News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 6.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 33K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 3.2K     0 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,339
City:
Toronto
Where is the outrage from the same people who applaud the “savings” from cancelling the basic income pilot?
That's just the tip of the iceberg. There's a damn good reason they won't answer to the Opposition, the Press, or even Conservative Mayors and Councils. They've promulgated the Big Lie. And the great unread have believed it. Goebbels would be more than pleased...

See:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...ks-for-the-people-just-not-low-income-people/
 
Last edited:

SunriseChampion

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
6,777
Reaction score
2,726
It is not wise to question the Glorious Leader!

This is starting to give me flashbacks from history class.


Dude, no offence, but if you shoot yourself in the foot, don't come crying to me....I'll just laugh at you.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. There's a damn good reason they won't answer to the Opposition, the Press, or even Conservative Mayors and Councils. They've promulgated the Big Lie. And the great unread have believed it. Goebbels would be more than pleased...

Speaking of flashbacks from history class....
Goebbels was a bit more......successful, I'd say.


PS: I hope they open more casinos. I need to swindle some more people at the blackjack tables because this government is starting to cost me serious amounts of the more than 17k a year I pay in taxes. I'm sure at least some of the people losing at the table I'm at will have been Ford supporters.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,339
City:
Toronto
Dude, no offence, but if you shoot yourself in the foot, don't come crying to me....I'll just laugh at you.
And during the campaign the Progressive Conservatives...

Yeah, they said they weren't going to cancel it.

And here we are.

Yeah. So, not terribly happy with them right now.
Stupid is as stupid does...
Speaking of flashbacks from history class....
Goebbels was a bit more......successful, I'd say.
Goebbels was a hell of a lot brighter, even if he too was a sociopath.

See:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...ks-for-the-people-just-not-low-income-people/
 
Last edited:

adma

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
17,024
Reaction score
1,623
Besides, it's not fair; Ford *replaced* Goebbels, remember ;-)

EBvB78o.png
 

SunriseChampion

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
6,777
Reaction score
2,726

Thinker

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
652
Reaction score
959
Where is the outrage from the same people who applaud the “savings” from cancelling the basic income pilot?

Busy drinking their buck a beer and hoping the price of weed drops. (sorry I am very sarcastic) Those "folks" don't dare to complain or are oblivious since CP24 hasn't spelled it out for them yet.

All sarcasm aside, those who are living paycheck to paycheck deserve a program to make their life a wee bit more comfortable - if their employer doesn't claw back their benefits to offset their wage increase
 

sixrings

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
5,231
Reaction score
2,656
Try to remember this next time a opportunity to strategic votes presents itself.
I honestly want my money back from these dicks.

I have to go spend tomorrow on a roof all day just so I can pay Ford and his menagerie of pathetic quislings.

This is enough to make me suicidal again.
 

SunriseChampion

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
6,777
Reaction score
2,726
Try to remember this next time a opportunity to strategic votes presents itself.

Ha, you're funny. You really think I wouldn't want my money back from the red or orange fools as well?
Not to mention the seriously negative psychological consequences of feeling coerced into voting against your beliefs.

Next.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,339
City:
Toronto
For reader consideration:
The pan-Canadian framework: Carbon cap and trade
Tuesday, July 17, 2018 @ 9:14 AM | By Gary Goodwin

As previously discussed, Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (Act) contains two mechanisms for pricing carbon. The first involves straight taxation. The second mechanism uses cap and trade.

In a cap and trade system, the government sets carbon emission caps on the regulated sectors. The government then issues certain emission allowances by an auction process. Those businesses purchase the allowances to allow for a certain amount of carbon emissions. If the business exceeds those levels of allowances, then it has to pay a charge on the excess. However, if it is able to reduce its level of emissions to below the level of allowances, it can trade those allowances to other businesses requiring them. The government in charge of the cap and trade system then simply reduces the amount of allowances issued for each time period. The economy then reduces its overall carbon emissions.

The difficulty with a national cap and trade system would be the federal government’s potential lack of jurisdiction to issue such a system. The government’s solution involved creating the first mechanism, the carbon charge, which clearly falls into its ability to legislate. The cap and trade system becomes merely an add-on. This flexibility for the carbon charge then would justify this second mechanism.

The greenhouse Act allows the provinces to implement their own tax system or cap and trade system. The provincial systems must plan to achieve a certain level of emission reductions in order to be comparable to the same results that would have been achieved by the federal system. If the planning objectives are comparable, then the federal system does not apply. This achieves the “backstop” type of legislation where the provinces retain sufficient authority to develop their own homegrown process for emission reductions.

A cap and trade system possesses numerous pros and cons. For example, this system shows historical success. The sulphur dioxide trading system reduced emissions to alleviate acid rain impacts. The system produced actual and substantial reductions in SO2 over a short period of time.

The European Union Emissions Trading System for carbon initially appeared to be substantially less successful. The government issued far too many emission allowances which substantially reduced their value. Businesses did not have to modify their operations in order to meet their emission caps. Presently, the EU’s $38 billion annual carbon market now seems to be operating the way intended and carbon prices have more than doubled in the past year.

A cap and trade system can result in real reductions of carbon emissions. Meanwhile, a carbon tax can simply be paid by a business as a cost of doing business instead of it trying to reduce its emissions. However, the B.C. carbon tax system does appear to have resulted in an overall reduction of emissions from 2008 to today’s date. Ontario’s recently introduced cap and trade system required time to prove itself.

Ontario’s first 2017-2020 compliance period allowed some eligible capped emitters to receive emission allowances free of charge. This was to make the transition easier and make the system manageable for companies with competitors in jurisdictions without a carbon price. Allowances were not to be given free of charge to fuel suppliers/distributors, electricity importers and electricity generators. The rate of allowances was to be decreased over time at a rate of 4.75 per cent per year for combustion emissions starting in 2018.

Partnering with other cap and trade systems can result in even greater savings. Ontario signed on with the Western Climate Initiative. This Initiative includes California and Quebec. Other governments had joined in, but dropped out of the initiative. Nova Scotia recently indicated its intent to join.

The theory of comparative advantage shows that where a country has a lower opportunity cost, it can produce less expensive emission credits and this can result in a greater economic return for all countries involved. This allows countries to specialize in emission credits where they have comparative advantage.

Being involved with international trading provides organizations with the ability to source the least expensive emission credits. This somewhat resembles a free trade agreement where funds leave one jurisdiction and emission credits come back. Some politicians criticize such an arrangement which drives investment out of the country. However, business has the ability to source the least expensive emission credit to reduce its expenses and meet its overall emission cap.

Ontario recently indicated its intent to withdraw from the initiative. Its agreement states that it has to provide one year’s notice. The initiative then blocked Ontario businesses from any future auctions of emission credits. This prevented these business from dumping all of their credits and negatively impacting the value of credits.

This is the third article dealing with Canada’s legislation on climate change. The next article will look at the Ontario situation. Read the first article here, and the second article here.

Gary Goodwin is the chief legal officer for a national conservation organization. He has been working in the environmental field for over 30 years.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to The Lawyer’s Daily, contact Analysis Editor Richard Skinulis at Richard.Skinulis@lexisnexis.ca or call 437- 828-6772.


Related Articles
 

Top