Curly Moe Can't do math

[Sheepwheat]

Why send the money out of the economy in the first place?

What did the parliamentary budget officer say about the neutrality of the carbon tax?

How much have emissions dropped since the implementation of this tax?

[blackpowder]

Manufacturing sales fell 2.0% to $70.4 billion in August, the fourth consecutive monthly decline. There were lower sales in 17 of 21 industries, led by the petroleum and coal product (-3.9%), chemical (-4.5%), primary metal (-3.2%), paper (-5.7%) and wood product (-4.3%) industries. Meanwhile, sales of beverage and tobacco products (+5.5%) and food (+0.6%) increased the most. Sales in constant dollars decreased 1.7% in August, indicating lower volume of goods sold. Month over month, the Industrial Product Price Index declined 1.2% in August.

[chuckChuck]

Looks like I wasn't the only one concerned about Moe's math skills. And he is not that good at politics either. LOL

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-scott-moe-tries-to-stand-up-to-ottawa-but-fails-a-basic-math-test/

opinion
Scott Moe tries to stand up to Ottawa but fails a basic math test
The Editorial Board
Published 12 hours ago

A month ago, this page lamented a disappearing breed, the serious politician who is unafraid to tell voters that there are no simple answers to complex questions.

Instead, Canada and the world has seen a steady rise of the unserious politician, the ones for whom partisan antagonism is in every moment their first priority.

Last week, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe presented what he claimed was a serious analysis of how federal climate rules will hurt his province. But it was in fact the opposite, a threadbare and mathematically halfwitted sketch that was brutally panned. The episode was much like, earlier this year, the widely lambasted “sovereignty act” put forth by the new and embattled premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith.

In both cases, the Prairie premiers made a basic mistake: They conflated what are ordinary provincial-federal policy debates and disagreements with accusations of Ottawa’s undue constitutional overreach. It is akin to shouting “fire” when nothing is ablaze.

Mr. Moe’s insurgency began a year ago on Twitter and talk radio. He said his province of 1.1 million “needs to be a nation within a nation,” so it could “stand up” against Ottawa.

Last week, Mr. Moe elaborated in a 24-page document dubbed “Drawing the Line: Defending Saskatchewan’s Economic Autonomy.” It came with six pages that tallied the cost of federal climate policies for the province at $111-billion over the dozen years from 2023 to 2035. In Mr. Moe’s calculus, to defend Saskatchewan’s oil, potash and farming businesses, the province needs to “protect” its constitutional rights, have more say over immigration, and “prepare to take legal actions” to “maintain control” over its economy.

The math – from the province’s finance ministry – was abysmal. It counted only costs, ignored potential benefits and supposed that climate policies will suck 14 per cent out of Saskatchewan’s forecast GDP in 2035. That’s a lot more than a report for the Saskatchewan government in 2017 that said climate rules would barely affect economic growth.

You know when the occasional movie gets laughably bad reviews – Cats being a recent one? Well, this was kind of like that, for economists. The language was … frank. Trevor Tombe of the University of Calgary said the analysis was “incredibly weak” and called the GDP forecast “insane and completely un-credible.” Economist Brett Dolter at the University of Regina called the claims “half-truths” and said, if he was grading the paper, it would be “dripping with red ink.” Joel Bruneau, head of the economics department at the University of Saskatchewan, said it was a “transparent attempt to undermine support for climate change policies rather than a serious cost-benefit analysis.”

Indeed, the paper is largely politics. The “Drawing the Line” title echoes the “Firewall Letter” from conservatives in Alberta in 2001. The Saskatchewan jeremiad blasts Ottawa’s “climate agenda,” rails against “the guise of environmental regulation” and says it all “seems to target” the province.

What this fully ignores is the Supreme Court’s landmark 2021 decision that upheld Ottawa’s power to legislate countrywide climate standards. Mr. Moe wants to fight the lost fight again, through pending legislation this fall and possibly in the courts.

Story continues below advertisement

Ms. Smith in Alberta has suggested the same, believing she has “new information” to get the top court to somehow reconsider the settled case.

Sooner or later, unserious gambits collapse. Ms. Smith is a ready example. She barely won the UCP leadership in Alberta, and got there by promising her “sovereignty act” would allow the province to ignore federal laws and court rulings. Among the many critics was former premier Jason Kenney, who branded it “cockamamie.” After winning, Ms. Smith immediately conceded her promise was baseless. She called the Supreme Court the “ultimate arbiter” and said “when the Supreme Court makes a decision, we have to abide by that.”

This unserious leadership does not serve the people of the Prairies. Standing up for a province is one thing; doing so with misleading and disingenuous proposals is another.

If Saskatchewan wants more control over immigration or policing, that’s a reasonable idea. But it’s not reasonable to try to ignore federal climate policy. The constitutional questions are settled. And if Mr. Moe wants to make serious claims that are worthy of debate, he should start with a course in remedial math.

[chuckChuck]

https://leaderpost.com/news/saskatchewan/buried-report-suggests-limited-economic-damage-from-carbon-tax

'Buried' report suggests limited economic damage from carbon tax

Saskatchewan paid for a report that suggested a federal carbon tax would shave less than a tenth of a point off the economic growth rate — and then sat on the results
Author of the article:
Arthur White-Crummey • Regina Leader-Post
Publishing date:
May 14, 2019 • May 14, 2019 • 3 minute read •

Saskatchewan’s Ministry of Environment paid for a third-party study that suggested a federal carbon tax would do little economic damage — and then sat on the results.

Dated October 2017, a Navius Research report found much to like in the province’s own plans for limiting emissions. But its economic modelling didn’t predict economic catastrophe if Ottawa imposed its carbon backstop on Saskatchewan.

The province later commissioned another report that did, and announced the results with much fanfare at a press conference in June 2018.

The NDP obtained the Navius report through a freedom of information request. Leader Ryan Meili called it “dishonest” for the government to cherry pick information to make its case. Environment Minister Dustin Duncan countered by pointing to alleged flaws in the Navius report, something the lead author disputed.

Navius estimated that the federal measures proposed at the time, including carbon pricing, would reduce Saskatchewan’s rate of economic growth by less than a tenth of a percentage point each year.

Added up until 2030, that would shrink gross domestic product by about 1.29 per cent, costing the economy roughly $1.2 billion. That’s much less than the $16 billion forecast by the 2018 study, which was done by the University of Regina’s Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainable Communities.

“They were looking for one that fit their narrative better,” said Meili. “They had one that didn’t, so they buried it.”

But Duncan said his ministry held back the study because it had “concerns” about the data Navius used, and the way it grouped together the mining sector.

“It used national data rather than provincially specific data,” he said, adding that potash was not considered separately from uranium and coal.

He called that “a flaw in the methodology.”

“At the end of the day, we would certainly make it available if people are interested in it,” Duncan said. “But we had enough concerns that we decided as a ministry not to post it on our website.”

Jotham Peters, the lead researcher listed on the report, said he could not comment directly on those criticisms, due to a confidentiality clause. But he argued that Navius’s model provides an “excellent representation of Saskatchewan’s economy.”

“Our models are based on provincial data, where it is publicly available,” he said. “The public version of our Saskatchewan model, for example, has been extensively calibrated to GHG emissions as reported in Canada’s National Inventory Report. These data provide extensive detail at a provincial level.”

He said Navius is always “happy” to incorporate additional data. Duncan confirmed that Navius offered to do so, but the ministry declined to pay for additional work.

Peters doubts it would have made any difference.

“I’d be highly surprised if any adjustment we would have made to our model would have significantly changed the result,” he said.

The results were actually favourable to Saskatchewan’s targets for renewables, its output-based pricing for heavy emitters and its plans to curtail methane emissions in the oil and gas sector. It found those actions would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by almost as much as federal measures, while costing less in foregone growth.

Instead of $1.2 billion, the province’s plan would cost the Saskatchewan economy roughly $200 million by 2030.

But much of the difference was expected to come from more flexible methane regulation, as well as the (correct) assumption that Ottawa would hand the carbon money back to households. The impact of the fuel levy — the so-called carbon tax that Saskatchewan has most stridently opposed — was expected to be far less significant.

Duncan said the province takes issue with that conclusion.

“We certainly felt like the potential harm to the economy because of the carbon tax, based on the nature of our economy, would be greater than what the Navius report identified,” he said.

But he still found something nice to say about the Navius study.

“I think it actually supports the approach that we’ve taken as a province in developing Prairie Resilience and pursuing that path, rather than what we believe is an ineffective tax tool,” Duncan said.

awhite-crummey@postmedia.com

[WiltonRanch]

So Tater what do you think is in the best interest of this province? What is the best path forward in your opinion? Think we are all growing tired of your undressing of people whom you don’t agree with but do not offer an alternative path forward. Maybe offer some constructive solutions.

[sumdumguy]

[QUOTE=chuckChuck;551082]I see nobody is defending Moe's math!

Curly has the gall to say the carbon tax is a massive drain on the economy and never mentions that most of the direct consumer carbon tax comes back to Saskatchewan residents and is circulating back in the economy.



Moe’s math is pretty good but probably our losses are much higher. Can you quantify the effect on investment when our Woke Joke keep moving the goal posts and over-regulating to the point where nothing will be built in Canada until they are long-gone and the dust clears.

[TSIPP]

Moe doesn’t need to do the math, he has people for that.

[Hamloc]

The reality is at present the world consumes approximately 100 million barrels of oil a day. If government plans a very successful they will lower this to maybe 70 million barrels of oil a day in 30 years after spending hundreds of billions subsidizing the supposed green transition. Obviously there will still be C02 being put into the atmosphere. All they will have accomplished is slowing the rate. This could be done much less expensively by increasing the efficiency of what we do now instead of retooling everything at great expense. The only net beneficiary of the present path will be China and they will be laughing all the way to the bank.

[chuckChuck]

"Saskatchewan paid for a report that suggested a federal carbon tax would shave less than a tenth of a point off the economic growth rate — and then sat on the results" No shite?

He had the math but didn't like the results and hired another study that fit his politics and then orders the finance department to write a report that is even a bigger pile of political crap that can't be defended.

He already lost the battle over jurisdiction on climate measures at the supreme court but he wants to fight the court case again and again?

As Doug Ford said its just politics. Scotty is counting on the fact that many of his supporters will believe his BS.

[chuckChuck]

The reality is at present the world consumes approximately 100 million barrels of oil a day. If government plans a very successful they will lower this to maybe 70 million barrels of oil a day in 30 years after spending hundreds of billions subsidizing the supposed green transition. Obviously there will still be C02 being put into the atmosphere. All they will have accomplished is slowing the rate. This could be done much less expensively by increasing the efficiency of what we do now instead of retooling everything at great expense. The only net beneficiary of the present path will be China and they will be laughing all the way to the bank.

So oil and gas are also subsidized around the world and prices are controlled by a cartel called OPEC.

And the cost of letting human caused climate change continue will be much greater than transitioning.

Unless like A5 you wanna go back to the pliocene?

[Hamloc]

So oil and gas are also subsidized around the world and prices are controlled by a cartel called OPEC.

And the cost of letting human caused climate change continue will be much greater than transitioning.

Unless like A5 you wanna go back to the pliocene?

And Solar and the the metals for building batteries are controlled at over 80% by China. OPEC controls 38% of the world’s oil production! Who would has more control?! If your a disciple of climate change you would realize it will continue regardless because oil will be required until a cheaper more efficient energy source is found.

[jazz]

chucks the only one deficient in math, physics and economics, a deadly trifecta usually found in marxists.

The world will be consuming and extra 20M bbl a day in 25 yrs without the green transition. It will be consuming and extra 50M bbl a day with the green transition to the end of the century. Thats a lock. The future looks very rosy for Ab/Sk energy industry hence Moe wanting to keep the unicorns out of it.

Let them chase their utopia, it will only accelerate the use of our fossil fuels because it sure as hell wont be wind mills and solar panels digging up all those REEs.

And if you think supply chains are fragile now, just wait until we discover that most of those current resources are in Russia, China and central africa. New mines you say, well perish the thought because radicals stop those too just like the natives did in Quebec. 10 yrs lead time to get a mine permitted and thats with no opposition.

I am afraid big oil will be in our future for a long while yet thankfully.

And sure chuck we can go back a few eons if you like. Was a lot warmer before man came on the scene. Or do you deny that.

[WiltonRanch]

If we are warming to an optimum then theoretically we should require less energy for heat. Also if the northwest passage becomes ice free then shipping would require less energy as well. It would be proactive to weatherproof the Churchill line and develop the port. Sadly it’ll never happen because the usual suspects. Russia and China aren’t going away. Maybe they’ll decline but they’ll be important still both for trade and as defence concerns. If there isn’t a concerted effort to defend and use the resources of the north the Russians will more so as the climate warms. Chuck you can drone on about whatever the science is and the bad things that can happen but maybe we be proactive on things like this or we’ll lose the northwest passage and it’s resources.