CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:39 am
 


stratos stratos:
$1:
We are also saving money in deferring upgrades to government owned power plants. Plus, carbon tax also pays for upgrades to transit systems, furthering the reduction in carbon tax collected.

That is the purpose of a tax; to reduce consumption through monetary penalties. Worked for tobacco the same way.

Edit: The subdivision in which I live just replaces all sodium vapour street lamps with LED lamps, also incentivised by the carbon tax. They would have gone on using the sodium vapour, unless given a break on the cost of LEDs.


Yet Loblaw is not being fined they are getting subsidized to upgrade so they don't get fined. Or that's my understanding. I see no issue with the taxes going to upgrade Gov. owned plants and transit systems. I would, if I lived in Canada, have issue with the money going to private business with enough money to pay for all of this. Instead they are getting my tax money so they can avoid being fined. That is money taken from the tax payers helping and being used not to help tax payers but to help corporations avoid paying for their own upgrade.

I don't think I would be up in arms over it but would not like it one bit. Just like I was not happy about the bail outs to the Auto, Bank and other industries that happened here in the USA.


What is this talk of getting fined? They’ll still pay for a carbon tax on their energy consumption


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18770
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:59 am
 


$1:

What is this talk of getting fined? They’ll still pay for a carbon tax on their energy consumption



I might be cross threading or something but I thought there had been a mention of Loblaw being finned if they didn't make these improvements.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:24 am
 


stratos stratos:
$1:

What is this talk of getting fined? They’ll still pay for a carbon tax on their energy consumption



I might be cross threading or something but I thought there had been a mention of Loblaw being finned if they didn't make these improvements.



Nope


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:44 am
 


BeaverFever BeaverFever:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:


Nope. They don't. And I can play this stupid game as long as you can.



Yes they do. Here’s BC


No they don't. And you know they don't now. Don't you? Emissions decreased in BC as they did in many places starting about the time of the Obama recession. Currently they are increasing. This was patiently explained to you with multiple links and charts. Some working with personal agendas have misrepresented statistics to present a false narrative. You were shown how they did it.

viewtopic.php?t=122800

I notice you rush over here to present that false representation of stats created to push an agenda rather than post them where they were already discussed.

They were already destroyed though so I guess this maneuver was all you had. Nice try, I guess.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:15 pm
 


N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:


Nope. They don't. And I can play this stupid game as long as you can.



Yes they do. Here’s BC


No they don't. And you know they don't now. Don't you? Emissions decreased in BC as they did in many places starting about the time of the Obama recession. Currently they are increasing. This was patiently explained to you with multiple links and charts. Some working with personal agendas have misrepresented statistics to present a false narrative. You were shown how they did it.

http://www.canadaka.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=122800

I notice you rush over here to present that false representation of stats created to push an agenda rather than post them where they were already discussed.

They were already destroyed though so I guess this maneuver was all you had. Nice try, I guess.



OMG you’re such a story teller. Even your lies are based on lies.

So by “Obama recession” you mean the recession that started under Bush and recovered under Obama? It’s just a fact that Obama wasn’t president in December 2007 when the recession officially started but he was president when it ended in June 2009.

So yes of course they’re going to rise from the bottom of the BUSH recession but look how they compare to rest of Canada they used to be the same now they’re a lot lower


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:59 pm
 


Insults and snotty diversions don't support your idea that emissions are proven to decrease by the BC carbon tax. Emissions started to decrease about the time of the last recession - all of which happened during the Obama era.

The 4 to 6 years ending in 2016 were a period of emissions increase in BC. Show me that isn't true or stop amusing me by thinking you can blather and insult your way out of the obvious conclusion that you are once more and as usual...

Image


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:35 pm
 


N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
the time of the last recession - all of which happened during the Obama era.


Liar.

$1:
The Great Recession stemmed from the collapse of the United States real-estate market in relation to the global financial crisis of 2007 to 2008 and the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis of 2007 to 2009, though policies of other nations contributed as well. According to the nonprofit National Bureau of Economic Research (the official arbiter of U.S. recessions), the recession in the U.S. began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, thus extending over 19 months.[5]


$1:
The 4 to 6 years ending in 2016 were a period of emissions increase in BC. Show me that isn't true or stop amusing me by thinking you can blather and insult your way out of the obvious conclusion that you are once more and as usual...


So with no real rebuttal you just blather that any facts disproving your nonsense are blather. The “increase “ you cite is nominal and still below the 2007 benchmark year. And considering how much the economy snd population has grown since then your propaganda is even more dishonest

$1:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in British Columbia


British Columbians are generating fewer greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gas emissions per person in British Columbia have declined over the past decade and stabilized in recent years. Greenhouse gas emissions per unit gross domestic product—a measure of the size of the economy—are on the decline in B.C.
Most greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. come from creating and using energy. Major energy-related sources of greenhouse gas emissions include transportation, such as driving cars, and stationary combustion sources, such as heating buildings.

In 2016, British Columbia's total greenhouse gas emissions were 2.2% less than the 2007 baseline year, with relatively small and variable changes in total emissions in recent reporting years.

Overall, greenhouse gas emissions per person in British Columbia—also called per capita—have declined since the 2007 baseline year and stabilized in recent reporting years.

Greenhouse gas emissions per unit gross domestic product—a measure of the size of the economy—have consistently declined since 2001 in British Columbia.

Population size and gross domestic product in British Columbia have consistently increased since 2009, while greenhouse gas emissions have been either stable or have increased by relatively small increments—compared to population and gross domestic product growth—during this same time period.



http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators ... sions.html


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:34 pm
 


BeaverFever BeaverFever:
So with no real rebuttal you just blather that any facts disproving your nonsense are blather. The “increase “ you cite is nominal and still below the 2007 benchmark year. And considering how much the economy snd population has grown since then your propaganda is even more dishonest


Are you kidding me? I think you're trying to kid me.

I've already told you here that any rebuttal you might want is at the other thread I linked to where the carbon tax scam part of this Loblaws scandal is actually being discussed. And I know you know it's there because you're still posting there.

You're not daring to challenge the information though. You just keep posting your diversionary snot talk there and information like that Government BC link here that you know is specifically destroyed there.

Nut up, Bud. Go back to the relevant thread and take your debunked data with you. I'll show you point by point why it's nothing but statistical predigitation. If nothing else you'll finally get to learn what "debunk" actually means.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:20 pm
 


Fine see you on that thread these threads should be merged anyway


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.