Media and Liberal Government's Complicity

Maybe Postmedia, publisher of the Vancouver Province (among other print publications), is jockeying for a government bail-out as revenues continue to decline.

Or maybe it's just a two-page long suck-up to Justin Trudeau.

At issue is the February 9th article by journalist Randy Shore in The Province entitled "Overhaul your Carbon Footprint", with the teaser "These are the everyday choices you can make for the biggest impact on the environment".  (Note:  Could only find the link, albeit not verbatim to that of the Province, on the Vancouver Sun website).

You, of course, refers to the readers...people. 
Everyday working--or retired--people.

We the people are already paying carbon taxes.

Seems now we're supposed to step up further, and maybe buy an electric car?
Both the provincial and federal governments have some incentives, as long as the base-model price doesn't exceed $45,000 (one version of the Tesla specifically priced to qualify for the program).
 
And we should "telecommute", which means work from home, pick up the phone if you need to talk to a colleague, or write an email or chat face-to-face with Facebook or Skype.  You can also save your employer (ahem!) money in reduced office space.

And take transit, which you the taxpayer have funded for many years.  So hop on.  Oh yes, hike or hitch hike that two or three kilometres from your rural residence to where transit is located.  Need to pick up a sick child from school at 11:00 a.m.?  Well, it's going to take a while to get there as you need to walk the last two or three kilometres to your child's rural school.

We're advised to eat differently.  But the article admits "It's not enough really to justify the shaming that meat-eaters suffer," says the writer. 

We should "heat differently". 
Sure...let's start ripping out walls and ducts--maybe even excavate and lift the house to turn it toward the sun--to remove your carbon emissions by more than 95 per cent.  Or just add sweaters and more sweaters.  We're even supposed to "buy better clothing"...natural organic fibres and to wear clothes longer and longer.

We're advised to "skip a flight", because a coach-class return flight from Vancouver to London England produces 2.45 tonnes of CO2, or 10 tonnes if you're flying first-class.  Skip a flight?  Who has the money to travel to England...let alone travel by first class!

Speaking of reducing carbon emissions, we people want to see Prime Minister Justin Trudeau set an exemplary idea...be a role model...  We want him to announce he will promote a monumental change for how G-meetings are conducted:     

No more flying to summits, Mr. Trudeau!
Use Skype!
No more expensive 5-star hotels when he's away.

Stay home.
Just like us, the people.


"Just think of how much that could save in carbon emissions," Kia would've said.

And maybe the Postmedia guy, Randy Shore, should work from home...he might already (for reasons other than reducing carbon).

Or maybe he's off on a political junket with Trudeau...

 

Another Teed Off Poster re Carbon Taxes

Comments about climate change and carbon taxes are arriving almost daily via email.
Here's a cut-n-paste of an anonymous submission from another blog:


on climate change:

“How can we possibly expect to reduce emissions when goods and services do not include the cost of polluting to influence our purchasing decisions?”

Carbon taxes target goods and services which are NOT discretionary. 

adjective

adjective: discretionary

1. available for use at the discretion of the user.

   "rules are inevitably less flexible than a discretionary policy"

   synonyms:

   optional, noncompulsory, voluntary, at one's discretion, up to the individual, nonmandatory, elective, open to choice; More open, unrestricted; permissive; rarediscretional "a 12.5 percent discretionary service charge"

   antonyms:

   compulsory, obligatory

   • denoting or relating to investment funds placed with a broker or manager who has discretion to invest them on the client's behalf.

     "discretionary portfolios"

Ie, people cannot chose(sic) whether or not to heat their house, take the bus to work, buy groceries or put gasoline in their cars. 

Carbon taxes target the poor and lower middle classes, by making compulsory purchases unaffordable.

Tax natural gas used to heat houses. Who is going to not heat their house? It is minus 25 degrees in Toronto in the winter. People die of exposure. Your pipes will freeze. You won’t make it through the night. No matter how expensive they make it, you are going to heat your house.

Tax gasoline. Do they expect everyone to walk? Buy $65,000 Teslas? People are still going to drive their cars. Because, they have to. Outside of Toronto, public transit is a joke. In rural areas, you cannot walk because the distances are too far. People are still going to buy and use gasoline. They have to. Try walking 20 kilometers in the summer heat or the winter cold and you will understand why we use cars to get around in rural Ontario.

Carbon taxes raise property taxes (because municipalities have to pay more for their services, so they download that onto property owners). Property owners raise rents, to compensate. Tenants pay more. Once again, the poorest and most vulnerable of our society is targeted by carbon taxation.

Groceries cost more with carbon taxes. You have to transport them to the store using diesel powered trucks (carbon tax) you have to heat and air condition the store (carbon tax) you have to manufacture the goods sold (carbon tax) you have to farm them (carbon tax). Tax on top of tax on top of tax. All loaded onto the poor and lower middle classes, who can’t just decide not to eat anymore and go hungry. 

Carbon taxes are not the answer to “climate change” (if such a thing even exists).

If you want to stop people from putting gasoline in their cars, give them an alternative. 

If you want to stop people from purchasing groceries which are produced in a high carbon way, then offer them something else.

If you want to stop people from using natural gas to heat their houses, then offer them another option.

Carbon taxation is basically wealthy governments, taking money from the poor, and transferring it to International organisations which have as their purpose “fighting climate change”. These taxes create an elite, funded off the backs of the poor. That is all they are.

And if you ever go to one of these climate change conferences, count the private jets that bring all the trust fund kids to the conference, and count the cars and limos and SUVs that take them to all their destinations during the day. They are the most high carbon emission events on the planet, fully funded off the backs of the poor.  And the G20 (etc.) meetings to which all governments send high-level officials and elected folks?  Wow!


That is why I cannot stand carbon taxes.

And Andrew Scheer is right.
All they are is a tax on the poor and lower middle classes."

No further comment from me.
Except to admit that I'm probably a member of the lower middle class...

Carbon Tax Lies

Revenue neutral? 
Nope, thanks to Justin Trudeau's lies.
And Premier Horgan's lies too.

Liar, liar, pants on fire

The Prime Minister's "intention"--as stated by Dan Albas, Conservative MP for Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola--is to "ensure the national carbon tax is revenue neutral to citizens".

Excerpts from Mr. Albas' editorial in The Daily Courier, Monday, April 22/19, follow:

On April 1st, B.C.'s carbon tax rate increased from $35 tonne to $40 a tonne.
PM Trudeau called for a pan-Canadian agreement on pricing carbon pollution in Canada of $50 per tonne in 2022.

Click graphic to enlarge

In B.C., the NDP government's budget over the next three fiscal years reveals that the carbon tax is forecast to generate $1.7, $1.97 and $2.2 billion.  Yup, Billion.

So is the carbon tax revenue neutral here in British Columbia?

$6 billion in revenue to government

$928 million returned...

what's wrong with OUR math?

In BC., the carbon tax will generate close to $6 billion in tax revenue over the next three years, the climate action tax rebate, intended to offset those costs to lower-income citizens over the same period, is forecast to return just $928 million.

Of course Horgan and Weaver are laughing...British Columbia's residents have bought their diatribe hook, line and sinker!

"Clean B.C.", another climate-related provincial program, has a total spending forecast of $679 million over the same three years.  Therefore, in order to meet Trudeau's $50 per tonne carbon tax target, BC citizens will pay close to $6 billion in new carbon taxes over the next three years.

BUT...$6 billion collected, only approximately $1.6 billion total is being returned in various programs related to climate change. 

So that means, in B.C., the carbon tax is not revenue neutral.

Dan Albas asked at the editorial's conclusion:  "Do you support the carbon tax increasing to $50 per tonne by 2021-22?

The answer is a resounding NO.
Why?

This is why:  (from a Lake Country letter to the editor):  Canada, a massive country with a very small population, produces 1.6 per cent of world carbon output that virtually is offset by 318 billion carbon dioxide breathing trees and has about zero effect on the world pollution stage.

Lies, lies, everywhere lies.
Song lyrics...come true.