This may come as a surprise, but his agenda is a simple one - he hates Trudeau.

For what it is worth, this time around that has more of a chance of working than the last time when that also was his entire agenda.

Nope do not hate him. I dislike him

From the Green Parties platform on Liberals and Climate Action


Though I looked through their platform and nothing on Coal or dumping raw sewage by cities on it. As well no cost to the platform

ah yes, lozen pretending to give a **** about climate change right before voting for the conservatives, the party who put us in this situation and most likely do the absolute least on climate change.

The specific talking about about current GHG amounts is getting frustratingly stupid. The carbon tax came in place in 2019. It came in at the lowest dollar amount to have a nice transition where it rises up year after year after year until 2030. We don't have 2020 data yet. But there are these completely ignorant hyperpartisans who try to attack GHG rates as if this somehow disproves the carbon tax.

Yes everyone knows you are a socialist. You want poor peoples lives to be more expensive and to be dependent on government for their monthly bills. I want poor people to have access to cheap energy, opportunity, jobs and responsibility.

Let me ask you this

What do you consider the dirtiest of Fossil Fuels? Traditional Oil Drilling, Fracking, Coal, Tar Sand Oil, Natural gas generated power, nuclear, solar, wind?

Or rank them worst to first

Oh DO jump to the "gotcha" part!


They can't be easily ranked because of so many "it depends". But that is the genius of the carbon tax, because it is the same equal price per tonne, it does that ranking for us. So if someone puts in a system that is extremely efficient and does carbon capture and storage perhaps, then something that is typically "dirtier" in this context might have less emissions associated to it, be taxed less, and thus be incentivized. CO2 emissions isn't the only way to measure "dirty" (nuclear, for instance I'm a fan of but has a very different type of risk associated to it).

So again avoiding a simple question . Its called debating. Sadly I keep providing countless examples of the fact even the Green Party is politically motivated in what it chooses and opposes

Lets try another one.

Do you think either of these two projects should have required a federal environmental review

https://naturecanada.ca/news/blog/en...ghg-emissions/

https://montrealgazette.com/news/que...nmental-review

I'm hardly a socialist, I'm advocating for a market mechanism to solve climate change ffs! The carbon tax only makes sense in the context of a market economy, if I was a socialist I would be suggesting something else.

I'm supportive of things being cheap for poor people in most respects. I, for instance, support the Liberal agreements with the provinces to make daycare only cost $10 per day. The only place that isn't true, sort of, is that I want everyone to be incentivized to reduce their carbon usage, rich and poor alike. The rebate system is designed so that on average that doesn't cost the poor money, if anything they are more likely to be net winners. It would be amazing if we could have "cheap energy" for all, but the sad reality is there is a massive cost to the planet so we need to solve that energy problem while doing what else we can to support the poor. None of that is socialism.

How? It isn't avoiding, it just isn't possible to make some definitive list of every fuel source by dirtiest because the context and details matter A LOT. Why don't you answer it if it is so trivial?

Ok? Every political party is politically motivated. The conservatives, for instance, have a terrible climate change plan because of the political motivation of their base, many of whom reject the idea of doing anything at all about climate change. Those are the people you are voting for, why on earth are you worried about the greens of all things?



Uh.....wtf is with these 20 questions. Like, are you just randomly googling anything vaguely environmental from the last couple years to set up some gotcha with me? I don't know any details about either of these two cement projects but sure I'm generally on the side of thinking we should have strict environmental review process and am glad the Liberals have done a much better job than the conservatives at bolstering those reviews. It sounds in both cases like these are provincial jurisdiction issues?

I think what you are trying to set up here isn't some bad faith argument that the Liberals are not perfect on climate change - something I certainly agree - thus absolving you of the ****ing abdication that is voting for the conservatives while pretending to care about climate change.

Let me give you an example of why O'Tooles plan can work

You have two folks One is named Luke and he is an associate professor at UBC and earns $49,000 a year and lives in his parents garden suite pays no utilities just rent and rides his bike to and from campus and really pays no carbon tax but gets a carbon tax rebate under Justin's Plan WHY?
Than you have Nifty who owns a grain farm and does really well earns $200,000 a year but uses coal fired grain dryers as coal is cheap. He pays carbon tax on that coal and the diesel and gas he uses on the farm and natural gas to heat his home. Under O'Tooles plan He gets to put that carbon tax in a green savings account were he can later buy a Bio Mass grain dryer under Justin's he gets nothing
https://www.agweek.com/business/3788...biomass-drying

Ah great, no engagement, no elaboration, just move right on to the next in your list of 20 questions.

Firstly, lol at a UBC associate professor making 49k, you are clearly quite out of touch. But the way is clear: we want to encourage people to live low carbon intensive lifestyles, and discourage people from using carbon intensive ones. So if someone is using a very low carbon lifestyle with shared living, biking, etc, this is something we want to encourage! So if that person is a net winner, and someone who lives in a big house away from family with a long commute then they might be a net loser, this encourages lower carbon lifestyles. Do you see the crucial mechanism here? It is carrots AND sticks.

Nifty has a an incentive to switch under either plan, but it works in different ways. Under the liberal plan, "Nifty" (where do you come up with these names?) has an incentive to switch because he will save a lot of carbon tax by shifting. Under the conservative plan, every dollar he spends in the carbon tax he gets back right back as the personal rebates depend on what you spend, and if he ever reduces his carbon usage he stops getting the money back. So he might not even want to bother! The only incentive structure is that the big government conservatives are making choices of what from a large category he chooses to spend the money on, maybe it is Bio Mass dryer out of the good of his heart, maybe that isn't worth the effort and it is something else.

The core problem with "return the exact amount of money you spend back to the individuals" is that it really reduces the incentive. That the money can only be spent on specific categories does create some incentive, it isn't taken all the way to zero, it is just lessened. Again, more carbon intensive industries will likely be net losers but that is part of the bargain, it now lets us build in the true costs of that carbon into the economic pricing mechanisms.

Yeah Yeah I would guess $125,000 bucks but I had to make my example . Under O'Tooles plan that money goes into a Green savings account to be used for green projects

OK I would rank fossil fuels as worst to first
Coal
Tar Sands Oil
Fracking
Traditional Drilling
Natural Gas (Though much comes from fracking)
Nuclear
Solar
Wind

So your goal should be to eliminate the worst first. So you start with coal obviously you cant eliminate the coal used to produce steel. The rest you can

Yet the Green & NDP nothing on coal. The liberals have done nothing and will do nothing. Sorry 2030 just doesnt cut it Conservatives Nothing

So how can I take any of them serious on Climate change?

No one talks about the obscurantism coming back with that crazy story in Ontario about burning books.
Woke craziness again ..

Trudeau thanks you and the other supporters of the wingnut party.

Sadly that is the truth as most of those folks would vote Conservative

I think its funny though when folks paint Maxime as a bigot and racist when only the Bloc supports bill 21

As well I think they deserve to be in the debate just as Rebel should be allowed access

Correct. Did you not follow the previous argument, it was dependent on this fact? This scheme just isn't a effective disincentive scheme. In some ways it has the psychology of an INcentive scheme not a disincentive scheme because the more you spend on high carbon things, the more money you get back in Rewards points to spend on fancy new things. And you get this really economically distortive thing where some people have no disincentives at all as they want to buy the various allowed things anyways, so all the tax they pay they just get right back to pay for things they buy anyways. For others, they don't want to spend their money on this stuff but Big Brother government only allows them to spend on select things so they either distort the market buying things they don't really want or it just goes to waste. Contrast this with the genius of the Liberal scheme were incentives are always aligned. If you reduce your carbon usage, you come out ahead. If you increase it, you come out behind. You get to spend 100% of your refund on whatever you want. Honestly, that is the more conservative idea.

But even if we assume that those two things are exactly equal, let's remember the Conservative plan puts a $50 cap not a $170 cap. It's just too ****ing small. Even if it worked. Which it won't.


Ok. This seems to be a pretty poor way to think about climate policy. First, to be clear, the carbon tax DOES tax any coal produced or burned in Canada, thanks Justin! But the idea of doing all of coal before touching the tarsands is just silly. The liberal plan treats them the same, the same per tonne cost that rises the exact same. This lets the economy adjust and use market forces to bring those down overtime equally. I know it is frustrating that the conservatives shredded environmental regulations and allowed a coal shipping port to built to ship american product and chineses consumed coal, you should probably never vote conservative again given that failure, but to use this as some sort of argument that you should vote conservative again because the Liberals didn't screw the investment over immediately and instead put it on the same 2030 escalating timeline as the rest of their entire climate agenda just seems stupid.

This all sort of makes sense. O'Toole has tried to pull his party, begging, pleading, to the left on social issues, economic issues and of course his copying of the carbon tax. This is probably the most left the Conservatives have run maybe ever, heck his plans are about spending more on the recovery and spending more on health transfer payments and more on national childcare plans and making a new carbon tax thing.

So what do you get? A portion of the right wing isn't going to want to go with that, hates things like that flippity floppity on guns, and the PPC does well.

Conversely, if you care about the environment, this is the time to support the massive climate change plan the liberals put in, there isn't a need to signal by voting green because that is the single biggest reason to vote liberal right now. So we get a hollowed out Green and an embolded PPC. It doesn't look pretty, but it makes sense.

Hey as much as the PPC is taking away from the Conservatives the NDP is grabbing liberal voters. Many whom are tired of his repeated promises without delivering and calling an election in a pandemic

This will be the first time myself and two buddies all vote for the same party.

So Uke how do you honestly see the Liberals performing this election? How many seats. I get it two weeks to go and one of the leaders could be exposed for painting his whole body with black paint and dancing like a monkey. But lets assume that doesn't happen

I have no expertise on calling elections beyond looking at the polls. It looks most likely to be a close minority for CPC or Lib, with some possibilities of justin retaining PM via collaboration with NDP, a situation I'm entirely fine with.

You could be right. I think you are underestimating how many liberal people are against vaccine passports and lockdowns though.

that's sort of a weird thing to say since nobody is recommending lockdowns right now while vaccine passports are an excellent, excellent idea.

Ok? Is that suppose to be an argument to what I said?

Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin was kicked out of the conservative party for organizing protests. She ran as an independent and was polling less than 10% up to the NS election, she easily beat an experienced Liberal candidate in a province that was a liberal majority. Not saying something like that will happen federally, just it's silly to think it's only conservatives going to the PPC.

It's pretty rare. Look at the cross tabs for Liberal supports what their second place is. It is NDP first and CPC second. Sure there are probably some illogical, low information voters who go from Liberal to PPC but on a bunch of issues in particular climate change these parties are absolutely antithetical with multiple alternate options on both sides if you just hate the Liberals like lozen.

You really babbling about trickle down economy again working ?
Look at the US …lower taxes didn’t solve anything on the contrary , wealth gap are much larger over there .

I rather be poor in Canada than in the US .
Even tho they have lower taxes , how strange .
Even tho with the winter we have higher energy needs .

There is another way to lower prices of goods .
You raise wages !
People and all governments are drowning in debts while some corporations make more profits than the entire gdp of countries ffs .
But hey let’s give them even more tax cuts because this time , yes this time is different , will get some money back , 40 years later …