It’s not causing inflation, but it is increasing the cost of a product I have no choice but to buy. And does absolutely nothing to help the environment. I really hate Trudeau, and even more, I hate that I voted for him.
Why wouldn’t it help the environment? The only way producers can pollute less is if it would cost less money. It will and can only happen if it pays to produce less co2
So put the cost to the companies, not me. I’m stretched thin as is, I don’t have more money for another stupid tax. Maybe if I had a little extra, I’d consider installing a few solar panels in my home, or perhaps a new EV. But no, instead the government will find a way to reach into my pocket to take what’s left.
Exactly. Offer a better option or accept reality. We’re all in this together, how about we don’t shit the bed.
If you want to blame someone, look at the biggest polluters… wealthy people with extravagant luxury making decisions for their bottom line that hurt the rest of us.
Maybe, I’m honestly not sure what the right answer is, just that this does nothing but hurt Canadians already struggling. It won’t slow the use of gasoline in the slightest.
But really, I never expect anything to be done for the people. Aside from a select lucky few, the world is set against us from the day we’re born.
Yes it will probably also mean buying less, smaller housing and less private cars. But it would also make alternatives viable that just can’t exist right now and make less polluting solutions cheaper cause of scale (like what now happens with solar panels) and they wouldn’t even need much subsidies to get them off the ground.
That it will hurt is also why I think it will never happen cause any government that takes big steps will not be in office for 4 years. It can also only happen with:
Higher minimum wage
Adorable and risk free loans for energy reduction
Social adjustments as the lowest wages are the most impacted (can be paid for with the taxes)
Your premise is flawed the only reason it falls under the principles of inelastic demand is because of the way our country is structured for cars, if you use the tax to make systemic changes, making public transit and walking/biking possible this is no longer true.
I’m not saying it’s an easy transition but it is a necessary one and Norway and Denmark proves it’s possible
What I like is that we all knew that the first financial difficult time this issue would come up and be blamed but we didn’t really future proof for it. We just let it happen every time and hope it gets sorted out
Why, during any debate about the carbon tax, does no one ever demand accountability from the corpos and oversight from the Feds?
Why is it legal for corpos to arbitrarily raise prices to offset THEIR tax? Why do we waste time calculating individual tax refunds that include climate tax rebates when it should be a tax paid by the corpo to the government as the cost of doing business?
If that’s the case, then the whole process is as wrong-headed as can be. You can only choose an alternative if a viable alternative exists. Transit isn’t supported enough to be a universally practical option while electric vehicles are too expensive and have infrastructure requirements that can’t necessarily be met by everyone. And speaking as someone who’s tried cycling, well, Edmonton is making some big moves, but In Calgary? Maybe I’ll give it a shot again when I get tired of living.
And none of that covers the fact that what is being paid at the pump as a surcharge to cover carbon taxes holds no relationship at all with what the oil companies are paying. It’s being used as an excuse to bilk the consumer even further and to line the pockets of investors.
I think the idea is that you will not necessarily choose near zero carbon alternatives such as cycling to work or buying an electric car. Those simply won’t work for most for a variety of reasons. But by bumping the price of gas, it makes people who can’t or won’t choose an alternative very aware of the cost of going anywhere, and causes many to drive more sparingly by carpooling, waiting until they have multiple reasons for trips or choosing not to go out every weekend. For those with deep pockets it is probably little more than an annoyance that won’t change their behaviour, but increasing fuel prices works very well to curb overall demand.
While yes it looks like things are more expensive, it’s still effectively a wealth transfer where the poorest get more money back from the system.
It’s sorta genius in that way, poorer folk are still rewarded for picking the less polluting option, but in the end don’t actually end up payijg more after the quarterly rebate
People below a certain income and have less options get that tax money spent back.
Those who are wealthier and can afford other options like Electric vehicles and heat pumps don’t get the money back. That money goes ideally towards developing green infrastructure like charging stations (no idea if they actually do, but that’s the idea)
It’s not wrong headed at all. There is always an alternative.
In some cases that alternative is transit. In some cases that alternative is cycling. In some cases that alternative is carpooling. In some cases that alternative is driving an existing car more efficiently. In some cases that alternative is choosing to buy a ICE smaller car. In some cases that alternative is buying a BEV.
In all those cases, even a small step will reward someone for making that choise.
80% of Canadians get more back than they pay. It’s not a tax, it’s a redistribution.
On the margin, it adds small incentives to shift consumer behaviour. Lots of people in warmer climates in Canada are shifting to e-bikes, for instance, and heat pumps are becoming increasingly common.
Sure, some Canadians are paying more than they get in rebates… like my old neighbour who commutes to work in an F-350, but that’s the point. He shouldn’t be driving to an office job in an industrial truck!
Im all for charging more taxes on high emissions goods, but allowing it to be a fuck you to the consumer that has to engage with capitalism and not the corpos who dont have to offer high emissions goods, kind of blurs the whole “Earth is dying” conundrum we’re in.
Right, its my fault for buying gas for my car that I need to go to work to keep society functioning. Its not the gas companies fault or the car manufacturers fault. Its totally my bad for wanting a livable wage the only way you can get one.
Right but now the car company had a massive incentive to build more efficient vehicles. The tax also isn’t for the consumer necessarily is it?.
What you will pay is nothing compared to companies running factories and shipping between stores.
If you haven’t looked into it, our logistics system is all kinds of fucked up. In some cases shipping parts across the ocean to get assembled and shipped back for more assembling before being shipped back again. All because carbon based energy usage has been dirt cheap for too long.
Its cheapness places externalities on society that we all pay anyways. Carbon taxes is a way to recoup the costs. Its a cost that had we known about these externalities then it would have been built in from the start. It’s multifaceted and encouraged by many as a good solution
I’d argue that it is for the consumers, as those are the people getting the rebate. It incentivizes a shift in consumer behavior that is meant to take revenue away from the fossil fuel industry and redirect it towards green alternatives. I agree, it’s a good policy, and one of the only ways we have of gracefully moving away from fossil fuels.
As long as you can avoid having people completely miss the point of the tax and being misled by politicians for their own personal gain, that is.
I think you’re missing that you (likely) get more money back than you pay in. It’s a restriction, not a tax. It’s only the most egregiously inefficient drivers/home owners who are paying more.
As someone commuting in a reasonable car driving a reasonable distance in a reasonably efficient home, you have more money in your pocket every month. And if any of those aren’t the case, then maybe it’s time to make some changes (which is the whole point!)
And in your case you’re likely breaking even or getting a little back from the carbon pricing system.
You as the consumer isn’t been told fuck you. You’re being slightly incentivised to make better choices, and rewarded if you do, but not penalized if you don’t.
Believe it or not, pulling money out of circulation and putting it promptly back in doesn’t effect the total supply!
It’s a canard for doing less about climate change without saying that outright, since their base demands the former and the broader public demands the latter. Plus, they get to talk about less taxes, which makes their other natural demographic happy.
Well no shit, but it’s still crippling the cash flow of citizens, on top of their money being worthless.
And before we go all “but the majority of people get more money back than they put in!”
I’ve never received a fucking dime back, and I’m in a very median tax bracket. Why do I need to jump through more hoops every year to get my money back? The extra cash flow is more beneficial than stock pilling my money with the government, and waiting for their slow ass to give it back
Very sure. Guess I’ll get on the phone and start having weeks worth of back and forth with our very competent and efficient CRA to see if back pay is an option
If you go on Canada.ca you can see all the history of the payments as well as how those payments were delivered and if there was some sort of problem, that’s probably the best place to start.
Then check your account on the government’s website because you’re supposed to get a financial compensation that’s high enough that you can drive 15k km and heat using oil and still come up ahead.
Complaining that you don’t get it and blaming the government and pretending it’s fake (I checked your history, it’s at least the second time you complain about that) instead of trying to find out if/why you don’t get it, that’s on you buddy and you sure look like the kind of guy that’s all about people’s own responsibilities (again, from your history).
15km? Heat with oil? What small city in Nova Scotia do you live in?
Why is it my fault that the government imposed a tax, and then said “don’t worry, we’ll give it back!” and then didn’t?
My main complaint here is that I constantly have to jump through ridiculous hoops with the government to get money that I’d already earned, but they just take it freely
This is hardly an unsolvable problem. But it IS expensive. The Netherlands has 17 million people and almost all of them live in a floodplane or literally under sea level.
You fix this by pouring billions of dollars into flood control. Build dykes, retention areas, meandering rivers and normalized deltas. It’s expensive and a lot of work, and people will need to move, or drown. It’s as simple as that.
I think that’s a bit different, I agree that tornado alley is a dangerous place to live but it’s gigantic… it’s similar to saying that nobody should live in California due to earthquakes. There were some ancient people that used to sink flood stones into their river banks - if a flood submerged a flood stone you’d make another one at the new high water mark.
People should just stop building houses right up against waterways.
Yeah, the do not build beyond this monuments. For climate change we probably need some civil engineering and meteorologist to work together and set out boundaries for new build area and deprecate potential bad spots. Those spot will fall in value so quickly and no insurance company will insure those.
People just moving ranchers (splits, here) around do not address the problem, which is simply there is no cheap land. That which isn’t required for farming is just too expensive to have a single family dwelling on.
There is immensely cheap land available in remote areas. But if you’re talking about land near stuff like work… then the real problem is zoning laws and dumb as rocks urban planning.
It’s pretty obvious that every household having 2-3 cars is simply unsustainable.
Imagine if a senior operative working behind the scenes of Premier Danielle Smith’s government scheduled a private meeting with a bunch of oil industry lobbyists to chat about Alberta’s policies.
One of the lobbyists responds to the invitation by sending over an agenda with a range of topics and proposals including the creation of new subsidies for the oilpatch, crafting a strategy to fight federal government rules aimed at cracking down on pollution and introducing obstacles to make it difficult for renewable energy projects to launch.
The lobbyist also proposes they discuss a bailout plan for a company that is near bankruptcy, but facing a multimillion-dollar bill to clean up a bunch of contaminated sites where it used to operate.
This scenario is not all that far-fetched in a province that has access to the world’s third-largest reserves of oil, following Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
But what happens when a government that is supposedly operating in a free democracy breaks the law to conceal its dealings with lobbyists?
Sadly, I believe this is what happened earlier this year when the Alberta government began to systematically refuse to release records of its meetings with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and other oil and gas lobbyists. Although we know officials from at least four ministries have been significantly influenced through regular meetings with industry lobbyists, the departments collectively refused to accept more than 20 separate requests I made through freedom of information legislation since the beginning of 2023 to get the details.
But there’s also some good news I can share. Thanks to The Narwhal’s persistence, a provincial watchdog — Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta Diane McLeod — has agreed to launch a systemic investigation after we filed a complaint detailing a plethora of evidence we have collected about an apparent cover-up.
How Alberta government secrecy prompted my watchdog complaint
Through my research, I learned officials from across the Alberta government arranged private meetings amongst themselves to discuss how to deal with my requests. And it isn’t clear whether any of the seven people invited to the meeting took any notes about what they discussed, since the government was unable to provide anything when I asked about this.
In refusing to respond to my requests, officials offered a range of excuses such as claiming they were unable to print out the calendar appointments of their own staff or saying it would be too much of a burden to retrieve email correspondence between their staff and the lobbyists unless I agreed to scale back my requests to emails on a single topic within a date range of less than 12 months.
The latter excuse would have made it very difficult for anyone to uncover how oil and gas lobbyists had put a 132-item wishlist as a top priority on the government’s agenda, as my colleagues Carl Meyer and Drew Anderson reported last year. It also provides a twisted and Orwellian interpretation of a section of Alberta’s transparency law that says requests “must provide enough detail to enable the public body to identify the record.”
That’s because under this new interpretation, a member of the public might be required to file hundreds of requests in order to discover any of the emails that listed everything the industry pressured the government to adopt.
I don’t understand how people keep acting surprized that “elected” leaders (John Horgan is an example here but let’s get real, they all do it) run on a campaign of “saving natureTM” and then backpedal, shill, and eventually end up with jobs in the resource extraction sector. Like when do people come to understand that the vote harder culture is not working? Maybe next election cycle? Or the one after that? I don’t have kids but if I did, would I hold out hope for 16 years until real change kicks in? 24? 28?
I knew Horgan would do it – he was trying to court old BC Liberal voters, and because it’s BC the NDP are basically the Liberals, but I had really hoped Eby would back out of it.
I find the most infuriating part is that we had the BC “Liberals” forever, and them killing endangered animals they were also committed to ‘saving’ is pretty on brand.
The NDP, on the other hand, continuing to do both these things is the baffling part.
I’m not dissing you here but after all of the decades of smoke and mirrors, you are/were still putting your hope in Eby? It’s not the individuals who lie and cheat their way into the public trust… it’s the system that is built to allow everyone involved to profit from that public trust. Corporations do it. Governments do it. Banking and real estate conglomerates do it. They all gain our trust, and then rugpull and profit.
BC could go full Green Party next cycle and things would look a lot greener in the PR for awhile but shit would stay the same. The system itself, that fosters and gets these people elected, is rotten. I’m not insane for stating this on a public forum am I?
I’m not dissing you here but after all of the decades of smoke and mirrors, you are/were still putting your hope in Eby?
Well, they haven’t been in power for decades, they won in 2017. I’ve spoken to him personally quite a few times, and most (all?) of his other promises we spoke of he went through with. It was this one that wasn’t, and I was surprised when that happened.
No worries, glad to help. The BC NDP hasn’t been great, but they sure aren’t as bad as the BC ‘Liberals’ were (what the hell are they called now?). The issue is that they have so many easy wins to get Green votes, but they keep stabbing themselves in the foot instead. Not to mention it’s pretty easy to stop logging old growth, and forest the other billion km’s of trees we have.
They are absolutely the lesser of two evils compared to the BC Libs. There are some areas where they don’t seem very different, but on the human rights front they’re usually a lot better.
That said, I’m surprised they haven’t given any increase to disability payments during their tenure. With the rate of inflation it’s a necessity for many people.
Oh for sure, I vote them very begrudgingly, and you’re right that they are bafflingly silent on Disability benefits. I have a family member on disability and their monthly allowance for rent is like 350 dollars. It’s so callously out of date.
thenarwhal.ca
Hot