A Window into our future

Commodity Marketing

Tools

A Window into our future

Dec 19, 2017 | 20:50 1 Just read this article in the Financial Post "Canada''s approach to carbon tax challenging:OECD". I personally am not a fan of carbon taxes, this article makes what Justin Trudeau has enacted so far look very minor. Our future tax load is set to grow exponentially. Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2017 | 21:21 2 That’s the point some of us have been trying to get across. This first round is just the tip of the “ice berg” Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 05:25 3 What an absolute crock of BS.

The vast majority of countries listed as OCED members are tropical in comparison to our climate.

OCED is just another group of busybodies, like the UN, who try to affect our domestic policies for the benefit of their own interests.

How many people on this forum would like a group of townboys telling them how to run their farming operation? Same thing.

Or let's look at it through the view of determining which jobs should be eliminated by the amount of carbon emitted by their activities - oh look - high on the guilty list would be climate barbie or jihadi justin because their world travel habits produce more carbon that almost any other Canadian, before we even take actual productivity into account.

So by that logic, Canada should eliminate the position of Prime Minister and Minister of Weather to help improve our carbon footprint.
Last edited by burnt; Dec 20, 2017 at 05:31.
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 05:51 4
Quote Originally Posted by burnt View Post
What an absolute crock of BS.



So by that logic, Canada should eliminate the position of Prime Minister and Minister of Weather to help improve our carbon footprint.
Oh wait, if you don't pay your carbon tax we'll turn off your radar, see how you like that! Reply With Quote
SASKFARMER3's Avatar Dec 20, 2017 | 07:51 5 Yep Ralph has stuck the Saskatchewan Radar sites. Only place in Canada where we need Good no Great Furnaces to warm our homes and have some god awful storms and cold temps and the radar is down.

Only place with no Carbon tax. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 07:59 6 Discounted western Canadian oil to three refineries in western Canada but a buck plus for gas and you don't think we have a carbon tax?

Sorry to disagree but here in Saskatchewan we are really getting fucked....30 dollar crude and 1.10 a liter for gas ....no carbon tax....really..... Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 08:41 7 A few highlights on what the OECD wants from Canada. Clarification on what the Carbon tax levels will be after 2022 when they reach $50 tonne. At present Canada pays some of the lowest taxes on gas and diesel, these must be higher. In many jurisdictions in Canada there is very low or no taxes on fossil fuels used for heat and electrical generation, this must change. At present Canadia carbon taxes are not far reaching enough, only applied to 70-80% of emitters, this percentage needs to be higher. What caught my eye was that the average Canadian, I think, feels we pay enough taxes, the OECD certainly disagrees!!! Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 08:58 8 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/canada-ranks-near-bottom-in-environmental-taxes-oecd-says/article37382149/

Canada ranks near bottom in environmental taxes, OECD says

DARRYL DYCK/THE CANADIAN PRESS
Shawn McCarthy
OTTAWA
Published December 19, 2017
Updated 16 hours ago

Canada is at the bottom of the pack when it comes to putting a price on pollution through taxes but will move up the ranks as Ottawa and the provinces move to impose carbon levies or increase existing ones, the Organization for Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD) said Tuesday.

In a sweeping report on the country's environmental performance, the Paris-based organization said rising carbon levies and other regulations are needed to reverse the growth in greenhouse gas emissions from the oil industry and transportation sector over the past 15 years.

To meet its international climate commitments, Canada must "reduce drastically the carbon intensity of its energy production, particularly in the oil-sands industry," said the OECD, an advisory group for developed countries.

Among its 35 member countries, only the United States and Mexico had lower environmental taxes than did Canada in 2014. Such levies include gasoline taxes, water charges, tipping fees at landfills and carbon pricing. Some provinces have increased their carbon levies since then, but not enough to affect Canada's ranking.

The Liberal government is planning to pass legislation next year that would impose a carbon tax on provinces that either do not adopt their own pricing plan or do not meet the federal standards under which the tax rate would climb to $50 a tonne by 2022.

British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec have carbon-pricing plans – either direct levies or cap-and-trade systems – that would meet Ottawa's criteria, while provinces such as Manitoba and New Brunswick pledge to introduce plans that would not meet the federal minimum.

Despite vocal opposition from the United Conservative Party, Alberta's carbon tax is set to climb from $20 a tonne to $30 on Jan. 1, with each $10 increment representing roughly 2.7 cents a litre of gasoline.

In its review of Canadian policies, the OECD said Canada lagged in climate regulations between 2006 and 2015, when the Conservative government of Stephen Harper failed to enact broadly based measures. The country will struggle to meet its pledge to reduce emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, it added.

"We applaud Canada's renewed determination under the current government to tackle climate change, and its leadership in international climate diplomacy at a crucial time," OECD environment director Anthony Cox said as he released the report in Ottawa.

"That said, Canada must act swiftly to implement its new policies if it is to achieve its emissions-cutting objectives for 2030."

The Liberal government has forged a federal-provincial-territorial plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which includes carbon pricing, a series of regulations and major spending on green infrastructure and development of clean technology.

"This plan will have to be implemented rigorously; a better use of environmental taxation would help," the OECD said in its report. It suggested the federal government will have to lead an effort to simplify and even harmonize the system across the various provincial and territorial jurisdictions in order to improve its performance and reduce its impact on businesses.

Canada is the fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the OECD and second most carbon-intensive for the size of its economy.

However, rising emissions from the oil industry remain a challenge for Canada as it works to meet its international commitment.

The oil sector accounts for a quarter of the country's greenhouse gas emissions, and GHGs from the industry rose rapidly as oil-sands production boomed over the past 15 years.

The industry insists it is investing heavily to reduce the emissions a barrel of the oil it produces, while the Alberta government recently allocated $440-million from its anticipated carbon-tax levies to help the industry innovate and cut its GHG intensity.

The OECD analysts visited Alberta recently and commended the governing New Democratic Party for its climate plan, which will put a cap on future emissions from the oil sands and imposes a levy that provides price breaks to industry leaders in emissions intensity.

"It gives emitters an incentive to reduce emissions irrespective of their current intensity levels," analyst Britta Labuhn told the Ottawa briefing.

The OECD urged Canadian federal and provincial governments to move forward on their plans to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and emissions during the production and transmission of oil and gas is a major source of GHGs.

Ottawa has published draft regulations that would kick in after 2020 – with the delay aimed at giving industry time to implement voluntary measures – while Alberta is consulting with industry and environmental groups on its approach.

The OECD noted the industry's methane emissions may be far higher than reported, and urged the two governments not to delay the regulations needed to reduce them. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 09:07 9 Canada collects 1.1% of GDP in environmental taxes. Germany and Australia collect almost 2%. All governments in Canada collect almost 40% of GDP in taxes. So even if environmental taxes double or triple the percentage of GDP is relatively very small. Reply With Quote
blackpowder's Avatar Dec 20, 2017 | 09:23 10 Using that logic for policy is risky. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 09:32 11 It just puts it into perspective what we are talking about in terms of carbon tax versus other types of taxes. Predicting the end of the world because of a carbon tax does not make sense. Other forms of taxes are much more significant. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 09:41 12
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
It just puts it into perspective what we are talking about in terms of carbon tax versus other types of taxes. Predicting the end of the world because of a carbon tax does not make sense. Other forms of taxes are much more significant.
And while the administration south of us recognizes this obvious fact, and is not only NOT adding environmental taxes on top of significant existing taxes, they are also reducing those existing taxes. Meanwhile, you are advocating the opposite, and our government is adding taxes on taxes as fast as they can. That should make us really competitive in the world market. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 10:08 13
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
And while the administration south of us recognizes this obvious fact, and is not only NOT adding environmental taxes on top of significant existing taxes, they are also reducing those existing taxes. Meanwhile, you are advocating the opposite, and our government is adding taxes on taxes as fast as they can. That should make us really competitive in the world market.
Canada has a better health care system, education system and social programs than the US that give the majority of Canadians a better standard of living. Personal taxes may be lower in the US but healthcare costs erode any benefits. Bankruptcy because of health care costs are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US.

The US will also increase its deficit and ad to its debt by cutting taxes. Clearly their tax cuts are for wealthy Amercians and corporations not lower and middle income americans. Trump's tax plans benefit the wealthiest Americans but will have little benefit for the rest. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 10:50 14
Quote Originally Posted by burnt View Post
What an absolute crock of BS.

The vast majority of countries listed as OCED members are tropical in comparison to our climate.

OCED is just another group of busybodies, like the UN, who try to affect our domestic policies for the benefit of their own interests.

How many people on this forum would like a group of townboys telling them how to run their farming operation? Same thing.

Or let's look at it through the view of determining which jobs should be eliminated by the amount of carbon emitted by their activities - oh look - high on the guilty list would be climate barbie or jihadi justin because their world travel habits produce more carbon that almost any other Canadian, before we even take actual productivity into account.

So by that logic, Canada should eliminate the position of Prime Minister and Minister of Weather to help improve our carbon footprint.
Good points regarding OECD countries lecturing us.
Not only that we have a colder and harsher climate but none of those countries have a wealth of coil, oil, natural gas similar to western Canadian provinces. We will end up with a large increase in expenses and a huge cut to our GDP if these silly policies rule. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 11:27 15
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Canada has a better health care system, education system and social programs than the US that give the majority of Canadians a better standard of living. Personal taxes may be lower in the US but healthcare costs erode any benefits. Bankruptcy because of health care costs are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US.

The US will also increase its deficit and ad to its debt by cutting taxes. Clearly their tax cuts are for wealthy Amercians and corporations not lower and middle income americans. Trump's tax plans benefit the wealthiest Americans but will have little benefit for the rest.

Better health care system? Really? Have you tried them both? We have and the US health system is pretty darn good. The spin-off of low corp taxes, equipment tax credits, and double child credits will be multiplied and set that economy spinning. Have you heard of the multiplier in economics? If you haven't seen the results of Trump policy yet, you will very soon and it won't be pretty for the economies that are living in la-la land. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 11:39 16
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
It just puts it into perspective what we are talking about in terms of carbon tax versus other types of taxes. Predicting the end of the world because of a carbon tax does not make sense. Other forms of taxes are much more significant.
Oh I see, chucky, it's merely a matter of comparison.

So by comparison, you're saying that it's far better to get stabbed with only a steak knife after you've already been stabbed 10 or 20 times with a butcher knife...

Okay sure, I guess that makes sense. What a great logic you employ chucky boy! Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 11:49 17
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Canada has a better health care system, education system and social programs than the US that give the majority of Canadians a better standard of living. Personal taxes may be lower in the US but healthcare costs erode any benefits. Bankruptcy because of health care costs are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US.

The US will also increase its deficit and ad to its debt by cutting taxes. Clearly their tax cuts are for wealthy Amercians and corporations not lower and middle income americans. Trump's tax plans benefit the wealthiest Americans but will have little benefit for the rest.
I see, By that logic we should just tax 100% of every transaction then. Our social programs will be better than the US by every measure then, Except that revenues will fall to zero, Since 100% of the incentive to work or operate a business will have been destroyed. Meanwhile the US tax structure Will accept all of those businesses and workers. Who will continue to fund their sustainable social programs well ours collapsed completely.

Except in the real world taxes don't need to get to 100% for this to start happening. The Exodus is already happening to two disincentives here and incentives there. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 11:53 18 Regarding healthcare, Is it better to be healthy and bankrupt or Dead waiting in line for "free" service? Because that is a real question many people have to ask themselves here. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 11:53 19
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Canada collects 1.1% of GDP in environmental taxes. Germany and Australia collect almost 2%. All governments in Canada collect almost 40% of GDP in taxes. So even if environmental taxes double or triple the percentage of GDP is relatively very small.
Let's look at the price of gas. My sister lives in Austrailia. They pay roughly $1.60-$1.70 for gas. If our gas price was raised to this level you think it would have a minor affect? Natural gas for heating. At $20 per tonne I will pay roughly $250 this year. At $50 dollars a tonne this will be $625. Yeah, not so much in your world. Now I use roughly 30000 litres of fuel per year. Imagine if that increased by 40 cents a litre to satisfy the enviro's, $12000 dollars, is that insignificant? That doesn't take into account higher fertilizer prices, higher trucking costs, on and on. Would certainly be more than 1% increase in taxes on the farm!!!! Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 11:56 20
Quote Originally Posted by sumdumguy View Post
Better health care system? Really? Have you tried them both? We have and the US health system is pretty darn good. The spin-off of low corp taxes, equipment tax credits, and double child credits will be multiplied and set that economy spinning. Have you heard of the multiplier in economics? If you haven't seen the results of Trump policy yet, you will very soon and it won't be pretty for the economies that are living in la-la land.
Yes our health care system is better. Lower cost per capita, universal coverage whether rich or poor. Rich americans might get better access and better care but 10s of millions of Americans have no health care insurance and cant afford healthcare. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 12:00 21
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
Regarding healthcare, Is it better to be healthy and bankrupt or Dead waiting in line for "free" service? Because that is a real question many people have to ask themselves here.
You may wait in line for elective surgery and some diagnostics. But generally our system is working pretty well except for drug coverage. In the US you will likely be both bankrupt, really sick and then dead if you happen to have a chronic illness or a bad accident without insurance. If you think their system is better there is nothing to stop you from travelling to the US to buy their services.
Last edited by chuckChuck; Dec 20, 2017 at 12:03.
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 12:05 22
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
I see, By that logic we should just tax 100% of every transaction then. Our social programs will be better than the US by every measure then, Except that revenues will fall to zero, Since 100% of the incentive to work or operate a business will have been destroyed. Meanwhile the US tax structure Will accept all of those businesses and workers. Who will continue to fund their sustainable social programs well ours collapsed completely.

Except in the real world taxes don't need to get to 100% for this to start happening. The Exodus is already happening to two disincentives here and incentives there.
"By that logic we should just tax 100% of every transaction then. " No one is suggesting that.
If you think the US system is better and farmers are better off why not move there? Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 12:12 23 Now Trump lifted the 40 year ban on oil exploration in Alaska. Nutlet will be calling for your support Chucky and Grassy.
Last edited by sumdumguy; Dec 20, 2017 at 12:15.
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 12:15 24 Darn spellcheck. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 12:55 25 Did some quick fact checking. Regular gas in Canberra where my sister lives(she runs premium in her car) is $1.30 litre of which 42% is tax or just over 54 cents a litre. In Alberta we pay roughly 30 cents a litre including carbon tax and gst. So I was wrong the price increase would be 24 cents a litre not 40 so only a tax increase of $7200 dollars. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 15:03 26 Way to go Hamloc! You just made 4800 bucks! Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 15:39 27 chuckChuck I just don't understand the way you think. Its like you are hollering TAX ME!

Doesn't it bother you that you work hard to make money for your family and the government takes a big chunk of it and throws it down a rabbit hole?
Last edited by seldomseen; Dec 20, 2017 at 18:09.
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 16:09 28
Quote Originally Posted by sumdumguy View Post
Now Trump lifted the 40 year ban on oil exploration in Alaska.
Yeah, in the National Arctic Wildlife Refuge no less, with oil prices down where they are - what a dumbass. Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017 | 17:07 29
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
"By that logic we should just tax 100% of every transaction then. " No one is suggesting that.
If you think the US system is better and farmers are better off why not move there?
Don't need to tax 100%, just marginally more than the next door jurisdiction. So far, you and Grassfarmer have been in favour of every increased tax that has been proposed, do you have an upward limit? Reply With Quote