff that actually reduces the carbon footprint. If you're rewarded for driving, with a bike you can use instead of driving, that to me seems like a carbon friendly reward that will reduce polluting which seems to somewhat offset this type of criticism.

For those of us who are relatively well off I don't think either of these plans will really effect us much either way or save the planet, for example both are just leading to more inflation for Canadians including CAF members that will likely be off-set by federal pay raises. I don't think we'll see big trucks and sports cars leaving the parking lots anytime soon. Both plans seem to attempt to satisfy green minded voters with minimal effort, the Conservative plan seemingly to make slightly more sense for the environment (I think?).

Curious to hear more opinions on this one, a lot remains to be seen...
 
Last edited:

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
197
Points
680
I've been following this story, so far my observations have been;

Under the Liberal plan they are saying that they plan to put a $40 price on carbon, that will increase to $50 next year, and will only stop when it hits $170 in 2030.

It seems as if this plan will most be most hurtful for low income Canadians and students as these taxes will not only inflate the price of gas to European levels but will also surely inflate the price of common groceries, shipping, and everything else that currently requires fuel to be transported. Probably not a big deal for the wealthy and higher end of the middle class who will likely just pay more a little more and keep doing whatever they're doing. I could see this maybe causing our lowest income members of society to possibly doing some carpooling if they're short on money for gas? Maybe it will also cause the poorest Canadians to cancel on some trips and vacations they can no longer afford? I'm not really sure how else a little inflation and extra tax will actually restrict carbon use of anyone who's not financially struggling.

In exchange for this plan, the Liberal's are saying we'll get "90%" back in the form rebates that will be same for all Canadians regardless of income, which we can all use for whatever we want, including gas for our cars or to offset the inflation. That is of course assuming the Liberal's actually give us 90% back in rebates.

Under the Conservative plan O'Toole wants to put a $50 price cap on carbon, so we'll likely still see some minor inflation with them as well, but not to the $170 price on carbon levels.

In exchange for this, the Conservatives are saying we'll get 100% of the money back in a loyalty program but the only thing we can spend that money on is green stuff, for example; bikes or public transportation. This could actually reduce some carbon usage, if everyone has all these credits sitting around for green initiative type stuff they might be likely to use it on a new bike or some free bus rides. Not terribly helpful for the poorest Canadians either though, but at least there could be in theory less inflation.

Some critics of the Conservative plan are saying they are rewarding people for using carbon, but that seems a bit ridiculous if the only reward is green stuff that actually reduces the carbon footprint. If you're rewarded for driving, with a bike you can use instead of driving, that to me seems like a carbon friendly reward that will reduce polluting which seems to somewhat offset this type of criticism.

For those of us who are relatively well off I don't think either of these plans will really effect us much either way or save the planet, for example both are just leading to more inflation for Canadians including CAF members that will likely be off-set by federal pay raises. I don't think we'll big trucks and sports cars leaving the parking lots anytime soon. Both plans seem to attempt to satisfy green minded voters with minimal effort, the Conservative plan seemingly to make slightly more sense from their perspectives (I think?).

Curious to hear more opinions on this one, a lot remains to be seen...
So carbon tax A vs carbon tax B?
 

Mills Bomb

Guest
Reaction score
9
Points
180
One green and one just a tax?

That seems to be the general consensus I've gathered. The Liberal plan is much more bold, it basically just stiffs poor people with another tax and tells them to like it because it's "green" and that they will "get 90% back". There's very little information provided on how exactly any of this is going to save the planet.

Here's the plan in their words;


Notice how the link to find out what refund you'll be getting is broken.

Anyway, if you're well off this really only effects the poorest Canadians, the average middle class and up will just absorb the extra costs as part of general inflation, I think...
 

RangerRay

Sr. Member
Reaction score
89
Points
330
That seems to be the general consensus I've gathered. The Liberal plan is much more bold, it basically just stiffs poor people with another tax and tells them to like it because it's "green" and that they will "get 90% back". There's very little information provided on how exactly any of this is going to save the planet.

Here's the plan in their words;


Notice how the link to find out what refund you'll be getting is broken.

Anyway, if you're well off this really only effects the poorest Canadians, the average middle class and up will just absorb the extra costs as part of general inflation, I think...
Add to that lower income people are least likely to have extra cash to buy a new efficient furnace or a hybrid/EV. Especially when what little disposable income have gets hoovered up in taxes.

But they may get a slightly bigger tax return due to the rebate. Which may or may not go towards more efficient furnaces/vehicles.

Edited because I missed a word.
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
233
Points
780
To be honest both are stupid ideas. You will never make something expensive enough to reduce emissions, and the best part about giving a 90% back climate rebate is it's impossible to prove it's covering the cost increases because you can just fudge the stats or claim price increases are inflationary not due to carbon tax.

What we should be doing is investing in SMR/Thorium Reactors and building new nuclear reactors to push us off coal completely. Natural Gas power generation used only as a stop gap until the nuclear/thorium reactors are online. Electric vehicles aren't even viable as no one is quantifying the carbon/environmental cost of the open pit strip mine for rare earth materials in the batteries that are manned by $2 USD a day child labour in Africa.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
197
Points
680
To be honest both are stupid ideas. You will never make something expensive enough to reduce emissions, and the best part about giving a 90% back climate rebate is it's impossible to prove it's covering the cost increases because you can just fudge the stats or claim price increases are inflationary not due to carbon tax.

What we should be doing is investing in SMR/Thorium Reactors and building new nuclear reactors to push us off coal completely. Natural Gas power generation used only as a stop gap until the nuclear/thorium reactors are online. Electric vehicles aren't even viable as no one is quantifying the carbon/environmental cost of the open pit strip mine for rare earth materials in the batteries that are manned by $2 USD a day child labour in Africa.
I still give the edge to the one who would let me spend my carbon tax rebate on burgers as opposed to getting a new bicycle every year.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
197
Points
680
Come to think if it, I don't mine the CPC plan that much.

I get my green savings account, use it to buy a bicycle, then sell the bicycle, and pocket the money.

Rinse and repeat every year.

Same as the LPC plan, just more work on my part.
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
188
Points
630
I’m just glad the CPC actually have a plan. So we can stop the denial part of climate change. The deniers can sit in their corner and pout for all I care. At least there is an acknowledgement by the CPC about this. I’m sure there is a segment of the party though whose heads are exploding right now but whatever.

I think their plan is innovative and different but will have to look at it a bit closer.
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
188
Points
630
Come to think if it, I don't mine the CPC plan that much.

I get my green savings account, use it to buy a bicycle, then sell the bicycle, and pocket the money.

Rinse and repeat every year.

Same as the LPC plan, just more work on my part.
If everyone is getting a free bike why would they buy yours? It’ll probably be the same bike.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
410
Points
880
I’m just glad the CPC actually have a plan. So we can stop the denial part of climate change. The deniers can sit in their corner and pout for all I care. At least there is an acknowledgement by the CPC about this. I’m sure there is a segment of the party though whose heads are exploding right now but whatever.

I think their plan is innovative and different but will have to look at it a bit closer.
It's going to upset a lot of people that the Conservative plan seems more green than the Liberals plan.

Speaking of deniers what's your definition of one? Is it someone who thinks our climate isn't changing? Is it someone who thinks we should pump the breaks on just buying into anything the LPC says when they attach climate and science to the end of the sentence?
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,193
Points
910
It's going to upset a lot of people that the Conservative plan seems more green than the Liberals plan.

Speaking of deniers what's your definition of one? Is it someone who thinks our climate isn't changing? Is it someone who thinks we should pump the breaks on just buying into anything the LPC says when they attach climate and science to the end of the sentence?

Like true 'Big Government Ninnies', they both ignore the power of the consumer and consequent market forces driving changes in corporate behaviour. The actions of individuals are minuscule, in comparison to the impact of industry, on emmissions.

Every industry is trying to look as green as possible to its customers and other stakeholders. If government doesn't audit them and internationally publish good performance, they do it themselves - using third parties - to show consumers in Europe and elsewhere that they are good corporate actors with respect to achieving climate change goals.

Finding a way to do this faster, more effectively and consistently will weed out the bad performers while incenting the good one to do better. Getting industry buy in would not be difficult.

Instead, they choose to treat all industry like criminals, which will likely cause some of them to act that way.

You know, kind of like when 'that CO' levies group punishments for the bad performance of a few.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
197
Points
680
Do you currently do this with boots bought with the boot Canforgen?
I rent, so I can't get solar panels. I cannot reasonably take public transit, so a bus pass does me no good. The place I rent doesn't support electric vehicles. What green stuff can a renter and personal vehicle user get with a green account?

I'll get a bike. Then sell the bike.
 
Top