It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Carbon Tax, Yes or No?

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: fernalley
a reply to: Phage

We have a new socialist NDP government. The rebate is based on your prior years income. Low income get full rebate. OIL has gone up as OPEC is cutting production So we pay more at pumps and carbon taxPart of the carbon tax (levy)is to obtain social license as we host the notorious oil sands. We had the honor of hosting Jane Fonda today to do her Greenpeace thing as well earlier that other actor Leonardo who accused our chinook winds as proof of Climate Change. Tides foundation is pretty active here too.


Yes, we can do without celebrities coming here and telling us that we have to shut down our oilsands, when they could put their energy into cleaning up their own countries.
There's been lots of reforestation already, and no one sees that, because it's a forest. There's also not much pollution up there anymore, at least nothing visible.

Just because the ground is torn up, Fonda declared "It's like someone took my skin and peeled it off my body over a very large surface," Fonda said after she had lunch with members of the Fort McMurray First Nation. "It made my body ache to warch it."

These celebrities don't realize that once an area has no more oil in it, it gets turned back into forest. And you cannot tell, they do it that well.


Armed with an iPhone to record the event, Picard asked the 79-year-old actress and activist if she was aware that First Nations businesses in the region have invested many millions of their own dollars in the oilsands.

But Picard was quickly shut down by people travelling with Fonda, who said they did not have time to address his questions.



www.cbc.ca... 9813
edit on 11-1-2017 by snowspirit because: Tried to fix link




posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit



"If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that one day we would become Communist." (Jane Fonda, speaking to students at the University of Michigan in 1970)"



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit

I am pretty sure the celebs haven't shown up in the middle east to lecture Saudi Arabia about ethical oil.
Ha ha, it was heart rendering to listen to her disappoint about Trudeau.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: fernalley


"I guess the lesson is we shouldn't be fooled by good-looking liberals, no matter how well spoken they are. What a disappointment." Jane Fonda, 2017

Jane Fonda is a dimwit.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
The law of supply and demand implies that increased costs decrease demand so yes, the tax may reduce emissions. Will it? I dunno.

What is Alberta going to do with the revenue?


Trudeau is probably going to bring in more Syrian refugees. The rest invest in more marijuana grow ops.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
www.energycitizens.ca...


Were you informed of the 90,000 square kilometres of protected boreal forest in Alberta, or the fact that in the last 40 years, less than 0.02% of Canada’s boreal forest has been disturbed by oil sands mining, or that our oil sands count for a shade over one tenth of one percent of global greenhouse gas emissions?

By the way – how much forest is protected in Los Angeles?

You urged Alberta to embrace renewable energy. We agree. Developing renewables is one of the best ways to reduce our environmental footprint. Just FYI, though, the companies who run those mines you flew over? They're the ones actually building renewable energy.

Suncor, the single largest synthetic crude oil producer in Alberta’s oil sands, operates five wind farms in Canada - with plans to build two more - generating a total of nearly 200 megawatts.

Enbridge, a pipeline company and proponent for the Line 3 project, just invested $200 million in a 103 megawatt wind farm. The company is now invested in nearly 2,200 megawatts of renewable power generation, enough to supply electricity to about 700,000 Canadian homes.


Good article. She and her team were not armed with any knowledge at all, of how we do business up here.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit

wattsupwiththat.com...


A “progressive” tax is one where the wealthier you are the higher percentage of tax you pay. On the other hand, I’ve said before that a tax on energy, the so-called “carbon tax”, is one of the most regressive taxes available. It is the reverse of progressive, it hits the poor the hardest. This is because poor people spend a larger percentage of their income on energy than do rich people.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
It is linked to GLOBALISTS and we don;'t NEED another dictator NOR does the US take second seat in science to the liberal hacks that EUROPE clings to in order to FINANCE the EU....



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Just got the gas bill. Can't upload pics with iPad, but (approximated):
$32 - operating charges
21 - transport rate
17 - carbon levy
6 - gst (goods and services tax)
64 - gas used

$64 in gas used, $76 in other charges 🙄



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: snowspirit
Just got the gas bill. Can't upload pics with iPad, but (approximated):
$32 - operating charges
21 - transport rate
17 - carbon levy
6 - gst (goods and services tax)
64 - gas used

$64 in gas used, $76 in other charges 🙄



The carbon tax is going to be costing people.
it will increase to 5 times it's current rate in another five years.
Hopefully Canada will realize it's folly and cancel the tax like Australia has done.
Canada is going to see business fleeing across the border to where costs are cheaper, way to go Mr. Trudeau.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Nickn3

Early consensus is No.... Surely someone must think it's a good idea?

I don't and never have, despite being outspoken about AGW.

I understand the economic argument: taxation should reduce consumption and provide funding for research into alternatives.

I just don't buy it. Economics is a pseudoscience at best, and even its stars get things very wrong - just look at 2008 and Greenspan or Bernanke. They forget something pretty important: fossil fuels are the lifeblood of our civilization.

It's akin to taxing water for people. The energy density is so great in fossil fuels that we just don't have a replacement for a lot of applications, so it's not like people can pick and choose.

If they want to try that, U.S. governments (state & federal) should first get rid of the large subsidies for fossil fuels and their producers (but make it up for welfare cases), then devote those savings to alternative energy. Already, several forms of renewable energy are pretty competitive.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: D8Tee

You have hit the nail on the head..... The whole reason for the "climate change" push is to implement the "Carbon Credit Trading Scam".

Everyone get's to pay so that middleman traders get rich (and those fueling the system).

It is THE SOLUTION just waiting for a problem to implement.


But no. It is a scam and anyone paying attention knows it.

You've got it backwards.

If anything, a carbon tax is the scam - the snake oil to the very real problem of climate change.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Who Benefits from it ? The Enviorment , or Selfish Corporate and Political So Called Leaders ? The Answer to that is Self-evident.........



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join